Ethical Considerations
One major scenario in which contextual therapy seems to break down is in the context of significant divergence between a family’s agreement of what is ethical between them and the mores of the society in which they live. For example, in the context of an abusive relationship in which all partners feel that the behavior is acceptable and livable, should a therapist intervene with their own moral judgments? Should a scapegoated child who feels that they deserve the punishment be left alone if the entire family agrees on the arrangement? Should anything consensual be allowed to persist? Fowers and Wenger (1997) ask these questions, and posit that therapists should take moral positions. They believe that Nagy does not go far enough and allows his strongest claims to be muddied by postmodern desires to not make a moral dictum. Nagy counters that they misunderstand his theory and have extended therapists goals to preserving justice among family members, which is many times impossible (Boszormanyi-Nagy, 1997). He sees the therapist going beyond neutrality with multidirectional partiality and believes that this fosters the negotiation necessary for clients to come to a place of trust. He does re-affirm his belief in protecting children, and that children are entitled to a relationship with their …show more content…
This allows for greater cultural competency within the theory, as the client’s worldview and values are the only values that have any weight within the therapeutic endeavor. This may leave therapists in a place where the ethical thing to do might hinder the most beneficial process of family trust and loyalty. If families are engaging in harmful behavior, therapists may find it difficult to theoretically justify imposing any external values on the clients. (Bozsormanyi-Nagy, 1997; Fowers & Wenger,
One major scenario in which contextual therapy seems to break down is in the context of significant divergence between a family’s agreement of what is ethical between them and the mores of the society in which they live. For example, in the context of an abusive relationship in which all partners feel that the behavior is acceptable and livable, should a therapist intervene with their own moral judgments? Should a scapegoated child who feels that they deserve the punishment be left alone if the entire family agrees on the arrangement? Should anything consensual be allowed to persist? Fowers and Wenger (1997) ask these questions, and posit that therapists should take moral positions. They believe that Nagy does not go far enough and allows his strongest claims to be muddied by postmodern desires to not make a moral dictum. Nagy counters that they misunderstand his theory and have extended therapists goals to preserving justice among family members, which is many times impossible (Boszormanyi-Nagy, 1997). He sees the therapist going beyond neutrality with multidirectional partiality and believes that this fosters the negotiation necessary for clients to come to a place of trust. He does re-affirm his belief in protecting children, and that children are entitled to a relationship with their …show more content…
This allows for greater cultural competency within the theory, as the client’s worldview and values are the only values that have any weight within the therapeutic endeavor. This may leave therapists in a place where the ethical thing to do might hinder the most beneficial process of family trust and loyalty. If families are engaging in harmful behavior, therapists may find it difficult to theoretically justify imposing any external values on the clients. (Bozsormanyi-Nagy, 1997; Fowers & Wenger,