wong 2006b[1]future of positive therapy

8/17/2019 Wong 2006b[1]Future of Positive Therapy

1/3

THE FUTURE OF POSITIVE THERAPY

Y. JOEL WONG

University of Texas at Austin

In their commentary on strength-centered therapy (ST), Lopez and Kerr (2006) called for an open-source ap-

proach to developing positive psycho-logical practices. In this rejoinder, theauthor responds to their comments,

provides clarifications on ST, and dis-cusses the future of positive therapy.

Specifically, the author calls for futurescholarship to address (1) the contribu-tions of social constructionist therapies,(2) positive systemic influences in psy-chotherapy, and (3) diverse conceptual-izations of strengths and optimal human

functioning.

Keywords: social constructionist, posi-

tive psychology, counseling, psycho-therapy, strength-centered psychother-apy, positive therapy

I thank Lopez and Kerr (2006) for theirthoughtful comments on strength-centered ther-apy (ST). In this rejoinder, I respond to theircommentary, provide clarifications on ST, anddiscuss the future of positive therapy by identi-fying 3 critical areas that deserve greater schol-

arly attention.Lopez and Kerr (2006) expressed the view that

the description of ST relies on overly abstractterms (e.g., “explicitize”) that are not accessibleto clients. It might be helpful to reiterate that thesocial constructionist foundation of ST requiresthe therapist to pay careful attention to the use of language in her therapeutic conversations withthe client. Although I introduced several new

terms to describe the practice of ST (e.g., theexplicitizing, envisioning, empowering, andevolving phases), it is the principles inherent inthese terms, rather than the actual use of thesewords in psychotherapy, that is important. From asocial constructionist standpoint, the meaning of words is constantly negotiated within the thera-peutic context (Anderson, 1997). Terms such as“virtues” or “explicitize” should not be used in

psychotherapy unless they are meaningful to cli-ents. Over time, the therapist and client develop ashared vocabulary of terms that is unique to thetherapeutic context. For example, a therapist andher client might use the phrase “our detectivework” instead of “explicitizing” to refer to theprocess of identifying the client’s strengths.

Lopez and Kerr also were concerned that the“closing in on one approach to ST may discour-age the development and examination of manystrength-based approaches.” It might be worth-

while clarifying the distinction between strength-centered therapy and positive therapy. In my ar-ticle on ST (Wong, 2006 [this issue]) as well as inthis rejoinder, strength-centered therapy refers toa specific therapeutic approach based on the pos-itive psychology of character strengths and socialconstructionist perspectives on psychotherapy,whereas the term “positive therapy” is used moregenerically to refer to any therapeutic approachthat emphasizes clients’ strengths and positiveassets. I consider therapeutic approaches such asST (Wong, 2006), hope therapy (Lopez, Flyod,Ulven, & Synder, 2000), and solution-focusedtherapy (de Shazer & Berg, 1992) to be specificapplications of positive therapy. Although I ad-vocate the practice of ST, I do not view it as theonly way to practice positive therapy. Like Lopezand Kerr (2006), I advocate the cross-fertilizationof ideas from different therapeutic approaches.

I concur with Lopez and Kerr’s main messagethat the development of strength-centered therapy

and positive psychological practices would ben-efit from an open-source approach in which adiverse pool of professionals build on each oth-ers’ work. Specifically, I found their proposal toinclude the therapeutic use of the working alli-

Y. Joel Wong, University of Texas at Austin.Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to

Y. Joel Wong, MA, Department of Educational Psychology,

University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station D5800,

Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: [email protected]

Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association2006, Vol. 43, No. 2, 151–153 0033-3204/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0033-3204.43.2.151

151


2/3

ance and hope to be potentially useful contribu-tions to the refinement of ST.

Recommendations for Future Scholarship

In the remainder of this article, I address thebroader question of the future of positive therapy.In the spirit of Lopez and Kerr’s (2006) opensource ideal, I offer recommendations on threecritical areas in positive therapy that require morescholarly attention. Guided by social construc-tionist ideals, my suggestions focus on the needfor a greater emphasis on (1) the contributions of social constructionist therapies, (2) harnessingthe strengths of positive systemic influences in

psychotherapy, and (3) diverse conceptualiza-tions of strengths and optimal human functioning.First, therapists interested in the clinical applica-

tions of positive psychology should pay more atten-tion to the contributions of social constructionisttherapies, especially solution focused therapy (deShazer & Berg, 1992) and narrative therapy (White& Epston, 1990). A decade before positive psychol-ogists began to articulate the clinical applications of positive psychology (e.g., Seligman, 2002), Stevede Shazer and his colleagues (e.g., de Shazer &

Berg, 1992) were actively promoting their ground-breaking approach to psychotherapy which empha-sizes client’s past and existing successes and theirvision of a satisfying future. Similarly, White andEpston (1990) have proposed a narrative therapeu-tic approach that includes strengths-based elementssuch as identifying unique outcomes to clients’problems (usually involving success stories). In myearlier article (Wong, 2006), I acknowledged as-pects of ST that converge with or are related to theprinciples and techniques of solution-focused ther-

apy and narrative therapy. Unfortunately, thesetherapeutic approaches have received significantlyless attention in recent scholarly discussions on theclinical application of positive psychology (e.g.,Seligman, 2002). Future scholarly discussion onpositive therapy would benefit from a careful con-sideration of these therapeutic approaches.

