Eclectic counseling employs ideas from all different theories in treating clients rather than restricting oneself to one approach. Although it may sound unsystematic and criticized by many, especially for a starting counselor, this is the methodology that speaks to me the most. The goal is to utilize related clinical concepts and methods and combine them into a congruent whole. Although I believe it is important to be able to determine how to combine theories because syncretism is not effective, the reality is that just as we know that we all learn differently, we all cannot possibly benefit from one approach.

It is almost like trying to force feed someone if one attempted a singular use of a theory on all clients. In addition, managed care wants to see one thing and that is measurable behavioral outcomes. I do not believe it is enough to just feel better or experience a point where you have reached self-actualization. However, I do believe these are components necessary to be able to follow a behavioral plan. So in essence, you cannot have one without the other.

I suppose one of the reasons I feel drawn to eclecticism is my desire to be creative. I am not a person that sees things in “black and white.” Nor am I a person who “goes by the book.” I love freedom and with that I am allowed to take risks and try out new things. In this case, I will analyze and experiment and perhaps even devise a modality of my own. Something that makes sense to me is much easier to implement and sell to the client.

I believe that if a therapist develops a strong motivation toward a certain technique, that in itself is motivating for the client. For me, if I cannot indulge myself or truly believe in something, then I almost feel like I was operating in a façade mode. In addition, you do not want to sound rehearsed to your client either. If you are working on behaviors, I believe your own attitudes are reflected in how you interact with the client.

I personally do not see any one approach totally effective. In fact, Loos stated that no single theory has demonstrated a clear advantage in terms of efficacy over any other theoretical approach, including the philosophy of Alcoholics Anonymous (Alcoholics Anonymous World Service, 1987) as a single therapeutic model.

For instance, if I were a specialist in psycho-dynamic therapy, there will be minimal on how external conditions affect and ongoing problem. However, I believe it is important to identify the root of what causes certain behaviors. This can help the clients identify with the function of their own minds. Also, Learning about the unconscious motivation is almost an added asset that a client can draw from. So although it can be restricting in many ways, including the involvement of intensive long-term therapy, it can be effective in reconstructing personality because there is an understanding in how our instincts and early encounters interact.

Moreover, if I were existential-humanistic, then the clients might perhaps feel responsible for creating difficult situations, which might have been entirely out of their control (e.g., discrimination, abuse). This may establish an opportunity for a client to lose trust in you as the therapist. On the contrary, it can also offer the client an opening to re-create himself. This re-creation can epitomize through a series of behavioral strategies.

Furthermore, taking on just a cognitive approach where the focus is on irrational thinking, the therapist might not be cognizant of the cultural differences in thinking patterns. Conversely, cognitive therapy may be functional in teaching a client that our belief system is directly connected to how we feel. If the client is able to identify the distorted thoughts that cause the discomfort, then behavioral goals can appear to be more achievable. Motivation to proceed with the behavioral strategies might be eminent.

Additionally, focusing only on the differential approach where the counselor draws on a variety of theories to treat each situation in an effort to individualize, a practitioner may still overlook certain important concepts that other theories offer. Essentially, I see this approach as still specializing except that your specialty is in different modalities and not just one. This is nonetheless limiting to the practice. To get to the root of the problem, I believe, you must see the whole picture.

A counselor can only do this if allowed the opportunity to explore. If a counselor becomes wedged on certain paradigms, it may be great for research or writing a book, but not work so well in practice. A human being is extremely dynamic and the body works as a system. You just cannot have certain pieces functioning and expect the “whole” to function to the best capability possible. Every small piece can serve a big purpose so if you fail to examine those, the client may just return to the same pattern. Therefore, treating a holistic person and not just a component will better increase the quality of life for your client.

Although I think most counselors may start off with a particular specialty as they learn the process, implementing an eclectic approach can help you see the bigger picture. Some may argue that it takes a lot to just learn one theory. How could a person possibly know enough about all theories to implement all the complexities in integrative fashion? The truth of the matter is that this model is misunderstood. I think every therapist may have a primary orientation but has found ways to incorporate different techniques to evaluate the whole picture. I believe it is necessary to utilized different approaches to really understand what the real problem is and not just what is on the surface. The key point here is that the therapist will not strictly adhere to a particular school of thought.

The reason why this is the best way to explain behavior is because you are not basing your focus one dimension. What may appear to be a cause in dysfunctional behavior in one paradigm may very well be the effect in another, if in fact it is presented elsewhere. For example, one may attribute the behavior of an aggressive person to the parenting styles that existed while he or she was a child. However, the person may just have adopted such a behavior through an experience outside of the home. Parents may never understand the aggressive behaviors displayed at home. The parents then become frustrated and begin to attempt on a better grip of their child, thus creating power struggles. The pattern may continue until the child begins to develop other ways to cope, yet formulating a whole new set of dysfunctional behaviors.

Hence, digging into the roots and establishing such as the “overpowering” upbringing, the counselor may miss the fact that this person just has maladaptive habits that need to be addressed as such. Thus, an existential-humanistic approach might help the person become more responsible for his or her actions and not blame his parents. This liability on self will allow the person to know that he or she can change because he was the cause. In addition, bringing out a “so called” repressed memory such as, abusive parenting might shift the focus on the “culprits” and the client may always feel like a victim.

