Abstract

Abstract This article discusses the epistemological biases and therapeutic risks of overly-medicalized and deterministic approaches to women's psychological problems. Constructivist and feminist perspectives are used to illuminate the essentially political enterprise of naming psychological distress, and to argue the necessity of feminist theories of psychotherapy. These too, however, must be critically examined for deterministic assumptions which emphasize pathology or victimization, thereby limiting recognition of women's agency, and capacity for resistance and change. One alternative model is Adler's Individual Psychology. This humanistic approach is neither medicalized nor deterministic, assumes human freedom and pur-posefulness, emphasizes the dialectic interaction of the individual and society, and is philosophically committed to gender equality.