Wendt Dennis C, Gone Joseph P, Nagata Donna K
Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.
Couns Psychol. 2015 Apr;43(3):334-358. doi: 10.1177/0011000014548280.
In recent years psychologists have been increasingly concerned about potentially harmful therapy, yet this recent discourse has not addressed issues that have long been voiced by the multicultural counseling and psychotherapy movement. We aim to begin to bring these seemingly disparate discourses of harm into greater conversation with one another, in the service of placing the discipline on a firmer foothold in its considerations of potentially harmful therapy. After reviewing the two discourses and exploring reasons for their divergence, we argue that they operate according to differing assumptions pertaining to the sources, objects, and scope of harm. We then argue that these differences reveal the discipline's need to better appreciate that harm is a social construct, that psychotherapy may be inherently ethnocentric, and that strategies for collecting evidence of harm should be integrated with a social justice agenda.
近年来，心理学家越来越关注潜在有害的治疗方法，然而，最近的这一讨论并未涉及多元文化咨询与心理治疗运动长期以来所提出的问题。我们旨在开始让这些看似不同的关于伤害的讨论更多地相互交流，以便使该学科在考虑潜在有害治疗方法时能有更坚实的基础。在回顾了这两种讨论并探究了它们产生分歧的原因后，我们认为它们是基于关于伤害的来源、对象和范围的不同假设而运作的。然后我们认为，这些差异表明该学科需要更好地认识到伤害是一种社会建构，心理治疗可能本质上是以民族为中心的，并且收集伤害证据的策略应与社会正义议程相结合。
