Social interest is alive and well and permeates the pages of this issue. The contributors were all concerned, first and foremost, with dialogue, exploration, integration, reflection, and forward movement. A definite spirit pervaded the papers of these authors: "Let us seriously consider how we can use each other's theories and constructs to further enhance our psychological understanding." That spirit made this a refreshing set of papers to read. It was nice to not be confronted with protectionism, "theoretical blindness," and do or die allegiance, characteristics that have been known to and still do exist in some of the psychotherapy literature. But with that said, what can we say about these four papers? After going over them, I asked myself, "What are the main points that the authors are making?" To help me answer that question, I decided to put my understandings into table form. The main points of these papers (as I see them), then, are presented in Tables 1 through 4. If nothing else, perhaps those can serve as a quick summary resource that complements the four papers themselves. As those tables show, while each theory has some measure of uniqueness, much similarity can be found across cognitive, constructivist, and Adlerian camps-for example, in terms of (a) the relatively synonymous concepts schemas, core constructs, and life style, (b) the collaborative, cooperative nature of the therapeutic relationship, and (c) their tendency to use a variety of cognitive and behavioral techniques in psychotherapy. As the tables also show, we can all learn from each other, using the other theories to extend and stretch out our own conceptualizations. Any theory and therapy must be thought of as an open system, constantly subject to scrutiny and open to revision (Patterson & Watkins, 1996). For instance, in recent years, some prominent Adlerians (e.g., Carlson, 1989) have urged, even exhorted, the Adlerian community to go "beyond Adler," "to modify Adlerian ideas to today's tough issues, issues that did not exist in the 1920s" (p. 413; cf. Hartshorne, 1991; Huber, 1991). Such ideas only get modified through dialogue, scrutiny, pushing the envelope, stretching the boundaries. If we are to go beyond Adler, if we are to go beyond the current state of cognitive and constructivist thought, then we must continue to be open to change and dialogue. Any good theory should serve as an anchor; however, it should not so anchor us that we drown (Karasu, 1992). Sometimes we need to raise anchor, chart new waters, or polish up that which becomes rusty or tarnished over time. The sort of dialogue we have here is constructive, progressive, and I think, serves as a useful model of theoretic evaluation and reevaluation for us all to follow. In the spirit of social interest, let the dialogues continue! [Sidebar] Table l.Some Similarities Between Cognitive and Adlerian Theory and Therapy 1. The cognitive concept "schema" and Adlerian concept "life style" can be thought of as synonymous terms. 2. Cognitive therapists strive to establish a therapeutic relationship grounded in collaborative empiricism; Adlerians strive to establish a therapeutic relationship grounded in cooperation. 3. Cognitive therapists "desensitize" problematic cognitions; Adlerians in incremental, step by step fashion "defuse" neurotic safeguarding. 4. Cognitive and Adlerian therapists (a) share a conceptual framework that focuses on understanding the client's "rules of life," (b) help clients examine how they construe the world and experiment with new ways of responding, and (c) share a similar conception of the stages and goals of the therapeutic process itself. Table 2. Some of What the Cognitive and Adlerian Camps Have to Offer Each Other On the Cognitive Side 1. Treatment protocols developed by cognitive therapists could be useful in enhancing Adlerian therapists' practice. …
Read full abstract