It starts well, I feel that I'm talking to the person, not the role. He tells me his news, I join in. I am interested and sympathetic and ordinary. And I am aware that I'm in another one of the therapy forbidden zones; the place of 'chit chat'.
He is saying - not dramatically, but directly and uncompromisingly - 'a theme, it's becoming a theme...'
He says - "There is one narrative going on with you and quite a different narrative going on in me. Mine is being asked to do things which I'm then not allowed to do. For example last week you asked me to talk about the stuff that's here (my assignment?) but we are always side-tracked"
Did I?
I didn't ask him?
I seriously doubt it...
And now I'm panicking!
Because the real problem must be my feelings for him!
They have leaked out?
Is it obvious?
IT IS OBVIOUS!
He knows...
OK, breathe!
But under the surface...
No! Do not try to imagine what is under the surface!
STAY ON THE SURFACE!
To answer his observation with the truth is impossible!
I feel talked at. I am being talked at.
I'm never going to accept 'it's all about development'.
Why didn't he talk with me about my research proposal - why is he talking about another assignment, actually why?
And now he's telling me that for clients 'sometimes there isn't even a better'.
What have I said or not said?
He says - "But if a client feels that their life is utterly worthless, and the only way they get through each day is knowing that they could kill themselves..."
Oh, this is why he wont talk about my research?
Because I'm focusing on post traumatic growth?
Who is he talking about...
A cold hand squeezes my heart, is it him who feels this way?
I can't let him know what I'm thinking...
I can't let him know how much I care...
So, I defend my position.
I interrupt - "Yes, that is their way - but it isn't about solutions, there is no 'solution' only the ways the person comes up with that work for them, or finding different ways to understand and feel - but they've come to therapy so they have hope that life isn't worthless!"
He says - "It sounds like CBT to me"
When 'Person centered therapists' say 'it sounds like CBT' this is not good. It implies right now that I, Xerpa believe people can think their way out of feelings, or worse, that I Xerpa, will ignore their feelings...and this is about as insulting as it gets in a therapist to therapist dialogue!
I reply - "I'm not looking at what is triggering or going wrong (a process used in CBT), Instead I'm asking 'what are you doing, feeling, noticing when things are better'? It's a very physical, embodied exploration of instances of when the problem isn't a problem - and using the client's language and ideas. And when I've been really fragile, that mode of thought has been the only thing that could get me through. There is no point directing people to look at the shattered mess, or question why did this happen... "
I feel quite strongly about this!
He reacts against my strong feeling...
Why?
He then says - "I would very strongly advise you to wonder about other people's experiences that are different to yours - some people, let's say when they have been sexually abused in childhood, the last thing they ever want to do is talk about it because that will retraumatize them, and other people the thing they must do to move on, is to talk about it"
I am feeling dismissed...and not heard. I have no idea what he thinks I'm like in a session with a client, so again I talk from my own feelings.
I say - "I know that feeling very well - because there were all the things I couldn't talk about when our conversations were on Zoom"
Now a new possibility arises, a new thought. Perhaps it was a good thing that I didn't speak openly? Perhaps he would have moved my words around into something referencing developmental theory, and he would not have heard and reflected my feelings and thoughts, and missed entirely the power, terror, anger, sadness and the glory of our family's tragedy?
He continues - "But in this conversation I see the same process happening again, there is slippage which is moving, rather than keeping focus which I think is why you asked me last week to talk about this or perhaps there is resistance about talking about it because you described yourself as being more person-centered, and a resistance to talking about theory like this"
We are not talking!
One of us lectures, the other subverts and diverts towards something leftfield to avoid being spoken at, rather than spoken to.
But what's happening is - I am talking from my own experience - my college tutor is Gestalt trained, and so we are taught to take a subjective, phenomenological approach. Which is a very Gestalt way of working. I have come to value and respect it. What I'm not doing here is agreeing that therapy is all about the therapist meeting the child in the client. I don't disagree with him, meeting the child in the client is part of it, but there is so much more.
