Abstract
There has been a great deal of controversy over Barbara Held's use of the term "antirealism" in her now popular critique of postmodern therapy. Many of her respondents have rejected this label, claiming that it restricts the debate and oversimplifies their position. Recognizing that this is so, I nevertheless accept Held's term as a useful signifier of the epistemological framework of postmodern therapy, and, thus, challenge her critique on its own grounds. I argue that Held's critique of this epistemological approach, in fact, misses the epistemological point, targeting ontological issues where there are none, and misinterpreting the original aim behind the shift to epistemological antirealism. It is Held's contention that the antirealist turn aimed at "maximizing individuality" in therapy - a goal which can and should be achieved through realism. Her justification for the latter is a supposed "oscillation" between realism and antirealism in the theory of this movement. To the contrary, l suggest that the aim of this epistemological shift was the resolution of strictly epistemological problems, and that the oscillation that Held identifies is the product of her own conflation of epistemological and ontological issues.