This is such a valuable dialogue, thank you both. In my PC L2 course I remember feeling pissed off when the tutor told me that a previous counsellor’s self-disclosure, which I shared was really valuable to me, was them doing me a ‘disservice’, so definitely don’t come into this as a blank slate. Also thinking of if there’s a way to bring the themes of your conversations into TaSC - the therapy and social change network for those unaware - somehow. For the 3rd, and hopefully not final, dialogue, I’d love it if you went much more personal, not in terms of history but in terms of ‘sense of self’ - relational patterns, values, self-beliefs etc, and how those relate to PC/pluralistic theories. What attracts Chris to ideas of necessity and sufficiency, and what attracts Mick to a plurality of truths, and what, perhaps, deters the other person from these concepts? What is it about 40s-60s America that Chris so likes, and what is it about Berlin/Levinas that Mick so likes, in terms of how it relates to who they are? You touched on this a mick when you mentioned being a complaint person - I’d love for some more dialogue around this. It feels like Chris has a very deep attachment to the PCA - if credible new evidence came out saying it was all rubbish, could he imagine himself becoming another type of therapist? For both of you, what effect would adopting the other person’s viewpoint have on your professional relationships - how much would you mourn the loss of feeling like you fit into the PC/pluralistic communities that you are part of, and how does this effect how you approach conversations like this? I’d also be interested in elaboration on how normative person-centred approaches have become in the UK, as if the six conditions are necessary - ‘of course’ everyone should have a person-centred base’ - if not perhaps sufficient. If we disregarded Rogers entirely - if that’s even possible to do so anymore - would we be left with therapies worth having? Can, and if so how can, therapy be relational without relying on Rogers, and instead rely on someone like, say, Buber? Why do some consider Rogerian theory indispensable when existential therapies, as one example, still use Rogerian practices but don’t really bother with his theory? Can we still call this existential ‘counselling’? Another idea might be around fears for the future - what is it about the other person’s ideas, or perhaps misunderstanding, that particularly worries you, in terms of practical consequences? Perhaps this gets to the root - why you both think this dialogue is so important. I get good sense of what Mick is worried about - dogmatic practitioners that are ignorant of evidence and genuinely believe that PC therapy is all clients will need - but would like to understand more from Chris’ perspective - what is he so worried about if person-centred therapy is on no pedestal and is seen as no more valid, even in its most basic assumptions, e.g. non-directivity, than other theories?
I think there's a lot to unpack in the video and I found myself pausing often to stare into space and reflect on it all, before continuing! It was very rewarding though, and I think it's an important conversation too. I’m person-centred but what I drew me to the approach was the pluralism I found inherent in Rogers, so I feel like I’m perhaps a bit in both camps, which is probably why I found it so taxing as some of the differences between you both are things I’m often wrestling with internally anyway. The bottom line for me is that (1) we ultimately don’t know how people work, and that (2) harm can be done if we insist that we do know when we actually don’t. For me, person centred theory offers a broad-brush model for navigating that ‘not-knowing’ rather than an offering an absolutist explanation of everything. Personally, I believe this as how Rogers saw it too. I don’t have an inherent problem with other approaches, and only feel uncomfortable with them to the extent that they involve the therapist deciding that the unknown is in fact known, and that they (the therapist) know best how to navigate it. I think Mick is responding strongly to the more rigid elements that he has experienced in the PCA world and I’ve experienced that myself and can relate to his frustrations, but I’ve personally seen it as a natural part of how all beliefs/groups work. On the one end, some people can be very fixed and dogmatic, not being open to difference. On the other end, some people allow a lot of nuance and flexibility, with a person having an ongoing dialogue with their beliefs. If we want to apply it, the seven stages could be a helpful lens through which to reflect on this. So I can relate to the issues Mick has raised but I think you’d find people like that in any political group, church community or anywhere else - people who are perhaps wearing their belief a little too tightly, and using it as a comfort blanket. While it's inherent in all groups though, in a group that uses