Can we really ever gain complete "insight" of the client?

I am struggling to determine my theorectical approach and philosophy. At times I find that I am aligned with directive, action based theories, while at other times I am heavily slanted in the direction of insight and non-direction by the counselor. This is because the word "insight" actualy means "seeing into", and I do not believe real human happiness is possible without quite literally seeing into oneself. Yet who is the counselor to assume that he or she knows how this is to be done? Even if we assume that the counselor has achieved tremendous self-insight to offer to the client by way of example (and for how many of us is this truly the case?), this still in no way implies that the counselor is privy to some sort of universal method of self-discovery which can be directly taught to clients. This, then, is why I fit squarely into the "non-directive" camp: I do not see myself, or counselors in general, as being in possession of exclusive knowledge or expertise that would give us the right to be in charge of the client's process of reflection and growth.

Perhaps the article I read will make my meaning clearer. Entitled Counseling without Truth: Toward a Neopragmatic Foundation for Counseling Practice, its author, James T. Hansen, makes a compelling case for abandoning entirely the pursuit of any sort of ultimate truth in counseling and focusing instead exclusively on relationship building (which Hansen, I believe with demonstrable correctness, asserts is the only variable in counseling that can be shown to significantly affect outcome), and for doing this by means of the one aspect of counseling which Hansen further asserts can be shown to play an essential – perhaps even THE essential – role in psychological healing across literally all cultures and demographic groups: the cooperative (de-/re-)construction of narratives or stories through which we give meaning to our experience.

It would take far too much space to explain fully the philosophical grounding for Hansen’s argument; however, a few passages from the article may be helpful:

“[T]he factor that seems to be most associated with positive treatment outcomes is the quality of the helping relationship (Wampold, 1991). By emphasizing technique, then, the best practices movement is focused on a variable that contributes very little to outcomes. Therefore, this movement is not consistent with neopragmatism, because the weight of the evidence suggests that a focus on technique has little utility in counseling practice.

"If guided by a neopragmatic paradigm, then, a fundamental aim of counseling practice would be to optimize the quality of the counseling relationship. Clearly, the trial and error introduction of various techniques does not promote intimate relating in counseling practice anymore than it would in noncounseling relationships. If not specific techniques, then, what should determine the content of the counseling relationship if neopragmatic concerns for utility are used as a guide?...[T]he content that a counselor and client discuss or enact during a counseling relationship is highly connected to the quality of the relationship that evolves…

"Consideration of one's own intimate relationships also illustrates the importance of cohesive narratives to human relating. That is, ordinarily, over time, participants in intimate relationships develop shared relational autobiographies that are negotiated between the partners to give meaning to events that happened during the history of the relationship…

"Therefore, the basic paradigm for healing that is effective across cultures, and the progressive enhancement of the quality of a relationship, which is the factor most associated with positive outcomes in counseling, are both highly dependent upon the introduction, and gradual coconstruction, of cohesive, internally consistent narratives. Note that this is the precise opposite of the disconnected implementation of techniques that is advocated by current mental health culture and its emphasis on so-called best practices…

"Within this neopragmatic vision of counseling processes, then, counselors are not experts because they possess transcendent truths about human nature. Rather, counseling expertise is a function of the narrative possibilities, in the form of counseling theories, that counselors bring to the helping situation to facilitate the coconstruction of new narratives (Hansen, 2006)."

One very important thing to note here is that Hansen does not claim counselors should abandon the search for absolute truth (such as that inherent in the act of “diagnosing” so-called “mental disorders”) because absolute truth does not exist, but rather because it is unknowable to the symbolically-construed, conceptual mind. Counselors should therefore, he asserts, forget about trying to know what is ultimately true and instead worry about what works (as defined by the client in collaboration with the counselor). I like this approach very much, not because it denies the existence of absolute truth (it does not do this, in fact), but because it requires the counselor to abandon the role of expert technician and join the client in a mutual and mutually beneficial conversation in which relationship is first established and then deepened via an unlimited and completely uncoerced discussion of what is meaningful to both partners in the conversation.

I am well aware that this position is extremely threatening to established practice, and especially to those who adhere to the medical/diagnostic model of counseling, but this does not constitute an argument against it. Is ultimate truth knowable? Well, there certainly have been individuals throughout the ages who claim that it is indeed knowable by direct experience, and who themselves claim to have had such experience. If this is true, then let me be clear that the help such persons might provide others would far exceed anything a typical counselor might be able, in his present state, to offer, regardless of his previous training and "clinical" experience. I do not suggest that truth is genuinely unknowable. I only assert that, at this point in my life, I do not know what it is, and that neither, I am certain, do the vast majority of those whose profession is to counsel others. Given where we are, then, it makes perfect sense from my perspective to let truth take care of itself and focus our efforts instead on the immediately achievable. Let us help, in other words, humbly and in the best way we currently know how, by setting aside our ego-driven desire to be technical “experts” and instead choosing simply to sit with our clients and join with them in a mutual attempt to arrive at an interpretation of our common experience which, although it won’t be the final truth about everything, may still be helpful and may even remove a few of the blocks which those who claim to have discovered the truth tell us are all that stand in the way of our having the same experience ourselves.


References

Okun, B.F. & Kantrowitz, R.E. (2008). Effective helping: Interviewing and counseling techniques (7th ed). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole

Hansen, J.T. (2007). Counseling without truth: Toward a neopragmatic foundation for counseling practice. Journal of Counseling and Development, 85(4), 423+