Why people hate (and love) theoretical orientations

And how we can live with them

Raise your hand if you also went to a counseling program that made you choose one theoretical orientation! I'm not sure if this is a CACREP thing, or if all counseling programs do this, but it's definitely a thing in my program. And because we're humans, this thing happens to piss a lot of people off.

What's a theoretical orientation?

If you don't know what a theoretical orientation is, then you definitely didn't go to my program. In short, it's a framework through which a person conducts therapy. Many theories share interventions, but their overall approach to wellness and treatment goals may differ.

Generally, theories can be lumped into six categories: psychodynamic/psychoanalytic, humanistic, behavioral, constructivist, and cognitive. Within these categories, each theory can be described as insight-oriented or solution-focused. To further complicate things, individual therapists typically use a different set of theories than family or couples therapists, though they may have the same name.

As for the theories themselves? Within individual therapy, you have psychoanalysis, Jungian, existential, person-centered, dialectical behavior, gestalt, cognitive behavioral therapy, feminist, Alderian, Internal Family Systems, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, and Somatic Experiencing, just to name a few!

Where's the beef?

I hear you saying, "Bellamy! These theories seem great! What could possibly piss someone off about using them?" And if this is you, I envy your peace.

The main factions of the theory debate fall into two categories: counselors should use only one theory or counselors should be eclectic.

To be honest, I'm not sure where the idea of choosing and using one theory comes from.

If I had to guess, it probably has a lot to do with whiteness and patriarchy. After all, the founders of counseling are all white men.

In the late 1890s, Freud comes up with his theory and says it's the best. Along comes Jung, Freud's contemporary and friend, who creates a new theory from Freud's work in 1911. Freud is so personally offended that he *severs his relationship with Jung* (see Theories of Psychotherapy and Counseling by Richard Sharf). Alder also breaks from Freud's teachings in 1911, moving forward with his own theory of counseling.

Whether Freud was afraid to lose his influence in the psychology community or was genuinely convinced that his theory was superior, he created an environment of hostility and comparison. Which brings us to why many clinicians probably feel so strongly about choosing one theory.

A culture of white supremacy endorses division, as all individuals strive for superiority over others. The very fabric of our discipline was woven with divisive competition. People chose one theory, not because it was best practice, but because they had to choose a faction to prove their worth. What does it say about our field if we are staunchly opposed to a different way of doing things?

A jack of all trades but a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one

Here's where I think single-theory thinking is flawed. New theories of counseling developed because one theory simply wasn't enough to capture the nuance of human experience. Essentially, each new theory is an eclectic collection of the theories that came before. From this perspective, it seems a little silly to proclaim that anyone using an eclectic approach is a bad therapist.

At the same time, there are valid reasons for urging clinicians (especially new clinicians) to work with one theory. Most new clinicians haven't had the time or the training to use one theory comfortably, much less to move between two or more theories comfortably.

Personally, I use one theory (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy) and borrow interventions and perspectives from other theories. Technically, this doesn't make me eclectic because all of my interventions are conducted through an ACT framework. Using one theory makes it easier to guide treatment, conceptualize my clients, and justify my clinical work (there's that white supremacy again). At the same time, I wonder if my clients are missing out on growth opportunities because of theoretical constraints. Over time, I plan on adopting an eclectic approach that includes ACT, internal family systems, and existentialism, but this will require many hours of training (and a lot of money).

Okay but what now?

I'm not saying that by practicing one theory you're reinforcing white supremacy. What I am saying is that we should question why this is the norm.

For yourself, start by identifying your personal beliefs (i.e., biases) about single-theory and eclectic approaches. Assess your training, comfort, and practical experience working with different theories, and speak with practicing clinicians to see how they approach counseling.

There are pros and cons to both, so it's ultimately up to you and your mentors to determine the best course of action.

If you're left with questions, check in next week to learn how choosing a theoretical orientation can help you better define your counselor identity. In the meantime? Idk, eat a cookie.

---

Are you on team singular or team eclectic? Let me know in the comments!