I say - "No, the problem is...there is a gap - a problem in therapy about talking about the real, and external. Looking at Rogers 19 propositions, there is an emphasis on a person being able to integrate the totality of an experience and psychologically something that can't be looked at can eventually be looked at. But very much in therapy the focus is on the negative, and a person also brings the positive"
He says - "But that's a different issue surely? Talking about theory in order to get an assignment done"
I obviously don't want to talk about theory to get my assignment done! And in truth what I've said is what I believe, that the work of therapy is to enable someone to integrate the totality of an experience, which means finding a way that something that can't be looked at can eventually be looked at! I wonder what that could be in the context of our discussions! And as I have so much Gestalt in my education, I have come to see all interaction - especially with someone else who is committed to increasing their self awareness and emotional intelligence - all interactions as opportunities for knowledge and growth! We have the perfect opportunity - both of us - to learn so much here. But hey, it's OK I don't even know where to start with the 'a different issue entirely' .I'm feeling too shaken and trying to swim through a rising tide of panic.
I say - "I don't need to be told theory to get my assignment done. I can do theory to the nth degree!"
And this is true, I keep forgetting that I'm good at theory, I keep forgetting that I'm OK. A part of me is still in the living room, headphones on, listening to the band who cancelled - and hoping my son isn't going to start smashing things. I keep forgetting that despite my son smashing things, I passed my assignments in year one. So the probability is - without the omnipresent fear of random acts of violence happening around or to me - I will be able to write pretty well!
He says - "Yes but we didn't do it last week"
I have said in effect 'I don't need this', yet he's continuing. So I take a different path. I try to attribute the pointlessness of his endeavor (as he has clearly gasped the truth that to educate me is impossible) to the esoteric nature of our assignments.
I say - "Also it is quite difficult to work out what is meant by the criteria (given as part of the assignment)"
Our assignments had to be explained by the tutor who marked them, only then would we know what that tutor wanted us to include and cover!
He says - "The same thing happened when we talked about games. I think I started out by saying what do you understand about games theory and you weren't really quite there, and I never got to say because we kept getting side tracked. This is something that keeps happening. Why does that keep happening. Why do we have a focus that you decide on but then we never get there?"
Right then, let's talk about how phantasy is a concept relating to soul and body, or all the other far more interesting things humanity has woven from dream and memory! He has after all interrupted those tangential explorations of ours! But I'm still trying to pass on to him the strangeness and unique quality of my college's Diploma course!
Me - "But I know a lot more about the assignment because of what I heard in class last week - the wording is ambiguous - so I asked my tutor"
He says - "But I think what they are getting at and I think this is really important is - and let's take a step back - it is impossible to do therapy without a theory"
I say truthfully -"I don't have a problem about theory"
He replies -"And you said solution focus doesn't have a theory - well it does. If you go on the basis that an open welcoming environment and a person is free to explore, to use the really brutal Rogers shorthand - to actualize - then the theory is..."
The gauntlet has been thrown down!
I say - "Of course there is theory! The no theory means that the client isn't given a model, we don't offer theories. But if someone came with a self-help book, or believed that they knew why they were experiencing things, I use their theory "
From a postmodern perspective (and there is 'our theory') context is all. Our theory is that we create reality through words, how we talk about reality really matters...
He replies - "There will be times when the client is utterly lost, and if you offer them a framework it really, really helps. So for example one of the two frameworks I use, the TA framework the most habitually of all again and again, and I'll see a client is lost and I'll say 'here's a framework, what do you think of it?' and they can always say no. But, there's 'true self and false self' that's one, in terms of having needs met / not having needs met - going through the world saying 'this is me, I'm OK with this or actually, 'me - this is not acceptable'. There's the false self front (Winnicott). Parent / Adult/ Child model, and Drama Triangle. They come up again and again, and I see a client in front of me, I can almost visibly see the light bulb go on above their heads -'Oh! That's why I keep doing that! That's why I keep going back, he comes back pissed at 3 in the morning. I undress him, put him to bed and he wakes up 2 hours latter and he starts pummelling me and I forgive him because it's not really his fault - because I'm a rescuer, and he's a persecutor except when he turns victim!' Just simple frameworks like that can be literally life changing. So, I just want to put a question mark, and I absolutely want to be clear - we are not saying to the client 'Of course, you are doing this' we gently offer it and say 'how does this sound? We keep the client in the driver's seat. Does that make sense?"
And I don't have the energy to say anything except.
Of course it makes sense.
He - "So do you want to go to the...what do you want to do about the 19 Propositions?"
I am exhausted and beaten.