Second, the application of positive psychologyto psychotherapy has focused largely on individ-uals’ strengths. Relatively little attention has beengiven to harnessing the strengths of positive in-

stitutions, communities, and relationships in psy-chotherapy (cf. Gable & Haidt, 2005, for a sim-ilar critique of positive psychology). If we acceptthe social constructionist notion that the meaningclients attached to their life experiences are

forged by interpersonal and social influences(Wong, 2006), then it seems reasonable to expectthat positive systemic forces in our clients’ livescan also be used to advance their therapeutic

goals. I envisage that future scholarship on pos-itive therapy would pay more attention to issuessuch as how clients’ religious communities, fam-ilies, romantic relationships, best friends, work-places, and neighborhoods can be used optimallyas agents of change in psychotherapy. In thisregard, I recommend that we look beyond psy-chology to other disciplines that have tradition-ally emphasized a more ecological view of hu-man functioning (e.g., marriage and familystudies, sociology, and social work) for assis-

tance in developing theories of therapeuticchange.

Third, social constructionism asserts that ourknowledge of reality is inextricably linked to ourvalues, interests, and cultural background (Burr,2003). Hence, a focus on strengths and optimalhuman functioning in psychotherapy inevitablybegs the question, which or whose version of thegood life are we advocating? Thus far, positivepsychologists appear to emphasize transhistori-cal, universal strengths (e.g., Dahlsgaard, Peter-

son, & Seligman, 2005; Peterson & Seligman,2004). However, some scholars have questionedwhether definitions of well-being and optimalhuman functioning can ever be divorced from thecultural context in which they arise (e.g., Chris-topher, 1999; Constantine & Sue, 2006). For ex-ample, Constantine and Sue (2006) have ex-pressed the view that constructs such ashappiness, hope, subjective well-being, and self-determination proposed by positive psychologistsrepresent Western standards of optimal function-

ing that are of less relevance to people of color. Inorder for positive therapy to thrive in an increas-ingly diverse society, an examination of howculture influences clients’ and therapists’ concep-tualization of the good life needs to be at theforefront of scholarship and empirical researchon positive therapy.

Concluding Comments on the Future of Positive Therapy

To summarize, I affirm Lopez and Kerr’s(2006) call to let a “thousand flowers bloom” inthe professional practice of positive psychology.My hope is that the growth of positive therapy

Wong

152


3/3

would be characterized by positive therapists’willingness to learn from diverse epistemologicalperspectives, disciplines, and worldviews. Gaz-ing into the proverbial crystal ball, I believe that

positive therapy has a bright future. As positivetherapists and scholars continue to develop, prop-agate, and research effective strengths-basedtherapeutic strategies, the day will come whenpositive therapy is discussed in major psycho-therapy and counseling textbooks, taught in mostgraduate counseling and psychotherapy pro-grams, and regularly practiced by a significantnumber of clinicians.

References

ANDERSON, H. (1997). Conversation, language, and pos- sibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy. NewYork: Basic Books.

BURR, V. (2003). Social constructionism. London: Rout-ledge.

CHRISTOPHER, J. C. (1996). Situating psychological well-being: Exploring the cultural roots of its theory andresearch. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77,141–152.

CONSTANTINE, M. G., & SUE, D. W. (2006). Factors con-tributing to optimal human functioning in people of color in the United States. The Counseling Psycholo-

gist, 34, 228–244.

DAHLSGAARD, K., PETERSON, C., & SELIGMAN, M. E. P.(2005). Shared virtue: The convergence of valued hu-man strengths across culture and history. Review of General Psychology, 9, 203–213.

DE SHAZER, S., & BERG, I. K. (1992). Doing therapy: A

post-structural re-vision. Journal of Marital and FamilyTherapy, 18, 71–81.

GABLE, S. L., & HAIDT, J. (2005). What (and why) ispositive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9,103–110.

LOPEZ, S. J., FLOYD, R. K., ULVEN, J. C., & SNYDER, C. R.(2000). Hope therapy: Helping clients build a house of hope. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Handbook of hope: The-ory, measures, and interventions (pp. 123–150). San Di-ego: Academic Press.

LOPEZ, S. J. , & KERR, B. A. (2006). An open sourceapproach to creating positive psychological practice: Acomment on Wong’s Strength-Centered Therapy. Psy-

chotherapy, 43, 147–150.PETERSON, C., & SELIGMAN, M. E. P. (2004). Character

strengths and virtues: A classification and handbook.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.SELIGMAN, M. E. P. (2002). Positive psychology, positive

prevention, and positive therapy. In C. R. Snyder &S. J. Lopez (Eds.) Handbook of Positive Psychology.(pp. 3–9). New York: Oxford University Press.

WHITE, M., & EPSTON, D. (1990). Narrative means totherapeutic ends. New York: Norton.

WONG, Y. J. (2006). Strength-centered therapy: A socialconstructionist, virtues-based psychotherapy. Psycho-therapy, 43, 133–146.

Future of Positive Therapy

153

wong 2006b[1]future of positive therapy

Documents