There has been considerable discussion about postmodernism being a negative
approach to philosophical thought: that it positions itself as the iconoclast, the
slayer of metanarratives and structuralist posturings. And so it is said that it has
left itself open to the criticism that postmodern thinking is not positive, because
by stating that there is no Truth, nor Rule, we are doomed to be in a no-man's land
where people cannot settle into the comfort of knowing. Critics are fearful that
this leads to an absence of commitment ideals such as Beauty and Justice.

But I would argue that postmodernism has always been with us.  Skepticism towards metanarratives, rules, and totalizing beliefs has been part of the human creative path for as long as humans have kept records. This is most evident in the field of art. In this seemingly most creative version of expressionism, art was for centuries hidebound by various rules and dictums and discourses as to what was considered by 'experts' to be good art . Then some individual artist, a maverick, would dare to step outside of the rules. So we see a Rembrandt introducing golden glows, the impressionists who made 'impressions' with colour, Van Gogh,  the totally untutored Rousseau, Kandinsky, and many others, stepping outside the rules of their day

Invariably their artwork was met with shock and horror until they realized that the people who don't set the rules were enjoying this new art. This tradition has continued up to our day. I recall some years ago, when some upstart young black lad from Haiti was doing huge graffiti art in the subways and brick walls in New York....that's not art they cried. But Andy Warhol for one recognized that this was genius and lent his support. Today none of us could afford any of Basquiart's paintings, because now, the people who dictate what is art accept that graffiti art is art. But at the time, when he was doing it, he was both oblivious and indifferent to  what anyone thought of him or whether it was 'art' (sadly, he was a shooting star, made heaps of money and died of drugs at a young age). Many of our finest artists never went to art school. These maverick artists were not setting out to be negative and they contributed their creative genius to the world by ignoring the current discourse, and moving past it to embrace novel approaches and ideas in their work.

And I would venture to say that many of our best therapists never did a psychology or social work degree either. The art schools insist that one has to go to art school and learn art history, and how to draw, and learn the discourse before one can go out and be truly creative, etc. but there is no evidence for this.  This belief simply supports art schools and museum directors, etc.  The same is true for many of the great creative ideas and inventions that we know about: not all of them were inspired by throwing off training wheels (although many are).  Art schools and postgraduate education provide one context in which to grow, little more.

If the modernism of our field of therapy were to finally implode on itself, would a new breed of therapists emerge? Will these be people tuned into process, into co-creative exploration, rather than being trained in procedures and prescriptions, who similarly need not concern themselves about what self-proclaimed experts feel is "good therapy"? Will some of them not become wonderful therapists without the training wheels- the Basquiarts of therapy? What I am getting at with all this is that I feel postmodernism is a reflection of this ancient creative force in humanity that steps outside of rules and moves on. I feel it will be a leveling and humbling influence on all those guild-focused, rule -bound folks who dominate training and certification, and in that way I sense enormous positivity.