Re: Constructivism and Postmodernism
 

Dear colleague:

What he/she says of the innovations in the adlerian psychotherapy in the line of texts like: Oberst and Stewart: Adlerian Psychotherapy. An Advanced Approach Individual to Psychology. Brunner Routledge, 2003; where he/she intends a adlerian-constructivism and postmodern renovations? :)

Re: Constructivism and Postmodernism
 

Your question is not clear, perhaps because it was originally composed in another language, and then translated into English online. However, I find it curious that Oberst and Stewart use the term"Classical Adlerian" without referencing an appropriate, accurate source and base many of their conclusions about Adlerian Psychology on the ideas of Rudolf Dreikurs, instead of Alfred Adler. This misleading mistake has also appeared in many other academic texts.

Re: Constructivism and Postmodernism
 

My English is poor

Thank you for their kind answer.

1-The chapter of Oberst and Steward Classical Adlerian Psychology is related with Dreikurs? . I have my doubts.

2-My question: Differences among a classic and other but current focus (p.e adlerian-postmodern)?

Re: Constructivism and Postmodernism
 

The Oberst/Stewart chapter on "Classical Adlerian Psychology" makes no reference to the current practice using that name and its commmitment to Adler's original teachings and style of treatment, as well as an integration with Maslow's vision of optimal functioning (see http://http://go.ourworld.nu/hstein/). In their chapter "Adlerian Counseling and Psychology Today," they do reflect Dreikurs' ideas about psychotherapy (four phases) but omit any reference to the Classical Adlerian model of twelve stages (see http://go.ourworld.nu/hstein/theorprac.htm). There are significant differences between the Classical and Dreikrusian approaches to psychotherapy: the Classical approach is diplomatic, Socratic, and creative, whereas the Dreikursian approach is more directive, didactic and systematic. Although many other approaches have developed modest parallels to Adler's theory, none have adopted his constructs of a fictional final goal, or the feeling of community. For many, these ideas may be too challenging.

Re: Constructivism and Postmodernism
 

Thank you again

I sit down to differ with some of their statements; since if it is certain in the book of Oberst and Stewart:

1-if it picks up the social interest and their relationship with the ethics (I surrender 7).

2-He/she 2-has a focus adlerian-postmodernism; picking up, if it is certain, the contributions of Adler and Dreikurs.

3-The contributions of Maslow are in the I surrender 6 of Oberst and Stewart.

4-Questions the excessively directive approach and it defends approach diplomatic, Socratic, and creative and it defends the attitude deconstructionist (I surrender 7).

I would like to know that advantages observe in the classic focus on other but current; and their opinion on the approaches adlerian-constructivism

Re: Constructivism and Postmodernism
 

Due to the complexity of the topics and the apparent language barrier, this discussion has become progressively puzzling to pursue. Perhaps someone else in the forum is more tuned in to your questions and the subjects of postmodernism and constructivism.

Re: Constructivism and Postmodernism
 

Thank you for their time and dedication

Re: Constructivism and Postmodernism
 

There are some links to Adlerian principals the postmodern group of psychotherapies in particular Motivational Interviewing and Solution Focused therapy. An article outlining some links is:

Watts, R. E., & Pietrzak, D. (2000). Adlerian "encouragement" and the therapeutic process of solution-focused brief therapy. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 442-447.

I also think some of the style and attitudes of Dialectical Behavioral Therapy mesh quite well with Adlerian Philosophy. In particular the Socratic approach and the idea of pulling oposites to the center.

Perhaps this will help.

Craig Tucker

PS. It has been about a year since I have visited this site. I like very much the changes. The old format with rather difficult to navigate. I will stop by some more now. Thank you for the nice work and generosity.

Re: Constructivism and Postmodernism
 

Because of language difficulties, I can not determine what Juan Jose Riuz Sanchez means philosophically by the terms "post modernism" or "constructivism". The terms do not seem to be being used in the normal sense they hold philosophically. Can anyone who has read the refered to text tell me to what he refers? Thanks.

Psicología adleriana clásica y actual
 

Voy a utilizar el lenguaje español y ustedes lo traducen como deseen:

1-Existen diferencias entre la PsicologÃÂ*a Adleriana Clásica y la PsicologÃÂ*a Adleriana más actual

PsicologÃÂ*a Adleriana Clásica (p.e Stein) =/= PsicologÃÂ*a Adleriana Actual (p.e Stewart y Oberst)

2-La PsicologÃÂ*a Adleriana actual vá mas allá de los conceptos clásicos e incorpora métodos y conceptos de otras teorias psicológicas : cognitivas, constructivistas e integradoras.