the language of ‘nuance’ and ‘openness’ all the time and talks a lot about empathy and UPR, I think that does make any dogmatism/rigidity that you do notice much more difficult to navigate and explore with people. As a personal example and to show I’m not above this, I have sometimes found it hard not to be defensive if my partner suggests that I’m not listening to/empathising with them. My self-concept can get in the way, and I find it quite challenging to hear. It would be a very comfortable short-term solution to dismiss their complaints out of hand and decide that, in fact, I listen and am empathic at all times! Similarly, I think pointing out any rigidity/dogma in the person-centred world will be hard for some people to engage with because many people pride themselves on how open and non-rigid they are. The person-centred world isn't on a higher plane of existence than other humans though, and I think it falls victim to the same foibles as other groups of people identifying themselves collectively. In the midst of all this though, I think an ongoing dialogue exploring these issues is vital and I want to thank you both again for putting this out there. I recorded a video on this kind of topic for a course I put together last year. I felt an urge to add this video after realising the vast explanatory power that the PC approach has, and felt a need to step back and comment on how I think we should be relating to the theory itself: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-663PEouTMNw.html Here is also one where I apply the seven stages to myself to reflect on what I have used certain beliefs as a 'comfort blanket' and been very dogmatic/rigid in my thinking, as I described above. Mick's social change book gets a reference here! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ey2vt8tncyQ.html Not sure if these are helpful but just want to contribute to the dialogue 😊 (Note: I'm a pest for editing, and have changed certain phrasing and fixed typos since originally sending this, but nothing significant.)
I think Mick has a strange, misconstrued view of what person-centred therapy is. He implies that a person-centred therapist is passive, dogmatically stuck, and held back by "rules", which does not put the client's well-being first. Firstly, he ignores the tremendous power that empathy and UPR can have for the client. For many or most, this is something special that they experience for the first time in therapy, and they find this curative in and of itself. This is putting the client's well-being first. Secondly, his beef with the PC approach seems that sitting and doggedly aiming to offer the client the core conditions (as he sees PC therapists to be doing) is all a PC can do and that this is somehow not "active". That a PC therapist can never challenge the client or offer a technique (if they feel competent to do so) is, I believe, mistaken. The point is that a PC therapist fundamentally believes in and respects the client's actualising tendency and autonomy and offers the conditions that have been shown to facilitate a relational environment for the client to work through their incongruencies. If this exists, many creative things can happen in therapy.
I'm not sure where you're making that assumption from Louise, but I don't think you'll find it in the dialogue. What I say is that there are, in my experience, some people within the person-centred field -- as with any therapeutic field -- that I have experienced as dogmatic, and that that upsets me and I feel that it's appropriate to call out/call in such behaviour, particularly when it hurts others. Our research also indicates that, for some clients, person-centred therapists -- well-trained, experienced, bona fide, rated in the most rigorous way as person-centred, by key members of the classic person-centred community -- can be experienced as being too passive and too silent. I wish it was otherwise, but our research has shown that that is the case in about 30% of therapists (based on interviews, to be published), and about 10% based on post-therapy ratings: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13632752.2023.2276022 To call that a 'strange misconstrued' view is, I think, to ignore what clients are actually saying, and to put therapeutic theory before the actual lived-experiences of clients. Finally, it is Chris, not myself, who says in the dialogue that person-centred therapy is about trying to embody the core conditions, rather than focusing on helping the client. I don't, personally, think that that is a useful definition of a therapeutic approach, and, as Chris himself recognises, it's maybe not the best description of what person-centred therapy is, and how it fundamentally differs from other therapies (if, indeed, it actually does). My increasing sense is that the person-centred field needs to define what it is and does in ways that genuinely convey its essence: I think that is still to be done and is in much need.
