The risks of Postmodernism and Pluralism in Person-centred Counselling
On the back of the recent “Why Rogers is still relevant?”(1) feature in Therapy Today and also my recent online dialogues with Mick Cooper around the inclusion of Person-centred labels within Pluralism, it does seem to raise an issue of how we come to define an approach, but also make way for any developments, without also losing its essence.
There have already been many developments within the Person-centred approach, and often, not without contest (for example, varying views on the different tribes and how we define and include them within a person-centred framework – if at all). But it does lead to a very difficult question of who decides the definition of an approach, when do we introduce updated understanding and how do we evaluate this in line with an approach?
The Person-centred Approach
For me, the very least that we subscribe to as person-centred practitioners is the presence of the Actualising Tendency and the importance of the Six Necessary and Sufficient Conditions (there seemed to be similar consensus in the first half of the Therapy Today article). With an understanding of the uniqueness of the theory of the actualising tendency and its core foundation in the approach, it feels quite natural to provide a practice, space and conditions based on the trustworthiness and ever-present nature of the tendency and client’s self-direction.
However, in recent discussions, the idea of a subjective understanding of theory, or an approach, has presented itself and begs the question of “what is truth in subjective understanding?” Particularly, in this instance, in relation to our understanding of theory, practice and its relevance in the present day. We may find it much easier to be empathic and accepting of another’s experience and the “reality” of this, but what about when it comes to agreement or consensus on what defines or fits within a specific approach to Counselling?
Everything and Nothing
It feels extremely important for an approach to Counselling to be defined, not only for the practitioner (their practice, understanding and development), but also, and maybe more importantly, for the clients who are accessing counselling and needing a good understanding of what is on offer and what it will look like, to help them choose what is best for them.
In our discussions online, Mick and I considered the importance of being open to people’s own understanding of an approach, to not be excluding in how we hold theory and also to allow discussion and subjective viewpoints. However, I do feel that there is also a place where this can become unhelpful, if we go as far to say that anyone has a right to interpret an approach how they wish and there are no parameters that we draw the line at. At an extreme, this ends up as an approach becoming everything and nothing.
Postmodernism
The risk I think we run, with a postmodernist stance, and taking Rogers desire for evolution and research to an extreme, is to allow anything into the approach in the name of development, research and subjective understanding.
There is absolutely no question around the importance and place of research in developing our understanding of Counselling and what is helpful to clients, but there is a whole other debate to be had about how we assign these findings and developments, especially in relation to specific Counselling approaches.
This point is captured by Barbara Temaner Brodley and Anne F Brody in a writing that was published nearly 30 years ago, but still feels just a relevant today:
“Infusing specific goal-orientated treatments and techniques with client-centred values in ways that influence the actual application of the treatments and techniques might well tend to greatly humanise and improve the efficacy of the treatments and the techniques. But they should not be confused with client-centred therapy.”(2)
Pluralistic Practice
In the recent Therapy Today article, Pluralistic practice was offered as a way that we may develop the Person-centred approach. Examples of involving the client in what they want to get out of Counselling, as well as research findings, were used as potential criticisms, or a need for development, of the Person-centred approach – but I feel that there is a crucial misunderstanding here.
I do not believe that discussing with clients about what they want out of Therapy, in a collaborative way, is in any way un-person-centred, nor do I believe that silence is an unhelpful feature specifically aligned with the person-centred approach. In fact, I feel that both of these things are highly supported by the person-centred approach, and could even strengthen the argument for its importance as an approach in general.
The importance of understanding a client’s decision to come to Therapy and what they would find most helpful in working together, feels an extremely fitting and supportive process to any approach, and will likely be enhanced by the conditions outlined above (and far from an “add-on” or “development” that McLeod champions in his Pluralism). Equally, a clients discomfort with silence, not only feels unspecific to person-centred practice, but actually, that an attuned and empathic Therapist would hopefully be aware of this and hold this experience, just like any other, with warmth, curiosity and a desire to understand the discomfort.
A Deeper Understanding
As Brodley and Brody point out above, there are two separate debates to be had here – the importance of research to develop Counselling and clients experience as a whole, but a whole other debate in line with how we define an approach to Counselling and how we incorporate change or development within these.
So to come full circle, how do we go on to define the Person-centred approach and client-centred therapy, with a view to also make room for any relevant developments and evolution, in line with Rogers’ own desire (and existing theory)?
For me, the starting point is to have a deep understanding of the approach that we are deciding this for. Have we trained, studied, discussed and understood the foundations of the approach at a deep level?
Having worked as a trainer and support for many students, I have so often seen a minimal understanding of the person-centred approach, often limited to an understanding of the core conditions. If this is the reference point that we have for the person-centred approach, and therefore its integration and development moving forward, then I believe this leaves us wide open to misrepresentation and incongruent practice, primarily around integrating other approaches with the person-centred approach(3)
Necessary AND Sufficient?
Once we feel that we have a deep understanding of the theory that we are subscribing to or evaluating, then I believe that we need to use this as a reference point for what we are adapting or integrating into the approach moving forward and how we define this.
For myself, and many others, I cannot see beyond the core tenant of the Actualising Tendency and the Six Necessary and Sufficient Conditions. Not only as a core of practice of the person-centred practitioner, but also the benchmark of a practitioner’s commitment and understanding of the very reason for the sufficiency of these conditions and what the theory itself rests upon.
What I saw in the “Why Rogers’ is still relevant” piece were arguments to the very opposite of this title. An argument for Pluralism, as an evolution of the person-centred approach, as an argument that the PCA is necessary but not sufficient and so often, with seeming misunderstanding of the very approach it argued to be developing. Put another way, Rogers is still relevant, but….
It is absolutely a practitioner’s prerogative to not subscribe to the sufficiency of the conditions, but I believe at this point, it ceases being person-centred practice. And to use Brodley and Brody’s phrasing to round this off, Pluralistic practice may very will improve the efficacy and choice of offering to clients, but it should not be confused with client-centred therapy.
Brian Thorne tPCA AGM 2024
(Since writing this, I have listened to Brian Thorne’s address at tPCA AGM 2024. His comments from 18:15 onwards feels highly relevant and inline with what I try to capture in this article – https://www.the-pca.org.uk/images/files/AGM/2024/Brian_Thorne.m4a)
1. Therapy Today June 2024 – The big issue: Why Rogers is Still Relevant. Available from: https://www.bacp.co.uk/bacp-journals/therapy-today/2024/june/the-big-issue/
2. Temaner Brodley B with Brody AF – Can one use techniques and still be client-centred? In: Moon KA, Witty M, Grant B, Rice B (eds). Practicing client-centered therapy: selected writings of Barbara Temaner Brodley. Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books; 2011.
3. Therapy Today May 2014 – The Problem with Pluralism. Available from https://www.bacp.co.uk/bacp-journals/therapy-today/2014/may-2014/articles/the-problem-with-pluralism/