Compartmentalization

     In my continued attempt to question all things about therapy that I have learned (which is something that I think everyone in their chosen field really should do; such action brings innovation), I will now discuss the topic of compartmentalization - something all, if not most, therapists are told to engage in. The question for this entry is: Is engaging in compartmentalization beneficial to the relationship?
     Budding therapists are told that compartmentalization is key in therapy, as thoughts about one's own life might obstruct the work occurring in the session. Is this true? I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other. As with many such fundamental principles, we must take a look at why the "rule " was at first imposed. I see two ways of looking at this: 1) the Freudian method and 2) the everyman graduate school method. I must preface  this specific talk with the warning that I am not a Freudian analyst nor a ghost mind-reader. Therefore I have not the training or the "skill" to claim what I will do. Nevertheless, I will still engage in such palaver, as this is my work and I'd like to see if/how my thoughts change the future. I'm thinking that Freud thought that any interference from the therapist is/was bad (hence his arcs into counter-transference). He wanted the client to be able to open up in any way they see fit in order to get to their own solution, rather than a solution that the therapist thinks is appropriate. This led to the stereotype of analysts' taciturn natures in therapy. I do give Freud much credit here because he is still one of the main forces behind a clinician looking into his/her own countertransference to engage their deep-seeded motivations. Unfortunately, in our effort to ensure that no countertransference exists, many therapists still do engage in a fear-oriented therapy that is more about them in the end than the client. The other way to look at this problem might be to engage it from a more modern and educational approach: How are current therapists taught (or not) to compartmentalize? I will only speak for myself in this section and what was explained to me in my own Master's-level training. As far as I can remember, we, as aspiring clinicians, were taught that whatever didn't begin in therapy room was to stay outside that room. I'm thinking that this might have been so stressed to future clinicians in order to assure that our own issues do not impede the work being done in session. Otherwise stated: We, as beginners, need to assure that the session is for the client, not for the clinician. This is a good point, but I do wonder how far this mantra should be taken.
     Now that I have explained some of the origins of this idea as I see it, the next step is to figure out what the helpful and the harmful aspects of compartmentalization actually are. Furthermore, who does it help or hinder to engage in such action? As with most "fundamental" issues such as this one, there is some give and take either way. I think that the positives (or helpful factors) in  compartmentalization really do exist more for the young, or budding, therapist than for the elder, more experienced, one.
     It is, to some extent, a learned skill to block out personal issues in life. A therapist must be able to do this while in session - or a therapist must be able to disengage from therapy completely. This is where I think a critical argument one way or the other must be had. The former forces a therapist to cut off pieces of himself - not quite the "genuine person" that Rogers spoke of. On the other hand, to not cut some of it out might lead to the session being more about the clinician than the client. This can be useful if the meta-curriculum of that session is one where such a role reversal provides helpful insight to the client. This, alas, is a more senior technique and one that I'm not ready for yet. To be able to disengage from therapy completely is a luxury that many clinicians do not have, leading, possibly, to burnout or resentments of the job. There is much healing to be done in taking some time off to process such compartments created and figure out whether they are really needed anymore.
     As previously mentioned, I do laud Freud in his idea that researching one's own countertransference is very important. It can make a clinician better at his/her job. I do worry that compartmentalization takes us away from some of our more primal parts, leading to less data from which the therapist might work. I think that there is some merit to allowing some of the walls to drop and to permit the client's message to bounce around in some of the dark corners of the self. Sure, this might bring to the surface some very complex issues for the clinician and it is here that the clinician might start the compartmentalization process - understanding that they need to throw light upon that inner conflict at some other point. To an extent, leaving these compartments up might actually lead to stagnation in the self, in the client, and in the practice in general.
     As mentioned, if a client's pain resonates personally for the clinician, it is his/her job to undergo some kind of supervision or therapy to gain insight into that issue. This leads to personal growth, bringing things that were in the unconscious to the conscious to be played with and changed before allowing it to be re-submerged into the unconscious. We put that thought back in its place to change some of the other issues around it and to achieve wide-spread health. We also put that thought back into the unconscious because we can't hold it in the conscious for very long and doing so provides us with some measure of anxiety, as we add more to our plate than what we might be used to. Putting these barriers up might actually lead to a lack of means to more productive advancement.
     One main reason why a therapist exists is as a sounding board for the client's thoughts. I always visualize this in my mind as a literal board on which clients throw their concerns. It seems to me that compartmentalizing actually decreases the surface area of this board, allowing for more good material to pass a clinician by. As mentioned, we put ourselves out there to feel with the client. In order for this mutual feeling to occur, there must be much to fasten onto, whether that is the lighter or darker parts of ourselves. I think that it is sometimes the darker parts of ourselves that resonate the most with clients. If we don't allow ourselves to be open with clients, then there is really minimal space for the therapeutic relationship to thrive and heal. I can see how a teaching program might push compartmentalization in that, were they to teach the radical openness that I am quasi-advocating for, a fresh student might take the lesson too far and over-share or not temper their sharing with experience or reason (the former of which they have minimal or none).
     This brings me to talk a little about openness in therapy. It seems to me that there is a culture of lack of openness. It could have something to do with the ideas previously mentioned or more cultural/societal fears of liability and judgment that might come of self-disclosure. We must always temper such fears with the assessment of our clients' wellbeing.

