Rejoinder to V. Suthakaran.

V. Suthakaran (2012) uses cognitive--experiential self-theory as the basis for his argument that the humanities and science should have equal ideological status in the counseling profession. The author disagrees with this basic thesis and some of the related theoretical points that V. Suthakaran makes. However, the author agrees that the humanities and science should both be integral ideological components of the counseling profession. ********** V. Suthakaran (2012) offers a creative and compelling reply to my article (Hansen, 2012) by drawing an analogy between the role of the humanities and science in the counseling profession and the information-processing systems of cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST). This information processing metaphor draws out and extends particular elements of my original proposal. Although I do not agree with all of his conclusions, V. Suthakaran and I have significant points of agreement, most notably our mutual desire for both the humanities and science to be recognized as vital ideological contributors to the counseling profession. Before proceeding to a discussion of the implications of CEST, I clarify two important points. CLARIFICATION OF TWO POINTS First, in my original article (Hansen, 2012), I advocate for science and humanism to remain foundational ideological components of the counseling profession. I maintain this position throughout my original article, as exemplified by statements such as "science is a vital tool that will always be a necessary component of counseling inquiry" (p. 142). Therefore, V. Suthakaran's (2012) characterization of my position as advocating that counselors "relinquish the scientific mind-set" (p. 237) is inaccurate. From my reading of our respective positions, V. Suthakaran and I agree that the counseling profession should draw from both the humanities and science. Second, V. Suthakaran (2012) notes that I have advocated "a polarized humanities ideology as the foundation for counseling" (p. 229), which "runs counter to the holistic principle of humanism" (p. 229). Here is my understanding of the logical structure of this critique: (a) Holism is a fundamental principle of humanism; (b) my initial proposal created an ideological polarization that minimized the role of science in counseling; and, therefore, (c) by suggesting this polarization, I had violated a fundamental principle of humanism (i.e., holism). Ironically, then, according to V. Suthakaran, by attempting to fortify humanism, I had inadvertently undermined it. I appreciate the intellectual nuance of this critique, but I do not agree with it. In one sense, V. Suthakaran (2012) is correct. Holism is a fundamental theoretical tenet of humanistic ideology. The idea that human beings should be understood on their own terms (and not be reduced to scientific specimens or pawns of God) is a central tenet of both the Renaissance and psychological humanism (Davidson, 2000). Indeed, during the mid-20th century, Rogers (1957) and like-minded colleagues (e.g., Matson, 1971) promoted humanism as a superior holistic alternative to the reductive treatment orientations (i.e., psychoanalysis and behaviorism) that were available at the time (Hansen, 2006). Although V. Suthakaran (2012) is correct about the holistic emphasis in humanism, he is mistaken about the application of the principle of holism. Humanism posits that people, not ideologies, should be treated holistically. Therefore, even if my presentation of the humanities and science is "polarized" (p. 229), as V. Suthakaran charges, my thesis is not antiholistic in the humanistic sense because my reductive stance is applied to ideologies, not people. Indeed, consider what it would mean to be entirely holistic about humanism as an ideology. With holistic ideological demands, humanism would have to include every conceivable point of view (e.g., scientific, postmodern, astrological). This unreasonable expectation was never propounded by humanists, who advocated that people should be regarded holistically, not that humanistic ideology itself should holistically encompass every ideological alternative. …