A shift from orientationism (being committed to a particular therapy approach) to integrationism offers the prospect of a more collaborative, curious, and respectful community of practitioners. Yet our current ways of articulating integrative practice can inadvertently undermine this ambition, and result in confusion or ambiguity about exactly what is being integrated, when, how, and why. Some personal and professional reflections are used to situate this dilemma and to suggest the need to expand our vocabulary for practice. Can we avoid an either/or binary between orientationism and integrationism and find ways to get the best of both worlds? This might involve finding concepts that enable practitioners to maintain a primary therapeutic orientation while integrating, as well as ways to articulate our integrative frameworks that respect both an individual practitioner’s unique style and the therapeutic traditions they draw upon. Concepts from both integrationism and pluralism are used to develop these themes and to offer some possible alternatives.