You can’t do both at the same time. Listen to the client first – it may be that what you learn fits DSM criteria and categories: if so good, if not good.

You talk of “the why’s and how’s of the client”. Perhaps we could say that Etzi adds the “who”, or concentrates on it.

You also say, “she may already see diagnostic criteria but there is always more”. This is part of the art of therapy. When I have someone come in complaining of sleeplessness, lack of interest in her love life, and a reluctance to leave home even for work, it’s easy to say to myself, well, that’s probably depression. It’s harder to just take in that information and stay curious: Who is this person? What is the shape of her life?

The therapist does not know her client upon first meeting. She must therefore, intently set herself on a course of discovery as to the whys and hows of her client. She may already see diagnostic criteria, but there is always more.

The client, however, believes he does not know why things are the way they are and looks to his therapist for answers. What he finds however, is more about himself (self discovery) which in turn leads him to his own therapeutic recovery process.

I hope this answers your question. Thank you for asking.

Regards,
Linda

I like your conclusion very much. For me the heart/soul/important bit of therapy is observing and listening with a kind of compassionate curiosity. Not as an ideal, but as what works.

Psychotherapy, after all, is a process of intentional (human)discovery: for the psychotherapist, clues for treatment; for the client, self actualization.

I’ll check out the model, Peter.

Evan, I agree with you that this is radical, and will re-read the article to see whether Etzi feels the same way. However, there are many therapists who do not put much emphasis on diagnosis (or who, like my therapist, vehemently oppose it).

One literal translation of the Greek-derived word “therapy” is to attend. No diagnosis is needed for that, is it?

Fancy meeting you here. (For others reading this, Isabella and I have met on her own blog.) It seems like a good article but the writer doesn’t seem to understand the radicalism of dealing with a person rather than a case.

If psychotherapist don’t tick off symptoms, then there is no diagnosis. If there is no diagnosis there is no therapy.

What then? The therapist would be another human being (I take it that ‘human phenomena’ are people like you and me). We would have human beings meeting, talking together and trying not to hide perhaps (eg behind roles and checklists). A consummation devoutly to be wished!