The Value of Social Constructionism for the Counseling Profession: A Reply to Hansen

In a recent article in the Journal of Counseling & Development (JCD), Hansen (2005) suggested that the traditional focus in counseling on the inner subjective experiences (ISE) of clients has declined significantly in the last several decades. According to Hansen (2005), counseling has historically placed great value on ISE, and this focus has previously distinguished the field from other mental health disciplines. The emphasis in counseling on ISE was influenced, in part, by the field's roots in vocational guidance (Bradley & Cox, 2001) and the humanistic psychology movement of the mid-1900s (Hansen, 2000). Hansen (2005) contended that three influences have contributed to shifting the focus away from ISE in counseling: (a) the adoption of relational techniques in counselor education, (b) the medicalization of the profession, and (c) social constructionism. In particular, Hansen (2005) suggested that social constructionism, by virtue of its emphasis on relational knowing, has significantly influenced the decline of the counseling profession by obscuring its unique focus on the ISE of clients. Hansen has argued that "with its exclusive emphasis on the realities constructed in relationships, social constructionism is a theoretical guillotine, lopping off the heads of individual clients for the sake of collective agreements" (2005, p. 410). Hansen cautioned that this shift away from ISE is "a historical trend of great significance because it represents a fundamental change at the core of the profession" (2005, p. 406). In this reply, we take the position, similar to other counseling theorists (e.g., Atwood, 1993; Chen, Noosbond, & Bruce, 1998; Drewery & Monk, 1994; Guterman, 1994; Lyddon, 1995), that social constructionism is a useful framework for counseling. In contrast to ISE, social constructionism offers us alternative ways of understanding how we come to know clients' experiences. We have found that relational ways of knowing often provide us with possibilities for change that are not realized from an individual perspective. At the same time, we disagree with Hansen's (2005) contention that social constructionism devalues ISE. Rather, we still consider ISE to be a valuable tradition in counseling. In addition, we understand that counseling has been distinguished by a plurality of themes throughout its history, not only or mainly ISE. The purpose of this article is to present social constructionism as a valuable framework for the field of counseling and, thereby, continue the dialogue begun by Hansen regarding the devaluation of ISE in counseling. First, we articulate a social constructionist position for counseling. Then, we address reasons, according to Hansen (2005), that ISE must be revalued. Finally, we consider future directions for social constructionism and the field of counseling. * Continuing the Dialogue Similar to social constructionism, which holds that knowledge is created in conversations between people, the development of social constructionism is perhaps best understood within the context of a conversational domain. Social constructionism is, itself, a social construction that is always changing and subject to reconstruction. Consider, for example, that a recent debate in the Journal of Mental Health Counseling (JMHC; D'Andrea, 2000; Ellis, 1996, 1997a, 1997b, 2000; Guterman, 1994, 1996b, 1996c; Rigazio-DiGilio, Ivey, & Locke, 1997) has contributed to a reformulation of fundamental principles of social constructionism. Ellis (1996, 1997b), for instance, has argued that some articulations of social constructionism overemphasize language and thereby ignore the overlap between relational knowing and that of biologically based constructivism, the latter being an epistemological formulation that succeeded and was influenced by humanism and ISE. Later in this article, we clarify the distinction between constructivism and social constructionism. As a result of Ellis's (1996, 1997b) call for a both/and perspective, professionals in the field have come to recognize the benefits and limitations of both constructivism and social constructionism. …