@mickcoopercounselling @louiseleonard3516 - Hi to you both - I don't think I have been represented accurately by your comments here, Mick. I think Louise does a much better job of capturing what I was trying to communicate in the power and essence of the approach. I may be wrong, but I don't believe I used the term 'core conditions' within the video, and think it was a term you used frequently, which I was trying to respond to through the lens of the 6 conditions (and is a difference that I think is very important and relevant, for example, in what you refer to in the research above) - I also think I could have made this clearer in our discussion. I also felt I made the point, a few times, that the approach IS also based in helping clients, but that we have different views about how this may be and how we define it. However, I do acknowledge, towards the end, that I may not have represented or communicated these things as clearly as I would have liked, and I would like to improve on that, but I feel what you have attributed to me here, is not accurate, and I wanted to make that clear for people who will be reading your comment. I'm looking forward to exploring and clarifying these things more and also touching on people's responses on both our videos. Thank you again to you both for the continued dialogue around this.
Found my way here as part of my counselling and psychotherapy degree. Julie should be in Hollywood - I 100% thought she was a genuine client! Great video - this was so helpful to understand how to move along emotional processing and awareness.
In striving to enhance their experiencing - maybe Perls can help us here - with his concept and distinction between self actualisation and self image actualisation, which is wider than holding a position of actualisation as only travelling one way and being one thing. We know clients often actualise their self image before their authentic selves, even when they sit with us, often to help us feel better as therapists and themselves about themselves. So for me an actualising tendency can be many different things, serve many different purposes and travel in many different directions throughout the course of therapy. And linked to not for growth configurations of self, which of course, make perfect sense to the client but often not to us. In widening my stance around actualisation evolving as more than the one tendency direction that Rogers expressed, I'm sitting with the whole of the client's meaning making processes.
I value person centred theory but as an integrative counsellor I agree with Mick, surely it’s all about what could help the client. They are not trained and therefore not able to ask for interventions or ways of working, as counsellors we have the knowledge to share and clients always have autonomy in whether they choose to participate, that is client centred therapy.
In calling myself a person-centred therapist and supervisor I also understand my experience comes before person-centred theory. Rogers theory invites my experience and the clients experience as it is informed by our observation and participation and felt sense of the accumulation of awarenesses in and meaning making, which informs the personal and I also believe informs the universal. Who I am in the process of becoming, is also connected to who the client is in their process of becoming, and in our relationship we can both change and grow. I also know this can happen with other modalities. I found the discussion interesting, and I would like to add something I felt was missing. Even though I cannot know for certain that Rogers had a spiritual vision in his work, his work has inspired a spiritual vision in me. I believe there is a spiritual aspect of our potential which brings the whole of our aliveness and search for connection and belonging and understanding to life, which Rogers calls the actualising tendency, and I have discovered many signposts and touchstones and others who have had similar experiences of being along the way. Rogers believed that by providing a psychological climate that permits a person to be, therapists are not just involved in a chance event, and he claims that they may be tuning into “…a potent creative tendency in our universe”. He identified this direction towards growth as part of the “actualising tendency” and argued this tendency or energy, was present in all living systems and that we may be “tapping into something which permeates all organic life”. And as therapists and clients we are always engaging in what he called “a life affirming way of being”.[1] I would like to suggest that this ‘life affirming way of being’ takes us into what I believe is a spiritual dimension. Not in a religious sense, but an experience and appreciation of our aliveness and what it is to be alive within all life, that is felt or sensed as something beyond us and bigger than us, which we can connect directly to from our experience from being an individual within the universal. Rogers also considered there were forces in the universe which operate through us when we are trying to help and found that in rare moments as a therapist it felt as if he was “in tune” with these forces in the universe, and that he had experienced these forces operating through him in regard to being in what he called a helping relationship.[2] 1. Rogers C.R (1980) A Way of Being New York, Houghton Mifflin (p.134) 2. Rogers C.R (1966) in Kirschenbaum,H & Henderson,VL (Eds).(1990) The Carl Rogers Dialogues, London, Constable (p.74)
There's no such thing as non-directive therapy unless you are a dummy. I had this argument 11 years ago in Counselling training with many tutors. Ellis quoted that the 6 conditions were not necessary but sufficient. Pluralism comes from political philosophy which holds many different beliefs so the person-centered theory is just one. . Belief out the therapy basket of different modalities. The sad thing is I've heard so many PCTs dismissing other approaches that they hold the truth. Great podcast.
