At long last, we’ve begun work on revising our Counseling and Psychotherapy Theories text for its 4^th edition. Over the past several weeks, I’ve been putting in an hour or two a day, chipping away on chapter revisions, reaching out to reviewers, and planning with our new and very exciting co-author, Dr. Bryan Cochran, a highly esteemed psychology professor at the University of Montana. If you’re reading this, I want you to know of Bryan’s awesomeness (and if you’re Bryan, I want you to feel the pressure of this public announcement of your awesomeness) [hahahaha!]

You all probably know that our Theories textbook is far and away the Theories textbook with the most hilarity. No doubt, this is a rather low bar, given that I can’t find any funny stories in any other theories texts. We view theories hilarity to be extremely important in a theories text, because reading many theories texts can parallel the proverbial experience of watching paint dry.

Bryan’s addition to the writing team will give us something we need—an expert in the LGBTQ+ domain, and someone with a talent for telling stories that are simultaneously engaging, informative, and fun to read. Right now, he’s busy writing a “Lenses” chapter (to be Chapter 2) to orient readers to important theory-related lenses like (a) Queer theory, (b) Critical Race theory, (c) Intersectionality, and more. I, for one, can hardly wait for his Queer theory quips.  

News Flash: In the past, I’ve put out broad calls for chapter reviewers. This time, I’m being selective and directly asking prominent theories experts to review chapters and offer guidance. Some examples: For the Adlerian chapter we’ve got Marina Bluvshtein (woohoo!) and Jon Sperry (wow!). For the Psychoanalytic chapter, we got Nancy McWilliams (amazing!) and Pratyusha Tammala-Narra (fantastic!).

If you happen to be a specific theories subject matter expert, you should email me at john.sf@mso.umt.edu to get in on the fun. Or if you have a prominent theories friend/colleague to recommend, have them email me.

As one last theories teaser, below I’m pasting a few excerpts from Nancy McWilliams’s 2021 article titled, “Diagnosis and Its Discontents: Reflections on Our Current Dilemma.” I love this article as it gives a glimpse into problems with contemporary diagnoses and how psychodynamic therapists use individualized assessment in ways to honor the real-life complexities clients bring into psychotherapy. The excerpts below are from her article, which is linked at the end of this post.

On Labeling

The idea that one is anxious (or depressed or obsessive) about something that has meaning is being lost. Fitting an individual into a category tends to foreclose exploration of what is unique to a patient; it especially prevents insights into unexpected aspects of a person’s psychology or exploration of areas that are felt as shameful – the very areas that are of particular value in planning and carrying out psychotherapy.

On the vexing ways in which patients think about themselves and their diagnoses

It used to be that a socially avoidant woman would come for therapy saying something like, “I’m a painfully shy person, and I need help learning how to deal better with people in social situations.” Now a person with that concern is likely to tell me that she “has” social phobia – as if an alien affliction has invaded her otherwise problem-free subjective life. People talk about themselves in acronyms oddly dissociated from their lived experience: “my OCD,” “my eating disorder,” “my bipolar.” There is an odd estrangement from one’s sense of an agentic self, including one’s own behavior, body, emotional and spiritual life, and felt suffering, and consequently one’s possibilities for solving a problem. There is a passive quality in many individuals currently seeking therapy, as if they feel that the prototype for making an internal psychological change is to describe their symptoms to an expert and wait to be told what medicine to take, what exercises to do, or what self-help manual to read.

On “chemical imbalances”

. . . viewing psychological suffering as a set of disorders that can be fixed or improved chemically can easily invite the obverse assumption that those painful experiences are ultimately caused by random or genetically based chemical differences among individuals. This is a false conclusion, of course, something like saying that because marijuana improves appetite, the cause of low appetite is lack of marijuana. But it is nevertheless a frequent leap of illogic – in the thinking of nonprofessionals and of some professionals as well – to ascribe much severe psychological suffering to a “chemical imbalance.” Such a construction tempts us to ignore all the painful other sources of psychological suffering, such as poverty, neglect, trauma, and the myriad ways in which human beings can injure each other psychologically.

On not overgeneralizing research findings/recommendations to unique patients

. . . consider patients at the extreme end of the obsessive-compulsive continuum, whose obsessions border on delusional beliefs, who suffer profound annihilation anxiety, who wholeheartedly believe they will die if they fail to carry out their rituals, and who regard the therapist with suspicion for not sharing their conviction – in other words, the subgroup of obsessive patients that Kernberg (1984) would consider as psychologically organized at the low borderline or psychotic level. My experience suggests that with this group exposure therapy not only fails, it demoralizes the patients, makes them feel like failures personally, and kills any hope they may have that psychotherapy can help. It also demoralizes therapists, who have been told again and again that exposure therapy is the treatment of choice for OCD. If they believe their teachers, such clinicians can easily conclude they are simply not good enough therapists.

If I’ve piqued your interest in “Diagnosis and its discontents” by Nancy McWilliams, here’s a pdf of the article.

Stay tuned for more theories revision (we’re calling it T4) updates.

John SF