My thought is: OK, let's do theory, I assume that this is what he wants to do! We are not going to do truth because I'm scared of his reaction. Because we are already in conflict. He has a need to be heard and to fulfil the role of teacher (I am assuming this, by the way, I don't know...) and I want to speak from the heart...but when I access my feelings or speak from my personal experience he feels that we are going off at a tangent.
And, you know that there are five styles of dealing with conflict...which of course we could link to states of the autonomic nervous system (Ventral, Dorsal and the other one! Polyvagal theory) but hey - not now!
- Avoidance,
- accommodation,
- competition,
- compromise or
- collaboration.
I ponder briefly is this me accommodating or compromising, or am I competing? How is it that I feel like I have to compete, in order to get us in to collaboration - and to be honest this is the underlying 'game' of every session!
All righty then, I fire up the 'intellectual' core - let's play philosophy!
Me - "..there is an implied sense of autonomy in here - but he (Rogers) never uses the word autonomy - it is as if he juxtapositions autonomy against responsibility"
He - "Not juxtaposed I think. The two have to go together and...
Me - "For the good..."
He - "So for example not knowing - I'm not sure if I know where you want to go with this? The first thing I thought was - the client has more autonomy than the therapist always. The client can go and talk to anybody they want to about anything thing they've said in therapy - the therapist can't! And the client can spread themselves all over social media, pictures of them when they are drunk. and if a therapist does that they are bringing the profession into disrepute. but also you know, the therapist is obliged whatever they do to have the motivation that this is for the benefit of the client. It doesn't have to benefit the therapist at all, ever. So it is quite, quite different"
"The client can go and talk to anybody they want to about anything they've said in therapy." I take my authority to write directly from his statement.
Me - "But it's about fostering autonomy, because I'd say that inherent in the 19 Propositions is the concept of autonomy. Therapy requires a person to feel safe and secure enough to be able to face things that are scary. So, to have self mastery which is control leading to inner autonomy - So I'd say that inherent in the 19 is a sense of allowing a person to understand 'internal locus of evaluation' leading to a similar concept; autonomy. So it seems to me to be quite close - autonomy and internal locus of evaluation? That sounds like a question!"
He - "But I'm wondering - autonomy as distinct from what"?
As well he might! Because I'm not sure what I'm saying either. Nevertheless I am very clear about what gets in the way of autonomy...
Me - "Coercion. To use a TA kind of concept - feeling-thought is 'I never want to go to that place!' but then the internal Parent is 'Well you've got to do that!' and the inner dialogue misses out the Adult (middle) who says 'I can and I can't but I will weigh the situation up'. So that's an internal coercion."
He - "So that's a wonderful illustration. The Adult ego state is the only autonomous one"
Me - "So it (Adult) is supporting, and allowing the energy of the other two (Parent and Child ego states) to play? Inherent in the 19 Propositions...I don't like to use the term 'self-actualization' I imagine angels and bells and a stairway to Heaven, because it is a lofty term. But, to be aware of how one really feels about stuff fosters autonomy.
Every single memory of any event is reconstructed in the here and now. Therefore each character in the Drama triangle is only us, when we replay and remember. But what we do next to create the future is constructed through recombining, modifying and rearranging memories to visualize a different future.
And nothing here in my way of understanding this conflicts with Balint and his basic fault, or attachment theory, or any other theory for that matter. And I'm trying to impress him, I know that. And I probably just sound mad. And I don't understand why I so much, so need to really know him.
He - "And while you were talking something hit me with great force - your history, thinking oh...is this in the background somewhere. Your experience (sectioning) with your son is the very opposite of autonomy. 'You must do this and if you don't you are non-compliant. It has the force of law behind it. So this is a real contrast to that. and if I'm hearing it right, what you are saying about autonomy may also be seen in terms of respect. I wonder if another way of talking about autonomy might be respect, respecting the client, giving the client their own voice seeing them as a separate person - back to autonomy again rather than an extension of the therapists process and will - respecting the client's own process and will"
Me -"Yes, that's very well put"
He - "Which goes I think with exactly what you were saying about theory, that if it's ever going to be used it needs to be in the service of the client rather than opposed upon them - like in psychiatry 'here's your disorder!' But it also fits in exactly with <pause>1950s/1960s radio broadcast, true self false self?"
Me - "Winnicott?"
