The client(s) and practitioner work towards a holistic understanding of the problem together. We move away from pathology because, really, who has actually treated the pathology or even cured it from a medical standpoint? Pathology is useless unless you're a behavioralist or a cognitive-behavioralist who looks at behavioral and emotional symptoms and could at best yield a short-term relief. If you look at research on pathology/symptom based cognitive-behavioral type therapy, the effect size is very small, meaning the overall effect of the treatment was more or less temporary or short-term.
The assumption is that symptoms are a manifestation or consequence of an etiology,which has a deeper, and a deeper, and deeper etiology (going towards more spiritual issues). In order to understand the underlying etiologies of the problem, it would require an extensive understanding of various contexts that a person lives in. Whether this be socioeconomic and political (e.g., poverty, oppression), history of mental illness or trauma or even historical trauma/grief, relational dynamics, systemic understanding of the family... goes on and on.
For some, the first step is to understand what the identified problem was (e.g., ODD or ADHD or substance abuse), how the problem was formulated, who formulated it, why it was formulated, etc. Most people actually get stuck at the behavioral level. They will say they tried everything but nothing worked. Reformulating the problem makes a difference. The identified problem might have been the consequence of a an older problem.
Once you have a more relevant problem to work with, easier to see the person moves away from that stuck place. That's how we recognize that our understanding was more holistic than before.
So back to the point - authoritative authority would be more inclined to collaborate with the clients at every stage, knowing that the client is an expert of their own life, while the practitioner is an expert in treatment process. They would actually address issues like socioeconomic or educational or racial/ethnic/cultural difference between practitioner and client. Boundaries are semipermeable rather than solid. That allows relationships to grow, thus trust and bonding, which is important for some people.
The assumption is that symptoms are a manifestation or consequence of an etiology,which has a deeper, and a deeper, and deeper etiology (going towards more spiritual issues). In order to understand the underlying etiologies of the problem, it would require an extensive understanding of various contexts that a person lives in. Whether this be socioeconomic and political (e.g., poverty, oppression), history of mental illness or trauma or even historical trauma/grief, relational dynamics, systemic understanding of the family... goes on and on.
For some, the first step is to understand what the identified problem was (e.g., ODD or ADHD or substance abuse), how the problem was formulated, who formulated it, why it was formulated, etc. Most people actually get stuck at the behavioral level. They will say they tried everything but nothing worked. Reformulating the problem makes a difference. The identified problem might have been the consequence of a an older problem.
Once you have a more relevant problem to work with, easier to see the person moves away from that stuck place. That's how we recognize that our understanding was more holistic than before.
So back to the point - authoritative authority would be more inclined to collaborate with the clients at every stage, knowing that the client is an expert of their own life, while the practitioner is an expert in treatment process. They would actually address issues like socioeconomic or educational or racial/ethnic/cultural difference between practitioner and client. Boundaries are semipermeable rather than solid. That allows relationships to grow, thus trust and bonding, which is important for some people.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)