Person-Centred Therapy, Pluralism, and the Actualising Tendency: Deepening the Dialogue 

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.

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.)

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?

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.

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!

Thanks for doing this and uploading it, Mick - I really valued chatting with you and I look forward to part 3!

Thanks . From my experience I think both the pluralistic and person centred approaches are different and also helpful.

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.