I am working on a paper that I hope to get published somewhere. Below is a few paragraphs from it. Please tell me what you think!
The Subject of Counseling
“The subject of counseling is well known to trained counselors and philosophers alike. Counseling concerns the human being and its mental or psychic aspects and how these might appear to be involved with a person or persons in the world, and to help such people. Of course, definition of just what counseling might be involved with can be debated, but in a strict, open and obvious sense, the subject of counseling is what the counseling is about or for. This does not get us very far, though. Counseling is often strongly associated with the discipline of psychology yet, being a young discipline, still routinely looks to its older siblings, which includes psychiatry, psychology, neurology, and social work, for its philosophical support. However, counseling appears on the scene in its own right attempting to distinguish itself from these older family members. This essay is a part of that effort. The question on the table will be, what is counseling?
The first and primary issue which will be addressed throughout this essay is the problem with a usual method of approach on things which supposes to grant credential to criterion to articles and proposals which best site evidence-based research. Note, however, before reactions are engrained, I do not suggest that such an approach is inherently incorrect or misinformed. The view upon this paper which sees an argument toward how the just-mentioned method is incorrect, is based in an incorrect manner of viewing the meaning of this paper. Nevertheless counseling does admit it is plain that scientific research is only capable of encountering and making accurate statements upon a minority of experiential impressions and outcomes, that the outcomes by which it is able to honestly make comment truthfully amount to again only a portion of reason for why a person may or may not be behaving or expressing in the manner she does, and that such comments say less about what solutions are effective and should be applicable than they do about the purpose of the experiment.
While those so scientifically faithful will shudder at such blasphemy, we need only point to the miserable statistics representing any researched-based approach to mental health, to the effervescence of new approaches and theories of the psyche, its various ideals and healths, over the barely one-hundred-fifty year existence to understand the poverty and basic depravity involved in the continual advocation of an exclusive method called science upon a field which is so obviously resistant and generally contrary to its enforcements and lures.
To answer this failure of myopic and stubborn assertion against the facts, this paper seeks to explore new possibility; the claim is that mental health will benefit more from a sure objective philosophical bedrock which allows for opening and honest viewing of subjects and outcomes than it has from the relative and philosophically arbitrary methodological reduction, restriction, workings of closure and career that we know of under the rubric of empirical research science.”
When we begin to admit our limitations and where we may have gone wrong or were mistaken in approach, we may wish to re-think just what kind of world we are creating for the health of what's mental in the consideration of such easy and non-reflective proposals such as we find here.
“Emancipate yourself from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our minds.”
And yet, it is not the counselor’s job to move “one so enslaved” out of slavery or to emancipate such an individual from their enslavement necessarily. For indeed ideology serves a religious function and there are those for whom emancipation, as some ideal upheld by the counselor, can make no sense and cannot be implemented toward this person, This subject, this client, without imposing another form of enslavement that the client indeed can understand￼￼￼. The presumption, in this light, by the therapist would amount to a failure of therapy, another entrapment that the client would indeed feel as a kind of imposition and react accordingly; Which is to say, stay symptomatic and stay within that field of mentality that they understand implicitly is problematic .
In this light there is a discernment between ideologues. ￼￼ This is an important point because it distinguishes the object of counseling from various theories of how to counsel by the fact that it does not tell the counselor how to proceed in session, or what the purpose of the therapy should be, or in what idealistic identity the client should find itself in order to be healed.
The object of counseling thus is not another theory of counseling, not another idealism, ￼￼but is rather a theory of how to organize what is already there as the object of counseling. ￼￼￼￼ ￼￼￼