Part two
“The more we can articulate the connections between personal overwhelm and the relational, historical, cultural, political and socio-economic environments, then the more the locks to that chamber dissolve, the doors edge open, and we can all begin to breathe.” (Andy Rogers, cited in Anne Kearny)
“… if we do not recognise the dangers of our attempts to be neutral, we are creating the possibility that we may become an agency for social control, enabling clients not only to accept the unacceptable by defending (by default or deliberately) the indefensible” (Anne Kearny)
A. As I mentioned in the previous post Anne Kearny has argued throughout her book that counselling is not a politically neutral process. This is true for all professions. It is in the nature of all human activities that they have political implications and consequences, and every time we counsel, supervise or offer services of any kind we make conscious choices or choices by default. We become aware of our political framework or avoid this. In the last chapters Kearny relates some of the issues discussed in her book back to Rogerian counselling.
In a nutshell, Carl Rogers developed Person-centred therapy in the 40s, which was at the forefront of the humanistic psychology movement, and it has influenced many therapeutic techniques and the mental health field and other disciplines, from medicine to education, and so on. This approach to counselling diverged from the old model of the therapist being the expert and moved towards a more non-directive and empathic approach that empowers and motivates the client in the therapeutic process. The person-centered therapist learns to recognize and trust human potential, providing clients with empathy and unconditional positive regard to help facilitate change. Carl Rogers believed that humans are not inherently flawed and that we all have the capacity to fulfill our potential. This approach identifies that each person has the natural inclination, capacity and desire for personal growth and change, which he termed actualizing tendency / self-actualization. According to Rogers, “Individuals have within themselves vast resources for self-understanding and for altering their self-concepts, basic attitudes, and self-directed behavior; these resources can be tapped if a definable climate of facilitative psychological attitudes can be provided.”
Carl Rogers identified key factors that stimulate growth within an individual and suggested that when these conditions are met, the person will gravitate toward a constructive fulfillment of potential. Very briefly, these factors involve: a respectful relationship between therapist and client, the insight that often a discrepancy will exist between the clients’ self-image and actual experience, which will leave them vulnerable to fears and anxieties, the need for the therapist to be empathic, self-aware, genuine and congruent, and the need for the therapist’s Unconditional Positive Regard (the clients’ positive or negative experiences should be accepted by the therapist without any conditions or judgment).
Kearny raises questions in relation to Rogerian therapy like: whether it is inherently conservative and pre-disposed to accepting the status quo or has the potential to be radically challenging for political systems, whether it leaves external influences in people’s lives unchallenged and whether individuals are seen to exist in a social and political vacuum, and if so, could this result in blaming the victim. She states that the feminist critique of Rogerian person-centred therapy, as well as, the literature on transcultural counselling draws attention to these questions. Kearny believes that the claims made are valid, but that Rogerian counselling is not inherently conservative; however, certain pre-conditions need to be met if the potential radicalism of the approach is to be realised. She believes that it does have the potential to transform external socio-political structures, as well as, each of us individually. She claims that the focus on the individual does not necessarily exclude awareness of the social constraints of peoples’ lives. She writes: “it is perfectly possible to focus on the self actualizing tendency of the socially positioned individual” and “there is a profound difference between the possibilities offered by Rogerian counselling when it is gender, culture or class bound, and those available when it reclaims the radical potential I believe to be at the heart of Roger’s own approach.” She adds that Rogers saw the individual as a sociopolitical being who pursues both autonomy and connectedness and who needs both independence and a supportive external environment, and with support can challenge the external oppressions that constrain them. She quotes Irving Yalom: “The audience sat back, relaxed in their chairs, awaiting the expected mellow retrospective of a revered septuagenarian. Instead Rogers rocked them with a series of challenges. He urged school psychologists not to content themselves merely with treating students damaged by an obsolete and irrelevant education system but to change the system” (1995, cited in Kearny).
B. Finally, it is suggested that the selection of commentaries included in the book is intended to present varied perspectives on the importance of class in counselling: the intersectionality of our multiple identities, the relationship between counsellors and clients, our understanding of the causes of psychological distress, our understanding of inequalities with respect to accessing counselling and the possibility of the experience being helpful, our self-awareness and personal development in training and beyond, and more…. . I will within the space of this piece only refer to a few ideas discussed by some of the commentators.
One point made in this section is that Kearny’s work is historically situated and some characteristics of working and middle-class groups could be different today. Clare Slaney believes that therapy is totally immersed in politics and that “class – an increasingly ambiguous term – and politics have been elephants in therapy training and practice rooms from the origins of the profession.” She writes: “While culture, race and physical ability remain contentious in counselling we are at least exploring these issues, not least because…… non-white and disabled colleagues are requiring us to. …. Kearney’s was the first of very few books addressing class and politics in the context of counselling written by a counsellor for the everyday working counsellor. …. It offers structures around which counsellors can begin to conceptualise and theorise in order to understand how we, as individuals, as professionals and as persons in the room with other individuals and persons, will be (because we will be) affected by class and by politics.”
In relation to class identities, Proctor, the editor of this edition, situates herself and writes: “I felt some disquiet about my own class identity when first reading Anne’s book and was unsure how clearly we could all fit into the categories of middle or working class. My parents were both teachers, so I was brought up officially middle class. However, this categorisation did not represent the class ideology that formed the background of the attitudes and values I was taught, both implicitly and explicitly. My father grew up in a working-class family; his father was a manual worker and his mother believed in education as a way to better her family’s lot….. My parents continued this focus on education as the priority for their children, along with the working-class values of thrift, saving money for absolute necessities, pride in surroundings, community focus, deference to authority and practicality…..I also have thought much more about the impact on me of being taught to be grateful for my privileges and to be responsible for making up for these by ‘helping those less fortunate’. I have long questioned the patronage implied in these principles but have only recently realised how this led to me underplaying experiences that affected me emotionally and to my feeling that others always have worse things to deal with. I suspect this has led to some level of emotional disconnection, due to my own class guilt, which is ultimately unhelpful for both me and anyone I attempt to be in any kind of helping relationship with….”
There is also mention to the possible implications of being born to an upper-class family. An understanding of class positioning is essential when working with survivors of boarding school trauma, for instance. There is reference in the book to Duffell (2000, 2016) and Duffell & Basset (2014), who have researched and written about the emotional impact of such a privileged upbringing, and particularly the association of class privilege with abandonment trauma and consequent emotional dissociation. Also, most people live within the boundaries determined by their class of upbringing, and those who are able to switch classes can feel out of place or struggle with their loyalties.
Finally, Andy Rogers critiques the decontextualization of people’s experience from broader societal contexts. He writes that even though most therapies do locate individuals within relational systems and social contexts, frequently the horizon of the therapeutic gaze is restricted to what David Smail (2005) referred to as “ ‘proximal’ influences– principally the family – thereby underplaying the ‘distal’ origins of much avoidable distress in the economic, cultural and political conditions of life. Rogers concludes that “In many ways, then, psychological distress is decompressing from the vacuum of shame and silence it has drifted in for decades, yet it still remains trapped in the stale air of the medical model’s restrictive chamber, which isolates it from the world. The more we can articulate the connections between personal overwhelm and the relational, historical, cultural, political and socio-economic environments, then the more the locks to that chamber dissolve, the doors edge open, and we can all begin to breathe.