Difference Between AOP And CBT

When comparing AOP and CBT, it is clear that their different foci can be points of tension for practitioners who want to use both theories to inform their practice. Firstly, it can be frustrating for practitioners with an AOP orientation to use CBT because they will be acutely aware of the fact that simply changing one’s thoughts will not change the environment that he or she is in, even though it may be the positionality of the client that is causing or significantly contributing to his or her presenting symptoms. Another potentially problematic difference between CBT and AOP is that if an individual is not aware that their dysfunctional thoughts are partially due to the multiple oppressions that they face, then making them aware of this information
Specifically, in the AOP literature, there is little focus on how AOP should inform practice at the micro level; conversely, CBT is focused at the micro level (Brennan, 2015). However, because they are so different, they can complement each other, to enhance one’s social work practice. Firstly, through CBT, practitioners can become aware of certain thoughts or beliefs that clients hold that may originate from that person’s social location. This information can be used as a point of political advocacy, since the practitioner will have gained a better understanding of how various oppressions or positions of power affect a person’s beliefs about the world and how society will either protect or marginalize them. Secondly, CBT shows the universality of oppression, and how every form of oppression can lead to dysfunctional thoughts or beliefs, which can negatively impact one’s life. CBT can help individuals striving to work from an AOP framework to see how various forms of oppression affect different individuals in similarly negative ways, depending on the specific circumstance; this makes clear to these practitioners the importance of a genuine AOP model, where all forms of oppression are considered equally
Practitioners who work from an AOP model believe that one cannot address a clinical diagnosis without also addressing the social determinants of metal health (Baines, 2011). Thus, if a Black lesbian woman presents to her practitioner with a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder, a practitioner using AOP would explore whether her anxiety is linked to fears of violence, marginalization, or exploitation. Then, that practitioner would work towards creating social change to eliminate these forms of oppression, while also treating the client individually. AOP believes that many negative mental health symptoms are at least partially caused by the different forms of oppression that the client is facing; thus, these clinical diagnoses are not necessarily meaningful. Conversely, CBT believes that “psychological problems are at one end of a continuum, not in a different dimension altogether” (Westbrook et al., 2011). For example, someone with “clinical depression” has the same kind of depression as a person who feels down sometimes, but they have a more extreme version, which needs to be worked through in order for the person to function optimally. Thus, AOP and CBT may be compatible because they both believe that many mental health issues can be resolved without the use of medication or