Tag Archives: Critical Race Theory

Counseling and Psychotherapy Theory and Practice, Personal Reflections, Uncategorized

From Chapter 2: LENSES, THEORIES, AND METHODS, OH MY!

Leave a comment

For the 4th edition of Counseling and Psychotherapies in Context and Practice we added an amazing new author. I’ve introduced him on this blog before, but here’s his official bio for the new textbook:

Bryan Cochran, PhD., is a clinical psychologist, professor, and director of clinical training for the PhD program in clinical psychology at the University of Montana. His research areas of interest are LGBTIQ+ health and substance use treatment. He is the co-author of dozens of articles and book chapters on these issues, and 23 years into his academic career, has enjoyed being involved with this textbook project as a way of expanding his thinking and his knowledge of counseling theories and lenses. He doesn’t currently have a blog like John and Rita do but undoubtedly feels the pressure to do so every time he reads their musings on life and on their work. He works with clients in a clinical role using a variety of perspectives that you’ve read about in this text. While not at work, he loves hiking, swimming in Flathead Lake, hunting thrift and antique stores for mid-century treasures, and doing home renovations.

Working with Bryan has been nothing short of fabulous. . .in so many ways. Today, I’m featuring his introduction to the all-new Chapter 2, titled, Viewing Counseling and Psychotherapy Theories Through Contemporary Lenses. Here you go!

**********************************

LENSES, THEORIES, AND METHODS, OH MY!

Take a seat. We’d like to start this chapter with an eye (vision) examination. Or, if you prefer, think of this as an ear (hearing) exam. It’s both … and more. This chapter is a perception check.

Lenses clarify and distort. They provide more brightness or less brightness, an array of colors, and more clarity or more distortion. In this chapter, we’re not prescribing corrective lenses. If you’re familiar with an eye exam, think of the optometrist comparing lenses and repeatedly asking, “Which is clearer?” Your “vision” as a psychotherapist is as unique as your personal history and fingerprint.

This process—offering up different lenses for improving your perceptual acuity in counseling and psychotherapy—is far slower and more complex than an eye examination. But the analogy carries truth. As you try on and experiment with different lenses from this chapter, you may see your clients and their distress more accurately. You and your clients will benefit.

Lenses are different from theories. It may seem confusing, but our aim is to create a distinction that illuminates, rather than conflates, these concepts. Most therapy approaches in this book align with a particular theoretical perspective; behavioral psychotherapy is linked to theories of operant and classical conditioning. Psychoanalysis is deeply rooted in theories regarding the interplay of different mental structures, or psychodynamics. However, there’s no reason you can’t put on a queer theory lens when doing cognitive therapy, where you help a client to identify maladaptive thinking errors and discuss how those thoughts are likely to come about in a heteronormative society (one in which heterosexuality is the dominant paradigm for understanding relationships and family structures, and other configurations are seen as outside that norm). You can use lenses, such as critical race theory, queer theory, or intersectionality, to deepen your application of psychotherapy theories and tailor your treatment to a given client’s identities and needs.

New therapists often are frustrated by the need “to pick” a particular theoretical perspective, as if doing so means you’re entering an exclusive relationship with that choice. Like romantic partners, though, you’re unlikely to resonate with every aspect of every theoretical perspective. Unlike with a romantic partner (unless you’re setting yourself up for a series of arguments), you can analyze theoretical perspectives through various lenses to separate the parts of the theories that are most useful from those that are less useful.

So, what do we mean by a lens, in comparison to a theory? Lenses transcend disciplines—they often emerge outside of psychology but can be applied to psychological theories. Whereas a theory might tell you what to do as a therapist—what to assess, how to intervene—a lens informs how you go about doing it. Because a lens transforms how you view the world, you might adopt (or already have adopted!) a lens without being aware of it. Since one of the key principles of counseling is to understand what biases we bring into the therapeutic process, spending time talking about key lenses in a chapter new to this edition seemed like a good idea to us.

As you adapt a particular lens for viewing a counseling theory, it may be tempting to throw out the history and background of that theory because it doesn’t stand the test of time. A good example of this is the waves of critiques that have been leveled against Freudian psychoanalysis. While there are few current theorists who would say young women suffer from castration anxiety or that the Oedipal complex is a major influence on young men, the idea that some of the determinants of our behavior operate outside of our consciousness remains robust, supported by empirical research and lived experience. We believe it’s possible to hold onto both a lens and a theory at the same time. Let’s spend some time exploring some different lenses for viewing counseling and therapy so you can further develop your sense of who you might be as an emerging clinician.

Counseling and Psychotherapy Theory and Practice, Personal Reflections, Writing

Banned Books, Critical Race Theory, and My Cold, Dead Hands

2 Comments

Book banning and book burning is an old strategy designed to control information. Stephen King—the famous author and Twitter presence (https://twitter.com/StephenKing)—recommends (I’m paraphrasing here) that everyone rush out and buy and read banned books, because they contain important knowledge.

