Paradox as Epistemological Jump

Abstract

Recent articles on paradoxical interventions tend to view them as something given by a therapist to a patient, thus unintentionally adopting a unidirectional view of causality and an outmoded epistemology. It is postulated that change takes place in the context of a patient-therapist relationship and that when that relationship becomes paradoxical it becomes more difficult for the patient to view himself as a reified "thing." Paradox effects change, then, by altering the meaning of experience and modifying epistemological assumptions.

Clinical psychologists' views of the acceptability of paradoxical techniques.

“…Based upon an accumulation of clinical case reports (Stanton, 1981) and treatment outcome studies (Hill,1987;Shoham-Salomon&Rosenthal, 1987;Strong, 1984), there is little doubt that paradoxical techniques (PTs) such as symptom prescription, refraining, and restraining can be effective for treating many types of presenting problems. 1 Unfortunately, the variety of theoretical 1 Although several authors have questioned the appropriateness of the label paradoxical to describe these techniques (e.g., Dell, 1986;Hunsley, 1988;Rosenbaum, 1982), this label is used in the present article in order to provide continuity with previous work in the field.…”

“…1Although several authors have questioned the appropriateness of the label paradoxical to describe these techniques (e.g., Dell, 1986; Hunsley, 1988; Rosenbaum, 1982), this label is used in the present article in order to provide continuity with previous work in the field.…”

Integrating Self and System: An Empty Intersection?

“…When integrating self and systems, family therapists may find Buddhist logic, which does not function with the Aristotelian “rule of the excluded middle,” consonant with both their clinical experience and ecosystemic epistemology, since it represents an approach to the world which, in the language of de Shazer (1985), is fundamentally “both‐and” rather than “either/or.” Furthermore, clinicians familiar with paradoxical interventions are already comfortable binding together apparent “opposites.” The power of paradoxical interventions lies not in that they do something “to” a client, but rather that they embody a fundamental truth: in the actuality of experience, self‐identity not only tolerates, but actually embraces the apparent contradiction of being both self and other simultaneously (Rosenbaum, 1982, 1990, 1993b; Rosenbaum et al, 1990). This dynamic interchange of oneness and separateness is expressed pithily by the Sandokai of Zen master Sekito Kisen Daiosho: 4…”

Paradoxical intention strategies: A review of rationales.

“…Symptom prescription gives the patient an opportunity to recognize, evaluate and change (or accept) his own behavior, and this can be done consciously, or outside conscious awareness (1980a, p. 22). Rosenbaum (1982), rather like Haley, sees the paradoxical task in the therapeutic relationship itself. The therapist is both powerful and impotent, charlatan and sage, "consistently inconsistent."…”