In my previous piece “Beyond the Ordinary”, I posted a close read of Gilbert & Orlans (2011) integrative framework as part of my literature review of prominent integrative theorists who’ve offered an operative framework for the Transpersonal domain in psychotherapy. As indicated, this forms part of the proposal stage for doctoral research to explore the theoretical and philosophical resources that enable and constrain integrative psychotherapists attempting to engage with transpersonal phenomena in their work. The purpose of this project would be to produce a report outlining relevant data for use in downstream projects to help structurally re-design integrative frameworks towards a fuller holistic position. One key issue that emerged from the read of Gilbert & Orlans was, while their framework is more than adequately operational for a one, two, and group psychology, phenomena that exceeds an ego-based psychology cannot be contained by their offering. For e.g. experiences where non-locality of consciousness have been experienced, like veridical psi etc. This was evidenced through their commitment to a relational, social constructionist ontology, and the absence of which specified branch of the phenomenological tradition underpins their approach. From this perspective, Gilbert & Orlans offer a thorough and robust integrative framework for non-transpersonal domains. Beyond this however their work becomes theoretically implausible, rendering their framework somewhat aspirational rather than operational regarding the transpersonal.
In this shorter piece I turn to the adjacent work of Petruska Clarkson (2003) who, prior to the work of Gilbert & Orlans, offered her five-relationship model as a possible framework for integration. Like Gilbert & Orlans (2011), Clarkson (2003) locates her work alongside postmodern ideas regarding the collapse of meta-narratives as singular definitions of reality. Citing Gergen (1990), Clarkson recognises the throughgoing of perspectivism / relativism within the postmodernist project, and that any ontology built upon foundations of singularity can only be considered perspectives in themselves and therefore not verifiable as fundamental truths. Again, this demonstrated the importance to psychotherapy of an operative stance that frees practitioners and clients alike from resolving issues of ontology that may not be of benefit to the them therapeutically. However, as previously identified, where cases of transpersonal phenomena have been experienced, without the door at least left agar to ontology, the epistemological means to engage this material becomes foreclosed. In this sense postmodern perspectivist aims become paradoxical.
Despite this, like Gilbert & Orlans, Clarkson’s model still reaches for a meta-narrative. In part, I argue that this requires the therapeutic relationship to act as a pseudo-ontology, in order to maintain commitments to postmodern epistemology. Again this replicates similar structural issues found in Gilbert & Orlans. That is, relational co-construction foreclosing the Transpersonal epistemologically. Unlike Gilbert & Orlans however, Clarkson navigates this by naming the gap and that the model can be viewed as theoretically unresolved. In fact Clarkson states her model is not intended as an “…attempt at final integration” and is only … as an offer of a conceptual matrix or a viewfinder, by means of which to make sense of all the competing, contrasting or even contradictory views on the human condition…” Clarkson (2003). Furthermore Clarkson explicitly states, that when it comes to integrating the five strands of relationship she has not succeeded in integrating these within herself, her clinical practice or in theory. Clarkson later concludes that the framework “offered is more of a trigger for the readers’ thoughts and associations…”.
Clarkson’s transparency regarding issues of integration are particularly helpful when considering my own project. Clarkson’s work can be considered the most direct confirmation from within the integrative literature gesturing towards the aspirational nature of integrative frameworks. Her's being one that is still very much in use within the field of integrative psychotherapy today. This has a secondary implication for my own project aims. It seems to me that Clarkson and Gilbert & Orlans, in different ways, both place the responsibility on the practitioner for developing their own meta-perspective based on what’s best available. I do not disagree with this. It appears however that both frameworks become less coherent when reaching for a meta-narrative inclusive of the transpersonal. What this may mean for my own work is that rather than looking to fully resolve issues of final integration, the project may perhaps be better thought of as an attempt to move integration closer towards holism than we currently find here within both these models.
Summary of the issues: Working theory in development.
• Integrative Psychotherapy has an ontological problem that constrains its ability to coherently integrate all domains of knowing if the Transpersonal is included. Holism remains more aspiration rather than operational
• This is partially due to its post-modern commitments regarding relational co-creation, arising from the collapse of meta-narratives as flawed definitions of reality. From this view any meta-narrative is also a co-construction, and therefore perspectivism.
• This is a response to modernist views / positivist psychology that reduced client experience to singular behavioural issues, diagnosed on what could be empirically evidenced etc, predicated on singular notions of truth. This collapses personal meaning for clients and reduces experience to what can be understood through empirical method.
• Integrative psychotherapy requires a way to integrate several or more theories into a coherent whole, integration requires a framework. Any attempt to do this for the fullness of the human experience, including the transpersonal requires a meta-narrative if holism is the aim. Both Gilbert & Orlans and Clarkson reach for a meta-narrative to attempt this.
• Any meta-narrative that can contain the transpersonal can’t be presupposed on a framework built on ego-bound, co-constructive premises.
References.
Gilbert, M & Orlans, V. (2011). Integrative Therapy. 100 Key Points and Techniques. East Sussex. UK: Routledge. Pages 6-7
Clarkson, P. (2003). The Therapeutic Relationship. Second Edition. London. Whurr Publishers. Pages xv-xxii.
