|
|
Post by alison on Mar 2, 2016 11:49:24 GMT
I find theory underpinning Gestalt therapy useful because it values personal responsibility and views the individual holistically in relation to their environment. When working with ‘unhelpful’ behaviours and responses I think Gestalt theory is useful. I like that Gestalt therapy views the individual as ‘basically healthy and striving for balance’ - rather than viewing/labelling pathology. For me, it is useful to recognise ‘fixed gestalts’ and how disturbed functioning in the past can lead to developed, habitual and out of awareness responses and behaviour in the present.
|
|
|
|
Post by alison on Mar 2, 2016 12:06:15 GMT
I think Freud’s theory of defence mechanisms and dissolution of resistances is useful. If my understanding is correct, Freud saw defences as counter forces to instinctual drives - where as contemporary thinking has broadened the role of defence to include the maintenance of self-esteem. So this theory is useful as an approach of contemporary hypno-psychotherapy might include helping the client uncover unconscious defense mechanisms, understand what purpose they are serving and find healthier ways of coping with anxiety and psychological distress.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Mar 3, 2016 18:39:13 GMT
I recently had the opportunity to conduct therapy with a client, but was limited to two sessions. In the run-up to the two sessions, I became quite enamoured of the psychodynamic approach. One of the books I favoured was Psychodynamic Counselling in Action, by Michael Jacobs – one of the core texts on the reading list.
“’The rule of abstinence’. Let the client express their own agenda and to explore their own feelings, thoughts and fantasies by deliberately holding back…”
So…let the client talk and just let things slip out. Very passive. Keep your mouth shut. One of Freud’s rules was let the patient talk – don’t encourage them to censor or criticise themselves. I just wanted my client to talk and talk and talk…letting things slip out. Both Freud and Rogers knew that it was vitally important to listen to what the client was thinking, rather than doggedly pursue a particular line of questioning, based on a rigid therapeutic train of thought. People want to be listened to and they know when you are truly listening to them, or mulling over some clever theory instead.
Here is where the psychodynamic approach grabbed me. Listen to your client. Listen to what is being said… listen to what is not being said. Listen for Freudian slips, subtext, odd, jarring phrases. Listen for mood and evasion. Watch body language.
Listen and give yourself over to your own unconscious thoughts. How do I feel about my client? Does what he’s saying match up with any personal experiences? Can I get into their skin? Monitor transference and counter-transference…what insights do I have? Can I check them out?
So I was filtering what my client was saying through my own unconscious and then analysing what was bubbling up into consciousness. I was experiencing relief that I had, to some extent, got through his outer defences. I was pondering his views and experiences and filtering them through my own. I tested theories about what I figured he meant by reflecting back his own kind of language. Yes… I caught myself sympathising (colluding) with him and pondered how useful or helpful that was. I did cross the line, but I knew I had and that I had to pull back. BUT…my going to where he was did much to break down (some of) the barriers between us, in the limited time available.
Sometime between the two sessions I became aware of a possible disenchantment with psychodynamic counselling. I noticed that Michael Jacobs strongly implied a marked distinction between counselling and psychotherapy, but would not articulate definitions. His therapy sessions meandered on fluffily, but I felt the approach too passive, particularly with only two sessions available to me. I was returning to my original definition as counselling being pretty ineffectual - merely listening. Although I valued much of the theory in Jacobs’ book, I felt it was something of a cul-de-sac from which I had to extricate myself, fast. Also, was my client suited to a psychodynamic approach?
In the second session I adopted a more aggressive, active form of psychodynamic psychotherapy – throwing in other techniques to speed up the process: I mentally considered his past and present actions against Jung’s self-realisation (reunion with the human race), Kernberg’s theory on narcissism, Adler’s inferiority / superiority complexes…family constellation... I was looking for something which rang alarm bells. There was a lot of contradictory stuff there which I think cancelled each other out… I think.
|
|
tutor
New Member
Posts: 11 
|
Post by tutor on Mar 6, 2016 6:31:28 GMT
Hi Alison and Chris
I believe it is always useful to consider a theory and then to try out its application. If it does not sit well with your personality or approach you can consider whether to modify those for a while. Remember - you only learn when outside your comfort zone. However there must be a reflective process in order to check that you are still authentic.
Tutor
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Mar 6, 2016 14:17:14 GMT
Yes, I agree. It highlighted the need to experience as many theories as possible. Make the theories fit the individual and not the other way round... and allow the theories to mutate....
|
|
Clare
New Member
Posts: 13 
|
Post by Clare on Mar 7, 2016 11:33:22 GMT
Psychotherapeutic orientation is an important one, receiving training in an approach then adapting the training to your style and I think we are drawn to certain approaches.
I find the psychodynamic approach of Freud useful, exploration of the unconscious thoughts and feelings, transference and counter transference and as Alison mentioned the interpretation of defensive processes that hinder emotional awareness. I also find the Ellis’ Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT) useful, discovering the clients irrational beliefs that underlies their self defeating emotions and behaviours and then the usefulness (or not) of these beliefs.
However, which psychotherapeutic orientation I will favour really depends on what the client presents with.
|
|
|
|
Post by alison on Mar 8, 2016 13:23:26 GMT
Yes, I agree with all of the above. I have found the grounding in numerous theories a very useful, and important, foundation as a psychotherapist. I've enjoyed those moments when a theory comes to mind, when working with a client (rather than the other way round - imposing a theory on a client). At times, this has challenged me, because the 'theory' or 'intervention related to said theory' feels personally challenging. For example, I felt very unconfident about Empty Chair. I clearly remember the time when 'everything' was suggesting this was the spot on intervention for a particular client - and I had to work through my lack of confidence/comfort with this technique in supervision. But I will never regret pushing through that personal block, because it was absolutely in the best interests of the client and was so important for my development as a therapist too.
|
|
