How psychologists subvert democratic movement

[reeay]

I understand the different approaches, but I was trying to elicit how legitimate authority would be recognized before treatment (holistic or pathological, effective or otherwise).

Also, for those labeling themselves as "holistic", what constitutes the relative authority in that space? What makes it legitimate? If it simply comes down to a matter of intention, then why do we need authority in the first place?

In other words, at what point do we move completely away from pathology as an effective treatment? I think that has to do with recognition of authority.

Of course, authority is important and it's there every step of the way, no matter what you do, authority begins and ends the process regardless of whether you prefer to focus on pathology or be more context based. You gain legitimacy based on your education, training, degree, license to practice, etc,. My original point was just that power which is implicit in this position of authority requires a good amount of reflection to prevent control and manipulation of others. And who has authority on that? Your supervisor (given authority by an authority/governing board), and your self.