Abstract

Practitioners of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), are faced by real dilemmas when having to take into account the consequences of unequal power relations in society. Whilst a perspective on social power is not new in psychology, its implications for therapeutic practice have yet to be fully worked out. The problem becomes most acute when clinicians have to confront the shortcomings of individually focused therapeutic models in, for example, inner city Community Mental Health Teams (CMHTs), where a majority of clients face real and corrosive adversities in their lives. Exploring the effects of juxtaposing the individually focused school of CBT (Beck, 1976) with one which explicitly focuses on power relations, e.g. in community psychology (Smail, 1997), is one way to shed light on these issues. Attention is drawn to core differences in the perspectives, e.g. the main focus of CBT on idiosyncratic beliefs and the insistence of community psychology on the social structuring of such beliefs. Ways in which real adversity has been discussed within the CBT literature are outlined and a clarified view of the problem presented. A clinical case example is used to illustrate what a focus on social power could add to case formulation in practice. The aim of this process is to assist clinicians in practice to make the best use of the skills they have acquired within a theoretically coherent framework. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.