Why do we still call them "paradoxes"?

Area of Science:

• Psychology
• Philosophy of Science
• Systems Theory

Background:

• Therapists frequently label certain events as "paradoxical."
• This labeling suggests limitations in current psychological theories to adequately explain these phenomena.
• A persistent belief in objectivity can create a paradoxical aura around these events, leading to confusion.

Purpose of the Study:

• To explore the implications of therapeutic paradoxes.
• To propose an alternative framework for understanding these phenomena.
• To re-evaluate problematic theoretical concepts within psychotherapy.

Main Methods:

• Utilizing the theoretical concepts of Humberto Maturana, including structure determinism, instructive interaction, and phenomenal domains.
• Analyzing the status of common theoretical concepts such as communication, information, resistance, homeostasis, and pathology.
• Examining the experiential validity of instructive interaction in the domain of theory and explanation.

Main Results:

• The concept of "paradoxical" events in therapy indicates a deficit in existing theoretical models.
• A belief in objectivity contributes to the enigmatic nature of therapeutic paradoxes.
• Maturana's ideas provide a lens to reframe these difficulties and conceptualize therapeutic phenomena.

Conclusions:

• The frequent use of "paradoxical" in therapy underscores the need for theoretical advancement.
• Instructive interaction, while valid experientially, is inappropriately applied to the domain of theory and explanation.
• Reframing therapeutic phenomena through Maturana's concepts can resolve conceptual confusion and enhance theoretical understanding.