Drifting into Ontological Truth Claims

When Clinicians Chase Explanation Over Function

There is a subtle shift that often takes place in clinical work, one that can feel natural and even compassionate, yet moves us away from the core aim of Functional Contextualism. It is the drift from analyzing function in the present moment toward explaining behavior through external factors. Instead of tracking what a behavior or belief is doing for the client here and now, the clinician begins constructing explanations about why the behavior exists and what is true about the world that makes the behavior make sense.

This move often sounds like understanding. It sounds like empathy. Yet it takes our attention away from the transformation of the function of the stimulus, which is where FC locates its primary leverage for prediction and influence. The more we explain, the less we shape.

The Turn Toward External Explanations

This drift usually begins with the search for causes. The clinician begins attributing the client’s present behavior to their upbringing, their biology, their culture, their trauma history, or their stage of life. None of these are irrelevant. They provide important contextual variables. But when used as explanatory endpoints, they do not tell us how the behavior currently functions or how the function might change under different relational or situational conditions.

Consider the statement: “Of course she is anxious, look at how unstable her childhood was.” This may be true in a historical or biographical sense, yet it reveals nothing about how anxiety is currently organized, reinforced, or maintained. It does not tell us whether anxiety is functioning as avoidance, social signaling, self-soothing, protection, or control. It does not guide our next move in the room.

FC is not against context. FC is against context being used as a substitute for function.

How Ontological Drift Masks Function

Ontological truth claims enter subtly. They show up as statements about how the world is or how people are. “People that age crave stability.” “Children need both parents.” “Forgiveness brings healing.” These statements are presented as truths that exist independently of context, and they carry with them a sense of correctness or authority.

Yet from an FC lens, they are largely uninformative. They do not enrich our functional analysis. They shift the conversation from “What does this belief or action do for the client?” to “What is the right interpretation of reality?” The latter may be interesting. It may even feel wise. But it does not help us predict or influence behavior in context.

Most importantly, ontological explanations do not track the transformation of the function of a stimulus. They do not observe how certain relational frames expand or collapse under pressure. They do not tell us whether workability increases or decreases when a client moves toward or away from a stimulus. They merely explain.

Explanations rarely shape behavior.

The Allure of Ontology in the Therapy Room

It is worth acknowledging why this drift is so common. Explanations reduce uncertainty. They make us feel competent and attuned. They allow us to offer narrative coherence in situations that can feel chaotic. They also reduce discomfort for both clinician and client. There is a kind of shared relief that comes from believing that a problem has a name and a cause.

However, narrative coherence is not the same thing as functional influence. FC is concerned with what works relative to chosen ends. It is not concerned with being right about why someone behaves as they do. The risk is that in offering explanations, we become interpreters of behavior rather than shapers of contingencies. We begin to describe the world rather than influence it.

The more certain we sound about what is true, the less precise we tend to become about what behavior actually does.

Returning to Functional Contextualism

Functional Contextualism pulls our attention back to the present moment where contingencies are active and influence is possible. It asks us to track the immediate effects of behavior and belief. It encourages us to ask: What is reinforced here? What is avoided? What persists when attention shifts? What function emerges when yearnings are contacted?

Instead of asking why a behavior developed, FC asks whether the behavior increases or decreases psychological flexibility and movement toward chosen ends. Instead of asking what is true about anger, forgiveness, marriage, or self-reliance, FC asks what these constructs do for this individual in this moment and across their lived trajectory.

The difference can be summarized simply. Ontological claims tell us how things supposedly are. Functional contextual work tells us what behaviors actually do.