摘要
A number of prominent solution-focused brief therapists have expressed the view that, to its detriment, this school of therapy tends to downplay emotion. Accordingly, we contend that, given that emotion is a primal binding force, the bonding component of the crucially important therapeutic alliance risks being compromised in the current practice of this approach. We further argue that the prioritization of the depiction of actions that accompany the emotion expressed by the client over the actual participation in this emotion by the therapist tends to superficialize therapeutic communication. This is especially likely to happen when the therapist lapses into a formulaic, action-soliciting interrogatory mode in response to the emotion expressed by the client. In addition, we claim that the incorporation of emotion- and body-based approaches into the solution-focused canon could remedy the affective lacuna referred to above. We note, however, that such a modification would most likely face stiff resistance from some of the gatekeepers of solution-faced therapy, in particular those who subscribe to the “surface-only” descriptive approach advocated by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. And yet, the effectiveness of depth-oriented therapies, such as sensorimotor psychotherapy and somatic experiencing, is supported by neurophysiological considerations. Finally, we suggest that these therapies, and even creativogenic elements of psychoanalysis, can actually synergize solution-focused brief therapy through the generation of affect-laden images, sensations and thoughts that lend themselves to the realization of outcomes desired by the client, which is the raison d’etre of solution-focused brief therapy. This paper pleads for the incorporation of the above-noted depth approaches into solution-focused brief therapy with a view to augmenting its effectiveness through a stronger therapeutic bond owing to an increased emotional engagement on the part of the therapist.
A number of prominent solution-focused brief therapists have expressed the view that, to its detriment, this school of therapy tends to downplay emotion. Accordingly, we contend that, given that emotion is a primal binding force, the bonding component of the crucially important therapeutic alliance risks being compromised in the current practice of this approach. We further argue that the prioritization of the depiction of actions that accompany the emotion expressed by the client over the actual participation in this emotion by the therapist tends to superficialize therapeutic communication. This is especially likely to happen when the therapist lapses into a formulaic, action-soliciting interrogatory mode in response to the emotion expressed by the client. In addition, we claim that the incorporation of emotion- and body-based approaches into the solution-focused canon could remedy the affective lacuna referred to above. We note, however, that such a modification would most likely face stiff resistance from some of the gatekeepers of solution-faced therapy, in particular those who subscribe to the “surface-only” descriptive approach advocated by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. And yet, the effectiveness of depth-oriented therapies, such as sensorimotor psychotherapy and somatic experiencing, is supported by neurophysiological considerations. Finally, we suggest that these therapies, and even creativogenic elements of psychoanalysis, can actually synergize solution-focused brief therapy through the generation of affect-laden images, sensations and thoughts that lend themselves to the realization of outcomes desired by the client, which is the raison d’etre of solution-focused brief therapy. This paper pleads for the incorporation of the above-noted depth approaches into solution-focused brief therapy with a view to augmenting its effectiveness through a stronger therapeutic bond owing to an increased emotional engagement on the part of the therapist.
出处
《Health》
2019年第12期1644-1663,共20页
健康（英文）