I've only watched a bit of this so far, so can't comment on the specifics in much detail at this moment, but I just want to say that I think this kind of respectful back and forth dialogue is exactly what we need more of on this topic, and I want to thank you both for taking the time and effort into offering it!
I just saw the following yesterday "I recognize that when I am intensely focused on a client, just my presence seems to be healing, and I think this is probably true of any good therapist." I am constantly augmenting that believing that the "necessary and sufficient conditions" are necessary and sufficient. The augmentation is in part seeing that my "presence" is both broad and limited. That is I know stuff. That stuff might even be helpful for the client if I share it. And if I share it the client gets to decide if one wants to see if it is, or discard it right away believing it doesn't sound like it would be helpful. If I withhold it, I don't give the client/person the option. Limited in the sense, that like the potatoes in Rogers's potato cellar that throw out tentacles or roots trying to fulfill destiny, without soil that rot. And at some point even if they are put into good soil there already is too much damage done that they cannot move to the next level. Still providing the "conditions" is therapy whether the results are satisfactory to the client or in the regard of the therapist as well. Is this person-centered? For me, my being a person engaging another person is person-centered. I am not a Rogerian. I reject the label. I cannot be a Rogerian. Frankly, I am too judgmental to have the audacity to limit myself to that.
Thanks Mick for another insightful video, as someone starting out I'm still in the rescuer thinking but it's really grounding to hear your thoughts and advice. Love that ending statement we're not necessarily there to be the savior but rather helping the client by being a catalyst for change.
It sounds really interesting! I saw the advertising for a talk you’re giving via the the New School of Therapy. I’m going to look into your book. I’m a therapist, a social worker who also has degrees in political science. Good luck with your work!
Under what circumstances would you highlight the clients beliefs or constructs in person centered therapy? She seems to have a rule that she has created that once you accept to do a task or plan to show up to an event, that you cannot back out of it. A rule where emergencies or even unexpected events become distressing or causing a sense of unease.
If I had a strong sense of what they might be, I'd certainly be willing to check that with the client. Their beliefs and constructs, like their emotions, are part of how they experience the world and therefore part of what we would endeavour to explore
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 01:45 *🎭 Situation difficile avec le partenaire* - Le partenaire de la patiente a annulé leur participation à un mariage au dernier moment. - La patiente se sent seule et déçue de ne pas avoir pu partager cet événement avec lui. - Son partenaire a un historique de comportement flaky, ce qui aggrave ses sentiments d'insécurité. 05:03 *🤝 Communication dans la relation* - Le thérapeute encourage la patiente à exprimer ses sentiments et à communiquer ouvertement avec son partenaire. - Il souligne l'importance de s'affirmer dans la relation et de fixer des limites claires. - La patiente hésite à aborder le problème avec son partenaire de peur de le perdre, illustrant un dilemme commun dans les relations. 08:59 *💔 Déception et préoccupation* - La patiente exprime sa déception face à l'annulation de son partenaire et son inquiétude quant à l'avenir de leur relation. - Malgré les excuses de son partenaire, elle se sent toujours blessée et remet en question la fiabilité de leur lien. - Le thérapeute partage une expérience personnelle similaire pour renforcer l'empathie et la compréhension de la patiente. Made with HARPA AI
If anyone feels they’ve screwed up as a counsellor - I once had a first therapy session where the counsellor screamed at me to stop counselling myself, told me she got into it because she’s a narcissist, and that I was ‘too broken to be fixed’ 😂.
I think from a person-centred standpoint you’re fine for most leading so long as it’s from a genuine authentic place of what you’re feeling and seeking clarification on, so long as it’s fully client focussed.
I think Julia loves her mother, but her mother is trying to impose on her what she thinks is best for Julia and Julia resents that she is not being free to pursue her goals.
