Potentially Harmful Therapy and Multicultural Counseling

Abstract

In this rejoinder, we address three responses to our major contribution in this issue, “Potentially Harmful Therapy and Multicultural Counseling: Bridging Two Disciplinary Discourses.” These responses support our contention that not only are the potentially harmful therapy and multicultural counseling and psychotherapy literatures quite disparate, but that this compartmentalization is a symptom of broad and serious problems in the discipline. We explore further some of the underlying complexities the responding authors have raised, including (a) systemic ways that the current landscape of psychotherapy research maintains the status quo, thereby limiting a desirable integration of the two literatures; (b) complexities associated with multiple aspects of diversity, including the inadequacy of current professional ethical codes and practitioner training for addressing potential harm for disparate and vulnerable populations; and (c) the need for the discipline to articulate collective “goods” (against which conceptions of harm are at least implicitly formulated).