Ray McKinnis

When a psychotherapist claims to be 95% effective, he gets my attention. When I further learn that that ‘effectiveness’ is not merely an increase in scores on some survey or ‘paper and pencil’ measure but in lives saved, I read further. George Kohlrieser is 95% effective in getting hostage takers to release their hostages alive. He does this through ‘counseling’ the hostage taker to change! This is truly short-term, strategic therapy in its most effective form. In his book, Hostage at the Table, he distills out the basic, powerful techniques he has developed as a hostage negotiator and presents them for us all to use. Although the cover mentions the book is for leaders and managers, I would, if I could, require every counselor to read it.

Last week I had my annual physical. I went to a doctor I hadn’t seen before. He was one of the best doctors I have ever encountered. Two aspects of his manner are especially relevant to counselors: 1. He listened to me and took me seriously, but 2. He was not interested in ‘archeology’ but present conditions and concerns. Both of these were so surprising to me, so helpful and so ‘on target’ that I trusted the feedback and recommendations he gave me. I felt he understood me; not some medical model of a typical patient. So when he suggested I might follow-up on this or that condition, I took him seriously and will follow-up.

No wonder the clash between Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan is so confusing. Each seems to be using a different metaphor in their moral thinking. (See my blog 2 weeks ago or, better yet, H. Richard Niebuhr’s The Responsible Self’.) For the most part, Kohlberg uses ‘man-the-lawmaker’ to guide his description of the development of moral consciousness—justice and the order of community are two of his driving ideas. This metaphor requires answers to these three questions: 1. What is the law governing this situation? 2. What authority requires obedience to this law? and 3. What is the punishment for disobeying this law? Even in stage 3 when he talks about good motives and intentions, man-the-lawmaker is being followed because these are an important part of determining punishment in any court of law. This stage and further stages note that it is human beings who make and enforce the rules and that human beings are not as rigid as the legalist morals might imply. Justice has a human side.

In my last blog, I described the 3 metaphors that are most often used in discussions of morals and ethics. Unfortunately these are usually used without any awareness of their being used. When I first read the ACA Code of Ethics, I was confused. Now I know why. It uses a mixture of these 3 metaphors seemingly without any awareness of their implications. I hope by sharing my ‘aha’ experiences with this code, you too can get a clearer understanding of what its various section imply.

All moral decisions use some metaphor to explain and justify those decisions. That is, all discussions of morality use a particular guiding ‘metaphor’ to make sense of what’s happing and how to respond responsibly to what’s happening. One aspect of human behavior is used to explain moral decisions (a kind of synecdoche). The ‘the Thou shalts’ and ‘Thou shalt nots’ are embedded in a particular context determined by that metaphor. The metaphor you choose determines the course of your discussion. These metaphors both offer opportunities for understanding behavior but also can create a kind of prison—a prison that can be escaped only by choosing a different metaphor.