He - "Yes, Winnicott talking about the holding environment. That's what it is isn't it, it's valuing the client. In the holding environment it's saying 'you can grow here, which again we are back to Rogers aren't we"
And on we go - and we are getting on so well! Until proposition number 11. This was the beginning of a real problem.
Proposition 11:
"As experiences occur in the life of the individual, they are either...
- a) symbolized, perceived and organized into some relation to the self,
- b) ignored because there is no perceived relationship to the self structure,
- c) denied symbolization or given distorted symbolization because the experience is inconsistent with the structure of the self." [Carl Rogers]
He - "In psychodynamic terms, a) is transference.
Me -" symbolized, perceived and organized into some relation to the self. Symbolized is transference, are you sure? Because in my understanding symbolized represents the healthy version of processing experience. So, b) ignored or c) denied are especially relevant in psychodynamic as an error. I think a) symbolization is the healthy one...I believe"
He - "Well, not necessarily - if for example if one has the experience of never being listened to, being ignored by parents, then that becomes symbolized. What's very, very likely to happen they will look out for people who are not listening to them, and replay that.
Ah, not symbolized - this is ignored or denied, stuck, unprocessed - the unconscious mind is trying to resolve thorough conflict (see the five styles!)! This is the very foundation of why therapy works, and why a therapist collaborates to enable change!
Whatever!
Me -"Well this goes back to what I understand about language, that language is a set of symbols - that there is no intrinsic meaning to a word or letter, and we share meaning through having experiences broadly in common."
He - "But I don't think he is talking about language here
Me - "I don't understand...everything is a symbol, meaning is constructed..."
Therefore everything we experience is technically transference! Everything we perceive is seen in terms of what we already know, and what we know is memory. Curiously we are now on the same page...
He- "Well essentially I think he means the same thing that Stern means when he talks about RIGs - representations of interactions generalized -
Me - Reading Proposition 15.
"Psychological adjustment exists when the concept of the self is such that all the sensory and visceral experiences of the organism are, or may be, assimilated on a symbolic level into a consistent relationship with the concept of self...
So you are saying I think, symbolized means not really integrated?
He - "A symbol is just an internal representation, so for example if ...just think through a really unthought through response a child might have. so, Mom is in the habit of beating the child with a rolling pin to punish the child. So Mom always has a particular look on her face and goes marching out of the room to fetch the rolling pin when the child is in trouble. So now the child has symbolized it; when Mom looks like that, when she walks like that the child knows she will be punished. One day this child is in school and the bell's gone oh, it's 9 o'clock and oh, no teacher, and now it's 3 minutes past 9 and the teacher comes rushing in the room which reminds the child exactly of when the mother is going to get the rolling pin. This child is cringing and falling into themselves and is getting ready for the beating. Because the child has symbolized the beating in that way"
Me - "So the child has an inexplicit theory, the child can't actually say what it is, but something has happened and the child feels...and maybe if he could sit calmly he could bring to mind the way the teacher moved reminded him of his Mom...like my lecturer who looked like my husband, he looked like him, moved like him...But I thought symbolized was what people needed to do with memories that couldn't be thought about safely. I mean I think I know what you are saying but I don't think that is what he (Rogers) means"
He - "It's about sitting in front of somebody and trying to absorb and understand their world, and what the world means to them"
Me - quoting Proposition 13:
"In some instances, behavior may be brought about by organic experiences and needs which have not been symbolized.
I think Rogers is using the word symbolized as a positive.
He -"Well for example, it's almost midday and time to eat, and when I eat I don't have any particular strong feelings around eating. I eat because I need to eat. It's not been symbolized, whereas if i was sitting here thinking I need to eat, I'm ravenous I can't even focus on what I'm doing now, that may be symbolized, that may be because...
OK, going to break the 4th wall. This is me writing in 2023: I hear a lot of the same thing in his examples, in almost every session, and it is relevant. And significant. And when he said 'you know about me....' And I did, and instead of offering empathy I acted dumb because I was in the client's chair.. I couldn't bear the thought of him seeing my love, I couldn't risk him knowing that I listened, heard and felt. I simply didn't have any permission to be myself in his room.
I wish I'd been braver.
I should have been myself...
But I know exactly why I made it look like I didn't care enough to know.
But I am truly, truly sorry.
For me, having to be a client in this situation was a crucifixion, I couldn't move or breathe. I couldn't reach out.
Comments