Also, I think it is possible, as a psychoanalyst to dig so deep to the point where he could convince the client and himself that the behavior is a result of the person’s upbringing, when in fact it was not. Often, an interpretation of a circumstance, and not always the circumstance itself causes a particular behavior.

Yet, if you lack in some use of psychoanalysis, you may never know if it was in fact a different event that caused such a behavior. Additionally, a repressed memory may never come out. However, not understanding your own reactions or your clients’ reactions in a psychoanalytic perspective may throw you right into a transference pull or push that you will not be able to dig yourself out of. Our behavior is stimulated by a lot of different forces; therefore, the practioner should explore all different approaches to come to comprehensive conclusion about a particular behavior.

         In my opinion, the interventions utilized in this approach are based on the personality of the client and counselor and their relationship. The reason why this approach works well is because it offers both the client and the counselor flexibility. It provides an amalgamated set of interventions that are based on particular needs and not preferences. Having experience in all different models makes available to the counselor the opportunity to be more receptive to offering the client what he or she needs. Plus, there is an increased suppleness in tailoring strategies while still being able to focus on those specific needs. Limiting yourself to a particular approach or a particular set of approaches will only lessen the options for yourself on what you can offer, as well as limit your client.

         For example, let’s say the problem is substance abuse. The best choice in approach for many counselors may be cognitive-behavioral. This is clearly specializing in both the cognitive and behavioral aspects of the problem. However, how can the client achieve changes in thinking and deeds for the long term if he or she does not take responsibility for his or her actions, thus addressing the existential factors? Furthermore, what if there is a genetic link to substance abuse? Should that be irrelevant to treatment? Would that not cheat the client of understanding his or her foundation?

Some may argue that analyzing the function the substance plays in the person’s life and addressing that is sufficient. It may very well be for managed care companies but will it truly work for the client? Unfortunately, the green bill wins, as it always does. However, I think there can be ways to incorporate all different techniques to accommodate the uniqueness of each individual client, especially for a chemically addicted person.

A person who is chemically addicted has lived a life exemplified by imbalances. Addressing the problem from an eclectic approach will, as Loos described (Counseling the Chemically Dependent) it integrate concepts that include ownership of feeling, choice of actions, expression of emotion, attachment and nurturance, meaning or purpose in life, and moral-ethical conduct. Normally, a client who is dependent chemically experiences disparities in all of these tenets. Consequently, utilizing any one tactic will most likely not address all of these issues that make up a wholesome individual. For this reason, it is not effective specialize in any specific techniques.

As stated above, cognitive behavioral techniques can be effective in examining and modifying dysfunctional interpretations, discovering the misconceptions and beliefs, and improving reality testing (Corshini & Wedding, 1995). REBT, rational emotive behavioral therapy can address feelings and behaviors concurrently. The focus on treating the whole person in the here and now and reorganizing beliefs and attitudes, such as through Gestalt therapy can be beneficial for a long-standing recovery. Understanding the basis for thinking, feeling, and acting and addressing emotional issues at the right time can be further simplified through the use of motivational interviewing while still maintaining an empathic style and offering a positive regard. Motivational enhancement therapy is a briefer and more directive approach that will minimize the funding pressures yet; it will not be counterproductive as is the use of confrontation.

The idea that a counselor might be able to combine theoretical approaches is not new, (Lazarus & Beutler, 1993) as stated by Neukrug (2003). In fact, studies show that between 39% and 70% of counselors and other mental health professionals identify themselves “eclectic” (Neukrug, 2003). As a counselor who is just starting out, the process of adhering to a particular theory may be offer a sense of direction. This is understandable. I personally think, a new counselor will favor a specific approach but will eventually experiment with different techniques. What I like about the eclectic aspect is the idea of devising a personal approach that makes sense to the counselor. If it makes sense in totality to the person who will facilitate, then it will be much simpler to implement and less rehearsed. I think all the different approaches make sense to a certain degree, but I do not buy into a singular thought. I believe we are complex beings and it will take more than one tactic to figure out cause and effect and potential solutions to particular behaviors. I also believe that a counselor should remain open and continue to learn so that he or she does not impede growth for himself or the client. The use of an eclectic approach means flexibility. Being flexible can also allow you to extend through the demographic factors when treating clients. In my perspective, in eclectic counseling, I do not believe there is a grand need to take in to consideration the demographic factor. Although there may be characteristics that do not cross race, gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity, diverse and holistic techniques and treating a “human” will permit for an enduring recovery regardless of similarities or differences in clients who are chemically dependent.

References

Capuzzi, D., Douglas, R. G, (2003). Counseling and Psychotherapy: Theories and Interventions. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Neukrug, E. (2003). The World of the Counselor: An Introduction to the Counseling Profession. California: Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning

All About Counseling 2004, Counseling Approaches Retrieved December 8, 2004, from http://www.allaboutcounseling.com/counseling_approaches.htm

Loos, M., Counseling the Chemically Dependent: An Integrative Approach. Retrieved December 8, 2004, from http://www.questia.com