It’s tempting for a Philosophical Counselor to use the Socratic Method. After all, it was Socrates who set so many of us on the quest to live the examined life. As it turns out, though, an alternative approach to dialogue may be better suited to helping others examine themselves in therapy.
The Socratic Method sometimes poses questions with a gotcha mentality, like an investigative reporter or a prosecutor cross-examining a witness. Socrates would often start with seemingly easy, softball questions and then gradually lead his discussion partner into making a clear mistake or contradiction. Witnessing this must have been thrilling, as it is thrilling to read fictionalized examples of Socrates practicing the method in Plato’s dialogues. Certainly, it is thrilling to watch in a courtroom drama, whether real or fictional.
Socrates took down a lot of know-it-alls in ancient Athens, and everyone loves to see a know-it-all get their comeuppance. Plato and other young men followed Socrates around the city and imitated him. But we all know how the story ends. Socrates is executed and becomes a martyr to the cause of free inquiry.
Socrates deserves all the fame and acclaim he garnered. What is so admirable about Socrates is his willingness to ask questions, speak truth to power, and die for his way of life. Less admirable, and perhaps dubious, is his approach.
Socrates professed not to know the answers to the questions he posed regarding the nature of virtue, piety, justice, and so on. We should probably take him at his word that he did not know the ultimate answer to, for example, the question “What is virtue?” But it is clear that he did know what some of the wrong answers were, and he was ready to expose those and the people who unthinkingly clung to them.
Socrates was ultimately well-meaning, but his conversational style couldn’t help but put most people on the defensive and leave them resentful after feeling the sting of the gadfly. Perhaps a philosopher should be ready to engage in such verbal combat and be glad to concede defeat for the greater good of pursuing the truth, admitting when and what one does not know. But most philosophers I know don’t do this very well or often, myself included.
The conversational style of Socrates has been enormously influential, well beyond the world of philosophers. It has even had its place in therapy, particularly for the purposes of getting a person who is stuck in denial to deal with their issues. Such confrontation can have the opposite of its desired effect, however. Most people who seek, or are sent to, counseling are ambivalent about their problems. They have mixed thoughts and feelings. Rare is the person in complete denial.
Motivational interviewing, as pioneered by Miller and Rollnick, is a better alternative for the ambivalent person. In this form of dialogue, the counselor reflects answers in a way that leads the person to continue the conversation. If the person says, “I don’t really have a problem with alcohol,” the counselor could respond reflectively, “Alcohol never causes you any issues.” Notice the difference between the preceding statement and its question form, “Alcohol never causes you any issues?” The question form is likely to put the person on the defensive and double down, saying something like, “That’s right, I’m fine. I just wish people would get off my back.”
The original statement, “I don’t really have a problem with alcohol,” signals the person’s ambivalence with the word really. By responding without irony or sarcasm with the statement “Alcohol never causes you any issues,” the counselor continues the paragraph and is likely to elicit a response that draws out the person’s ambivalence.
Perhaps the person would respond, “I didn’t say it doesn’t cause me any issues. It’s just not a big deal.” The counselor might respond with a reflective statement like, “Alcohol is nothing to worry about for you.” Again, we can expect the ambivalent adult to reply with a nuanced development to continue the conversation. This may seem slow going, but it is likely to build trust and rapport and lead to progress.
The counselor will get to asking questions, but these will be open questions. For example, if the person says, “Sometimes I worry because my kids stay away when I’m drinking,” this statement indicates a desire for change. So the counselor might ask an open question, such as, “How do the kids stay away?” The person might respond, “Well, like my son won’t watch the football game with me when I’m drinking.” The counselor might respond with the statement, “You’d really like to watch the football games with your son,” to which the person will agree. The counselor could then ask the open question, “What would you be willing to do to get your son to watch the football game?”
Of course, the dialogue would continue from there, and obviously, no easy solutions would come quickly.
Part of the beauty of motivational interviewing is that it can be employed with any number of therapeutic approaches. Philosophical Counselors, though, could particularly benefit from it as an alternative to the Socratic Method in both counseling sessions and philosophical conversations.
