With the exception of the language of humanism, the counseling profession has historically been dominated by complex, technical descriptors.
Folksy and relational, the humanistic lexicon is a striking departure from the technical descriptors of psychoanalysis and behaviorism.
DSM-III; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1980; Mayes & Horwitz, 2005) and the rise of biological psychiatry (Murray, 2009; Shorter, 1997), the language of helping again became flooded with technical descriptors.
Although these dominant technical lexicons have virtually no utility for depicting the relational factors of counseling, technical descriptors must have some type of utility; otherwise, they would not have dominated the history of the helping professions.
Again, however, the former, technical way of describing counseling has dominated mental health culture for over a century, a trend indicating that technical descriptors must have some utility (otherwise, they would not have become dominant).
I maintain that the utility of these technical descriptors is in their ability to increase the power, prestige, and financial status of the helping professions.