|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
Here
are some other theories that have gained relative interest and
importance over the years. Some don't define "levels" of
personality as is so evident in psychoanalysis and Jungian therapies;
instead, play more on their theory's techniques. I assume
that in the "background" is their belief that the conscious
and unconscious exists and are involved in the therapy process. I
never really did much thinking about it. Perhaps you might be
interested to do your own research?
Client-Centered
Therapy -- The therapist, up front, must assure the client that he
believes that every human is inclined toward becoming fully functional
-- that they have the ability to "be in charge" of their life,
even though they may not think it or believe it at the beginning of
their therapy. Most come to therapy because they mostly are of the
opinion that they are "out of control" and need to get back
into it (assuming that they they thought they were in control in the
first place, of course!) A good client-centered therapist can't play
games with their client. He/she must be honest, not defensive (even if
his/her belief system is somewhat different from the client's), and must
relate honestly and sincerely to the client. He/she must be
empathetic, try to see the problem from the client's point of view, keep
out of the way of the client's expression of his beliefs and problems,
and especially, avoid being judgmental. This empathy must be honest, not
"surfacely felt" by the client. Carl Rogers, probably the
foremost and possibly the originator of this therapy, believed that the
therapist should be, above all, a good listener -- an honest listener.
He believed that the client probably has all the answers to his problem,
and all he has to have is a good listener and a "guide" to
find his answers -- and in such a way that it appears that the
client/therapist interaction is the reason for finding them. This has a
ring of humanism in it, plus several other therapies as you will see,
but it is less a one-way process as it often is in humanistic models.
It is more a two-way process. In client-centered therapy (based on
the theory that the client has the potentials to grow, actuate, if you
wish), the relationship between the therapist and client has to reflect
that the therapist truly likes the client -- is his/her friend. The
therapist doesn't have to "like" what the client does or says,
but he/she has to accept him/her for whatever he/she is -- and honestly
show it. The rapport between the two depends on this friendship
relationship, otherwise it isn't going to go anywhere. Knowing this, it
doesn't take a rocket engineer to figure that not just any therapist
will do. The client must carefully seek for a therapist who gives
him/her this sense of being liked, and gives the feeling that he/she can
like the therapist, too. Mainly, the core of this therapy is that the
client has the inherent potential to grow, to understand his/her
problems, solve them through friendly, empathetic relationship with a
sensitive and caring therapist -- again, much like the humanist
approach, as well as the Rational-Emotive Therapy approach -- that each
person has potentials to mature, be self-controlling, advance from a
dependent, whining, needful person to one who gives -- accepts his own
responsibilities and has the capacity to be a contributing member to
society. Not much exploration of past behavior or exploration of
unconscious motives occurs. Doing this may trigger resistance, distrust
and a breakdown of the therapy process. The client-centered therapy
pretty much begins where the client is at the moment he/she presents them self
to therapy, and moves from there on -- into whatever direction
the client wants it to go, not the therapist. Some
criticism of this centers around the high possibility that the client
"goes in circles" and really doesn't get much from the
process, because the therapist is so passive and non-contributory to
what the client is seeking (aren't we all seeking something?) He doesn't
share problems or give directions -- even if the one in which the client
is going is what is causing the problem(s). In other words, the process
is criticized because it allows the client to continue practicing his
mistakes over and over again, with no interruption of their damaging
effect, with no interference such as to say, "Hey, you're
perceiving this whole thing wrongly. Have you thought of looking at it
from a different point of view?" Client-centered therapy would
simply toss this idea out as contrary to their belief that the client is
in control of his life, and should take the lead, right or wrong -- that
sooner or later the mistake would be discovered and changed (for the
good?)