3-La aportación de Dreikurs es tan adleriana como la de Stein, y nadie puede apropiarse la identidad adleriana. ¿Dreikurs es adleriano?, si.

Gracias. :o

Diversity
 

Does it exist alone a single form of making adlerian psychology ?. !No!

-Classic (Stein...)

-Neoadlerian (Dreikurs...)

-Constructivims (Stewart and Oberst...)

-Etc. :D

Adlerian Web in Spanish
 

http://www.cop.es/colegiados/GR00724/adler/ADLER.html

and...or

http://perso.wanadoo.es/kunkel/adler/ADLER.html

Moderator's note: Caution! The second URL appears to be infected with a "Trojan horse" virus. My anti-virus program alerted me to this possibility.

Re: Constructivism and Postmodernism
 

Sr Sánchez, tal vez pueda yo ayudarle. Si quiere enviarme sus prequntas, es posible que pueda responder en español.... Steve Slavik sslavik@telus.net

Para el señor Sslavik
 

Estimado colega Sslavik:

Mas que formular preguntas lo que he expuesto son afirmaciones:

1º-Hay distintos enfoques de la psicologÃÂ*a adleriana; al menos 2 predominantes: El clásico (expuesto magistralmente por Stein) y otros que combinan aspectos de la psicologÃÂ*a adleriana con otros enfoques (p.e cognitivo y constructivista)

2º-Nadie tiene la patente de legitimidad adleriana, y el enfoque de Dreikurs es tan adleriano, por poner un ejemplo, como el presentando por Stein.

3º-En resumen hay diversidad en los enfoques adlerianos; aunque hay una referencia común (la obra de A. Adler) y varios conceptos claves comunes como por ejemplo : estilo de vida, la idea de totalidad, finalidad, unicidad y sentimiento comunitario. ;)

Re: Constructivism and Postmodernism
 

Sr Sánchez, tiene razon en todas sus ideas, pero a lo mejor no tiene el foro correcto aquÃÂ* para promulgarlas, especialmente en español. Por favor, escrÃÂ*bame directamente y podemos discutirlas en detalle y cuando tenemos tiempo.... Steve Slavik

Es posible que sea como dice usted
 

Es posible, puede que lleve usted razón. :cool:

Re: Constructivism and Postmodernism
 

I am looking for resources that discuss similarities and differences between Adlerian and constructivist approaches. I found only a few. will you please add to the list if you know more resources. thanks

Watts, R. E. (2003). Adlerian, cognitive, and constructivist therapies: An integrative dialogue. [publisher: Springer Publishing Co.]

Watts R. E. (2003). Adlerian therapy as a relational constructivist approach. The family journal, vol 11, No. 2, 139-147

Scott, C. N., Kelly, F. D., & Tolbert, B. L. (1995). Realism, constructivism, and the Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler. Individual Psychology, Vol.51, No.1, 4-20

Master, S. B. (1991). constructivism and the creative power of the self. Individual Psychology, Vol. 47, No. 4, 447-455

Re: Constructivism and Postmodernism
 

Note on this discussion about Classical Adlerian Therapy and the Dreikursian interpretation of it.
As far as I understand Adler from his direct German writings he was very direct in pinpointing the issue. So I do not readily believe that he was so very diplomatic and Socratic all the time. He could really show directly the way that parents had to go in their approach.
Reading him I get the feeling that he must have been a warm person with a true interest in his clients. I am sure that Adler would have loved to discuss his views with all his followers, and I am pretty sure that he would have embraced these different views. He was a man of movement. Life is movement. So I am very very sure that he was not a man that had a dogmatic view about how to help and educate his clients. Not only life is movement, but also ideas and interpretations are alive and in motion.
Adler is dead. We do not know how he would have developed if he would have lived longer. But I am sure that his views today would have been different from the views he had short before his death in 1937.
Sometimes I have the idea that there are followers that strongly believe in the "Adler from before 1920" where there are others who only want to embrace the "Adler from the 20'ies till his death".

Paul Miedema

Puede que así sea
 

Es posible que usted lleve razón y este quizás no sea el foro correcto para exponer estas ideas; y también es posible todo lo contrario. Como decia Adler, las cosas simpre pueden ser de otra manera (alternatuvismo constructivista anterior al mismo Kelly) :)