When I listened to this today, I was really hit by when you were discussing the hesitancy to define GT… I realized that Geek Therapy, to me, is more of a theoretical orientation of its own, not as much a specific intervention! I feel like it’s a way of mind, integrating new and differing cultural element of connectedness and truly aiming to hear one another. It also allows for a different type of clinical and social exchange, almost like a pressure valve of belonging and levity in tough situations. Whether techniques are metaphorical, layer on top of other styles, or interventions new to this type of movement, it really seems like a philosophy that brings us together. I’ve also said many times that it’s my responsibility to care about what they’re into and that they’re the expert of them. I also was thinking hard about how we have systemically supported other therapy techniques vs. other theoretical orientations, and that TO research is way more open than technique-based research. I think it’s certainly possible to research - just finding ways that are either inclusive of the individual techniques (and will probably take a VERY long time to do) or inclusive of a solid approach embraced by a group of clinicians (whether mental health pros or otherwise! ) I do wonder about the span of TOs in the community and if we have overlap, or if we’re more of an ecclectic group. (my hunch is the latter)! FWIW, I tend to identify as a post-modern (geek) feminist social constructionist.
EDIT - Just went to the logotherapy discussion, I’m so behind!