The Theory Behind ACT

 I really enjoyed the readings this week. I know the nature of this class is to review the theoretical backing for some of our common approaches to therapy, but I think it is an essential piece in our development as clinicians that may get overlooked. Before coming to SIU, my only exposure to "ACT" was taking it before entering college. I quickly concluded in the first weeks of being here that the A-C-T and ACT were not the same. However, much of my exposure and knowledge of ACT came from V team discussions that took a very practical approach. I learned the terms diffusion, mindfulness, and self-as context and how they might be implemented, but I did not understand why used them. I have been hesitant to implement any ACT principles within sessions because I felt I couldn't explain the rationale for using them. Therefore, I found these readings very helpful in connecting the dots between applications and the reasoning for those application. 

The readings also took me back to my undergraduate days because one of my minors was in philosophy. The theories discussed were refreshing but equally as difficult to digest. For me, I found myself focused on the idea of Truth (I wished the papers distinguished between Truth and truth). I don't completely agree that Truth is illusionary and I think we are all defined by and chase after a sense of truth (lowercase because it is not ultimate). The papers discuss the importance of objective statements about events, but I don't see how there can be objectivity and no Truth. In general, I believe we are all governed by an ultimate Truth, we just don't really know it or how to define it, and that is why there is a sense of order in the world. Therefore, I don't know if I can fully submit to the ACT idea to encourage clients to "abandon any interest in the literal truth of their thoughts." I think finding a sense of truth provides stability and something to rely on as well as a way to unite with others. In all, I just don't see how we can have science or believe in anything if we don't believe that there is some Truth out there. I don't think we will ever know the full Truth, but our own sense of truth gives us purpose and stability. 

I have found myself having two main stuck points with ACT. First, I didn't fully understand the theoretical backing so I found it hard to implement. Now that I have a bit more of an understanding, I feel better about explaining the rationale. There are many components of ACT that I agree with and I see the utility in. However, this brings me to my second stuck point. I don't know how well ACT would apply in the forensic world. First, based on the readings, it seems to me that ACT assumes a person has prosocial values or values that are at least intended to better themselves or others. I am not sure that all forensic clients would have values we should work toward. I also think ACT requires some abstract and complex thinking. Not to say that justice-involved individuals can't use abstract thinking, but acknowledging that this is a population with low rates of educational experience and usually long histories of drug use. I think it would take just as much time for the clients to understand the concepts as it would for them to submit and practice them, and we don't really have the time for that. Now, of course, I am not an expert nor am I well versed in ACT so I would welcome a case to support the use of it within correctional settings. I can see myself using ACT either directly with the client or in the conceptualization of the client, but I am still hesitant about how it would fit with my career. 

Grade: 25/25