Rejoinder to Guterman, Martin, and Kopp.

In their reply to the author's keystone article (Hansen, 2012), Guterman, Martin, and Kopp (2012) charge that the author's integrative framework was not sufficiently integrative. They also argue that his proposal results in logical contradictions and the mind-body problem. The author responds by noting that his proposal fully integrates the humanities and science and that the philosophical problems that Guterman et al. cite are not relevant to his integrative framework. ********** Guterman, Martin, and Kopp (2012) have provided a thoughtful and challenging reply to the positions I took in my "Extending the Humanistic Vision" article (Hansen, 2012). Indeed, this is not the first time that Guterman and I have publicly disagreed (see Hansen, 2005, 2010; Rudes & Guterman, 2007). Anyone who is familiar with or cares to read the series of articles that constituted our past debate will undoubtedly detect parallel themes in this discussion, such as Guterman et al.'s alignment with social constructionism versus my preference for humanism and the Guterman et al. view that competing ideologies can be fully integrated versus my pessimism that full integration is possible (or even desirable). The most striking parallel that a reader might notice, however, is the civility, intellectual sophistication, and growth-inducing challenges that Guterman and his collaborators bring to debates. I am most grateful for these qualities and, in this regard, am honored to respond to the Guterman et al. reply to my article. That being said, I disagree with many of the finer points that Guterman et al. make, although I agree with their general emphasis on integrating humanism and science in the counseling profession. I organize their challenges (and the reasons for my disagreements) according to the primary sources of contention between us, namely (a) their critiques of my proposed integration of humanities and science in counseling and (b) various philosophical differences. INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK Guterman et al. (2012) critique my particular way of integrating humanism and science, saying that it is "too either-or and does not emphasize enough the both-and aspects of these ideologies" (p. 145). The theme of this initial critique (i.e., that my integration overemphasizes humanism and minimizes science when, presumably, I should have given more equal status to both ideologies) recurs throughout their reply article. For instance, Guterman et al. accuse me of relegating science "to a mere tool in the humanities woodshed" (p. 146). Curiously, this theme of critiquing the particular type of integration I propose is intermixed with charges that I do not propose any integration at all. For instance, Guterman et al. (2012) erroneously contend that I had attempted to "redefine counseling from a purely humanistic perspective" (p. 146) and "along purely ]emphasis added] humanistic parameters" (p. 146). Furthermore, by making the completely sensible assertion that "counseling will be best served by using both objective and subjective data" (p. 151), Guterman et al. imply that I have somehow advocated that counseling should become a wholly humanistic profession, completely devoid of any scientific influence. Perhaps some of the metaphors I use cause confusion about my position. For instance, I use an analogy of colors to represent science and humanism. As I note in my original article (Hansen, 2012), these colors are mixed in the practice of counseling, which, I characterize as a "functional and adaptive [compromise] for counselors to adopt" (p. 133). However, I argue that "at a conceptual level [emphasis added] this compromise prevents each of the ideologies from reaching their full visionary potential" (p. 133). Therefore, I use the color analogy to set the stage for a conceptual consideration of purely humanistic and scientific ideological visions, not to suggest that the counseling profession should exclusively rely on a single, monochromatic ideology. …