A Return to the Human in Humanism: A Response to Hansen's Humanistic Vision

In his extension of the humanistic vision, Hansen (2012) recommends that counseling practitioners and scholars adopt operations that are consistent with his definition of a multiple-perspective philosophy. Alternatively, the author of this article believes that Hansen has reduced the capacity of the human to interpret meaning through quantitative research methodologies, diagnostic assessment, and other forms of counseling practice. Keywords: humanism, dialectics, counseling research, counseling practice ********** As counselors, ours is an ethos influenced, at least in part, by the advent of new technologies and an allegiance to the sciences that have inspired such developments. In the case of counseling and each of the related helping professions, recent developments in science have certainly influenced the manner in which professionals and consumers conceptualize and evaluate the usefulness of counseling services and related counseling technologies. Consequently, especially given rapidly changing social and economic equations, helping professionals seek out the most effectual and efficient ways to provide services to clients. Unfortunately, a further consequence of such professional pursuits often includes ideologies and practices that are not necessarily advantageous in all ways and to as many individuals as is possible. In his article, "Extending the Humanistic Vision: Toward a Humanities Foundation for the Counseling Profession," Hansen (2012) presents a number of disquieting implications for helping professionals pertaining to the "scientific ideology" (p. 136) and provides an alternative course for professional behaviors that, in his view, are more consistent with the humanistic foundation for the counseling profession. Although I generally agree with the spirit of Hansen's humanistic vision, the purpose of this response article is to delve into the philosophic suppositions offered by Hansen, then exhibit how his extended vision can be further extended to include even those practices and ideologies that he seems to denounce. Before I can contest Hansen's humanistic vision, I must confess to the readers that I am a fan of both the document to which I am currently a respondent and, moreover, the sum of Hansen's scholarly work. In fact, it is precisely because of my genuine appreciation of his work--in particular his clarification of the philosophy of humanism for counselors and the manner in which he has reminded counselors in the field of how this philosophy informs all professional pursuits (e.g., Hansen, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009)--that I have taken on the task of challenging one of my scholarly heroes. It is within this space of scholarly affection that I yearn for the type of internal consistency that can stand as a useful imperative for the counseling profession; regrettably, it is precisely within the genius of Hansen's current thesis that I find contradictions related to the manner in which he has critiqued the utility of science for counselors. Hansen (2012) proposes that counselors should be driven by a "multiplicity of perspectives" (p. 136), and yet in this document, I demonstrate (I hope) that Hansen has reduced his own perspective of science for counselors. In particular, if Hansen's claims were internally consistent from a humanistic perspective, the authority of science cannot be found in the scientific means itself; rather, the humanistic counselor, equipped with her or his own creative capacity and free will, has the prerogative to provide a subjective interpretation of those means. Equally, a humanistic counselor must assume the same capacity of her or his clients. If true, then the scientific means extant for professionals can be neither essentialized nor condemned for its function, and, instead, our efforts as philosophers of science and counseling should be directed toward how such means are used and understood in practice. As an alternative, I present a thesis that I believe upholds Hansen's vision for the humanist, namely, a new brand of dialectic that has the potential to improve the shortcomings of the way in which science has affected the counseling profession. …