Rejoinder to Brady-Amoon.

The author agrees with virtually all of Brady-Amoon's (2012) conclusions. However, Brady-Amoon and the author disagree about some of the theoretical points that lead to these shared conclusions. He overviews these disagreements and highlights their common vision for the future of the counseling profession. ********** I am grateful to Brady-Amoon (2012) for her outstanding response, and I agree with most of her arguments. Indeed, by elaborating the historical and theoretical foundations of humanism and professional counseling, Brady-Amoon fortified many of the positions I took in my original article (Hansen, 2012). I appreciate her additional scholarly support for my professional recommendations. Although we agree on the larger practical issues, Brady-Amoon (2012) and I disagree about some of the subtler ideological points that serve as the foundation for many of our shared conclusions. It is important to highlight and discuss these differences so that this dialogue can continue to evolve. POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT Brady-Amoon (2012) argues that "humanism has been and continues to be at the core of counseling---organizationally, conceptually and practically" (p. 185). I do not agree that humanism "continues to be" (p. 185) the bedrock ideology of the counseling profession. Indeed, the foundational thesis of my original article (Hansen, 2012) is that the humanities emphasis on complexity and multiple perspectives had been largely eclipsed by the scientific ideology of simplicity and singularity. Identity mandates, authoritarian control of continuing education, and the dominance of medicalization are just some of the signs, I argue, that scientific ideology had overtaken the counseling profession. Brady-Amoon (2012) agrees with my professional recommendations (Hansen, 2012), which were based on my appraisal of the counseling profession as desperately needing an infusion of humanities assumptions to counter the monopoly of scientific ideology. Given that we both want humanities-based changes to the profession, I did not understand Brady-Amoon's reasons for characterizing humanism as currently being at the "core of counseling--organizationally, conceptually and practically" (p. 185). If the counseling profession is already thoroughly humanistic, why did Brady-Amoon support my humanities-based recommendations, which were designed to return the counseling profession to a humanistic foundation? Perhaps the answer to this question lies in the fact that Brady-Amoon (2012) and I have different conceptualizations of science. In this regard, Brady-Amoon argues that "Hansen erroneously categorizes science as 'reductive'" (p. 187). Specifically, she argues that "the application of science to counseling is not necessarily reductive. Scientific research from a variety of disciplines has the potential to inform and support the art of counseling" (p. 187). Because Brady-Amoon does not view science as inherently reductive, she likely does not regard scientific ideology as a threat to the humanistic foundation of the counseling profession. Therefore, I suspect that Brady-Amoon agrees with my professional recommendations (Hansen, 2012) because she views them as having the potential to fortify and extend the humanistic foundation of the profession, which (in her appraisal) is already in place. Alternatively, I characterize scientific ideology as an intrinsically reductive force that has already hijacked the counseling profession. To address Brady-Amoon's (2012) comments about science and reductionism, I must clarify my conceptualization of science. I maintain that scientific ideology is inherently reductionist. Historically, science was idealized as a method that was capable of overcoming human subjectivity to discover the singular truth about phenomena under study (Rosenau, 1992). For instance, there may be many theories about the cause of a particular disease. The goal of the traditional scientist is to find the singular, correct cause of the disease by empirically eliminating the erroneous theories. …