I’ve been disappointed at efforts by state legislatures, governors, school superintendents, parents, and others who have been involved in book banning, as well as any or all of the above who have suggested that critical race theory (CRT) shouldn’t be taught in colleges and universities (it’s not really taught in any formal or in-depth way in K-12 schools, but even if it were, why not?).

CRT, books, and other sources of knowledge offer perspectives. A couple days ago, I received an email from a professor and student offering me feedback on a paragraph in our counseling theories text. From the student’s perspective, the paragraph felt anti-Semitic. I pulled up the paragraph on my computer, read it, and although I didn’t see it exactly the same way as the student, she had an important point—the passage could be taken in a negative way. I emailed the student and her professor and thanked them for the feedback, noting we’ll change that paragraph in the next edition.

One goal that Rita and I have in writing textbooks is to be inclusive, accessible, and non-racist/non-sexist. Although I’m sure we always fall short of our ultimate goal, in isolation and without feedback from others, we could never even come close to or make progress in accomplishing our inclusiveness goal. We were grateful to receive the feedback. Another goal we have is to keep learning. This experience, and many others, leads me to think that there may be no better way to learn, than to listen to the perspectives of others. Why not? Where’s the benefit in closing our ears and being defensive.

Just to be clear, I’m opposed to banning books; I’m opposed to limiting the teaching of CRT; and I’m opposed to other people trying to control information available to me and others. My best guess is that when other people try to control information, they probably fear the information. Why? I don’t know, but IMHO, putting our collective heads in the sand (this brings to mind the movie, “Don’t Look Up”) is NOT a particularly useful strategy for dealing with fears. 

I teach theories all the time. At the University of Montana, I’ve taught Theories of Counseling and Psychotherapy nearly every fall semester for many years. Rita and I have a textbook on theories of counseling and psychotherapy published by John Wiley & Sons. All the hubbub over CRT has convinced me that I need to commit myself to teaching more CRT concepts in my theories course. Like all theories, I’ll treat it like a theory we can learn from.

Last week we had a visit from a university faculty person from a state where professors are being coerced into not teaching CRT. Hearing him talk about this experience made me wonder how I’d handle it if I was told I shouldn’t teach CRT at UM. Obviously, I don’t know my exact response to that scenario, and I hope it never develops, but my best hypothesis, based on a little personal theorizing, is that I’d get fired or go to jail before I agreed to NOT teach CRT, because it’s a theory, a perspective (and not the only one), from which we should all strive to learn.

I know I’m being overly dramatic, but I strongly believe that learning from the perspectives of others is a good thing. I don’t plan on stopping. To steal (and modify) an old line from the NRA: I’ll give you my banned books and theories when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

Just saying.

Multicultural, Personal Reflections, Politics, Writing

Who’s Afraid of a Little CRT?

20 Comments

Critical Race Theory (CRT) has been in the news lately, especially in Montana. As it turns out, several Montana public officials (you know who you are) appear frightened by CRT. Their response to the idea (not the reality) of CRT being taught anywhere or anytime is to try to ban it, as in make it illegal. It’s like a modern Montana-style prohibition (“Don’t you go out and get caught with a bottle of CRT or we’ll be taking you on down to see the sheriff!”).

All jokes aside (well, not all), I have a couple brief comments and a question.

I’m struck that, in the 21st century, anyone is using the old tried and failed strategies of banning ideas and burning books. Alcohol prohibition seemed rather unsuccessful. . . and we don’t need to know what happened with Romeo and Juliet to understand that, that which is forbidden, takes on a certain sex appeal.

My other main thought is that, just in case anyone was sleeping through science class, Critical Race Theory is a . . . (wait for it) . . . a theory! As with all theories, it’s not a perfect explanation of anything. It’s a working model, a set of ideas, with maybe a few scientific hypotheses. The right response to CRT isn’t to outlaw it—because if CRT is outlawed, then only outlaws will understand CRT. Instead, CRT is great food for thought, discussion, and public and private discourse. Rather than make it illegal, we should be discussing, evaluating, and critiquing its usefulness and validity, rather than acting like studying the presence of systemic racism in American history is blasphemy. If you contemplate the issue, the answer is “Yes, of course” there has been, from the beginning, systemic racism in the U.S. (think Columbus, slavery, Indian Boarding Schools, etc.). However, the fact that systemic racism is an historic and contemporary reality doesn’t make every jot and tittle of CRT true; but certainly it suggests we take it seriously. If not, we risk tempting our children with forbidden fruit or teaching them to be afraid of new ways of thinking. Either way, banning or illegalizing or running like scared rabbits away from CRT does a disservice to our state, our country, and our children.  

My question is whether I should write an Op-Ed piece on this topic. If you think so, let me know. If you think not, tell me I should let it go.