Gestalt
Therapy - This is a therapy (or model) that has had and continues to
have, rather faithful followers. It is not a "modern"
therapy -- going back to the late 1890s and gaining strength in numbers
in the early 1900s. Its tenets emphasize that a person strives for
wholeness and integration of thinking, feeling and behaving. To this
end, that a person is considered to have the capacity to recognize that
early influences and experiences are related to their present behavior,
it contains elements of humanism and client-centered therapy and even
the psychoanalytic and Jungian therapeutic approaches in philosophy. It
incorporates John Dewey's learning theory a great deal, and on Eastern
Religion axioms (some from the Hindu beliefs.) The emphasis of the the
therapy is to deal with "unfinished business" -- strive for
wholeness/closure or gestalt -- that the sum (closure) is greater
than its (unclosed) parts. The gestalt therapy movement has a rather
large following, probably because of the intense belief of its leaders.
Gestalt therapy involves considerable degrees of role-playing --
individuals playing roles of significant persons in the client's life
-- to give the patient an opportunity to release or abreact (a psychoanalytic
term) inner repressions (another psychoanalytic term),
much in the manner of psychodrama. The catharsis that occurs during some
of the sessions can be intense, dramatic and emotional. A close inquiry
into its tenets shows it to be closely related to the paradigms (models)
I earlier mentioned. The philosophy or model is anti-deterministic and
emphasizes self-awareness and individual responsibility. From my
experience and observation (limited, to be sure), it lends itself well
to group therapy more than to individual therapy.
Rational-Emotive
Therapy (RET) -- Here, again, in this therapy philosophy, we run into
the idea that a person is well able to accept his own
responsibilities. One wonders whether it is a direct affront to
behaviorism or whether it comes from the general public's
"unspoken" acceptance that each has their own self to blame or
laud for their behavior. Whatever! The RET philosophy is that all of us
are born with potentials, and these include potentials for thinking,
feeling and especially behaving responsibly. The choice -- how we
utilize the potentials -- is ours, and ours alone. This philosophy
places our responsibilities squarely on our personal shoulders, no
getting around it. But, the rub is that, often the potentials take a
wrong turn, and a person ends up thinking, feeling and behaving in ways
that get them into emotional trouble. (Remember my formula for discrimination?
Perceptions + meanings we attach to them (learned from each individual's
experiences) = discrimination.) And often society takes a stand against
bad behavior -- that is, if the person has any desire to be accepted by
that society (some don't!) People tend to get mixed up with
irrational or screwy thinking now and then. Who knows from where this
thinking comes? From following poor role models? From mistakes made
lacking knowledge of what is right or wrong? Where? The main thing, of
course, is that irrational thinking can be altered/changed by getting
one's head screwed on right. The idea of this therapy is to get the
client to use his head to begin correct thinking, judging, analyzing,
behaving -- honestly reviewing what screwy thinking is getting them
into emotional and possibly societal troubles; and doing this, stops. In
other words, stops doing again and again what is causing problems, and
begins doing that which doesn't cause them. They must ask, "Why
practice mistakes? Why not practice success?" Good idea! And when
coupled with a good and helpful therapist to get this re-thinking
underway, and especially coupled with The Shrink's inclusive
theory of personality (you'll read it, of course?), it appears to be a
pretty good combination. I've a room reserved to discuss The Shrink's
Theory, so don't fail to go there, please? I hope you agree with its
logic and philosophy -- its absolutes!
Two
final models or paradigms that I'll mention are Transactional Analysis
(TA) and Reality Therapy. Each has similar tenets and both tie in with
Rational Emotive Therapy (RET) very closely. It wouldn't necessarily be
correct to say they are enough alike to RET not to describe them, but it
must be said that their goals are pretty much the same --
"self" understanding, "self"-love and accepting
"self"-responsibility. I emphasize the word "self"
because it is one of the triggers that made me rethink the way I
perceive human personality. From my perspective, considering all the
theories of personality and their subsequent therapies, I feel strongly
that the "self" emphasis is over done. The self is only a part
of a much larger whole personality, and although "self"
is important, there is a part of the personality that is by far more
important My inclusive theory (and therapy) accounts for the
"missing" part and puts it in its rightfully more important
place. My book Why
Not Do God?,
mentioned several times (links are provided)
|
||
|
|
||