It's so helpful and reassuring to see how even experienced therapists make many percieved misteps and come away questioning themselves a bit. For me, it only cements how much the therapist really cares. To care enough to pick up on those mis-steps is itself a function of empathy. It's not all about perfect responses. It's about recognising how we might fail to meet the client.
Surely many clients, especially younger ones, wouldn't understand the Person-centred approach and wouldn't be aware of how change happens in therapy. Therefore when they are asked about what they found helpful, would be more likely to mention more obvious factors that had been explicitly talked about rather than things they are less aware of? For me what happens in counselling evolves naturally and is different each time. Clients tend to find a way to do what is most useful for them in sessions and I'm not sure if it's possible beforehand to identify what that will be.
The beginning was pretty horrible for a person-centered therapy, Rogers focusing more on the present rather than delving so deeply into what you felt yesterday, or what you were thinking yesterday. In addition to telling him that he is kind for being aware of those uncomfortable feelings. Rogers himself in his book states that the focus of evaluation should be internal and that one as a therapist should refrain from making moral evaluations, whether positive or negative, because they are threatening.
"And how was that for you?", "How does that feel for you?", "And what I need emotions do you have around that?", "And what feel are you feely feely on your feels about how you feel?" Therapy basically.
I think I’d have focussed more initially on outcome vs process, and asked what the exams meant for her. I think that would’ve helped hone in earlier to get alongside her, but I also know how difficult this opening can be. It did feel like you were trying to find ways to help, to advise, because you weren’t sure where to take the session. I think silence might’ve allowed for it to go deeper. A pro’s vs con’s list to decide on benefits of confronting friends straight away would’ve also been appropriate, as I felt your instruction to be more proactive was inserting yourself too much in wanting to drive change. It didn’t feel like it came from the client (but again we missed chunks of the session). It’s always interesting to reflect on how others navigated an interaction and what we learn, both about ourselves and our approaches, that we can take going forward. Thanks for sharing!
Ive read Carl Rogers: Client Centered Therapy. The reason I did was because therapy never worked for me. I needed to understand what the logic of therapy was and realised that some ppl do respond to talking about their emotions, it can bring about some change, some relief. I always wanted solutions. I used to go to therapy thinking therapists would have the answers but they never did. Like this video, it was based on merely talking, talking emotionally. I am still a bit sceptical of the whole idea of this approach but if it works for some then ok.
A person-centered therapy approach for those who know how to apply it can help you gain a better understanding of yourself so you can find solutions to what you are experiencing. However, if you are not a therapist familiar enough with reflections, paraphrases, metaphors, etc., it will be a waste of time. For example, in this video, the therapist for the first 7 minutes focuses on the past with questions about what you did yesterday, what you felt yesterday, etc., when you should be focusing more on what is underlying.
@@riveranalyse I dont think any form of therapy would work to be honest. Ive tried CBT too, didnt work, visualization techniques (a la cybernatics), nothing, meditation only helped me understand how I am but not how to change that, if that can even be done. I truly think the only types of ppl that can be helped by therapy are mostly what I would call 'typical ppl'. These ppl tend to have next to no self-awareness, no psychological capacity, no introspection, no depth perception of life. They are highly susceptible (most advertising is directed at these ppl) to suggestion and impressions, very assuming.
@@michaelshannon9169 It sounds like your experiences to date have been pretty bad. And I get your disillusionment, I even share parts of it as someone in the field! I agree with you about the lack of depth and nuance in the way a lot of people work (as evidenced in this video) but I do think if you found someone you connected with from within the right modality you could definitely get something out of it. Problem with that is it takes time and money to find the right person and each wrong one will only put you off more in the meantime!
I am actually afraid of my OJT since we are doing counseling sessions. I am not confident with my counseling skills since that we don't really dive deeper or trained much about counseling and how I need to improve of asking questions since I am the type that there are times of maybe I don't understand them at all and often jump to conclusion. But this one definitely learned me to train and will use this as reference on how to improve my sessions with clients and it was okay to make mistakes.
If a client says they want to go into traumatic experiences from early life to understand and accept them better, do you have any suggestions of what to do to ensure they are prepared for this kind of work?