Client Responsibilities

     A very good book idea might be one where I outline not the process of therapy, but rather the responsibilities and right of the therapee. Expectations of therapy would be vital. I would talk about stages of therapy, but constantly re-inform the reader  that they must ask their therapist questions. Asking questions to and of the therapist is a client's best tool. It allows a client to shield themselves from counter-transference; it allows a client to gain more understanding of themselves - something crucial in practice; it allows the client to increase their knowledge of the clinician in such a way to increase the bond between these two disparate points.
     I think that a client must be told that his/her self is the most powerful force in the therapeutic alliance. A clinician receives and reflects only; that is, a good clinician receives or reflects with very minimal else. The clinician and the client do work together; the clinician does not do work in spite of the client. This is called psychoeducation and is not true therapy.

Appropriate Emotional Investment

     It is important for a clinician to be emotionally interested, but not emotionally invested in his or her clients. There is an important distinction here that must be mentioned in order to further the point. A clinician who is emotionally invested in clients ties a string to clients' development, taking themselves along for a ride, which depends upon someone else's motivation. This, of course, brings up many issues regarding boundaries between clinician and client. A clinician does not want to be at the mercy of the client; this might cause ripples to be felt throughout that therapist's whole practice. The opposite end is where the emotionally cut-off clinician practices - a place that does not necessarily engender good therapy and creates (possible on purpose on some level) no emotional connection or attachment with the clinician. This, just like the opposite end, can lead to echoes into other therapy sessions. So what does the middle look like? And why am I so afraid of the extremes? And how have I seen myself going into either extreme?
     Betwixt these two extremes, a clinician finds the land of emotional interest without emotional investment or dependence. This is a space where the clinician is comfortable with being present and appropriately emotional/empathetic with the client without allowing his or her personal life to bleed through into the session (non-therapeutically). To some degree, I think that it takes time to find this balance.

Arguing Against Progress

     There are many things that I am afraid of - one of the more curricular ones is the quasi-inevitable heath-death of this field. Sarcasm and hyperbole aside, the lack of forward development in the field is of huge concern. What does a lack of change really mean? It means that the answers have been found and/or no one cares anymore. A good parallel is language: language develops until another is created from its ruin or something better or more efficient takes its place. I do worry about this because I don't see as many people asking the important questions in the field and engaging in deep introspection and supervision, in order to develop themselves. This baffles and hurts me. Without each member of our field asking questions that further themselves and the field as a whole, we will stagnate and possibly start to see what we have already accomplished as enough. This would surely be the death of the field. As our culture, society, and clientele change, so must we. One could say that culture, society, and clientele will always be changing, so the field will as well. The added component here must be pride. Man is full of pride (and laziness) in his work, wanting the effect to stop when homeostasis is reached. It is important to never feel lazy in this fight. To some degree, there should always be someone who is the nay-sayer or the devil's advocate; someone who is ready to push the envelope, point out the weaknesses, or instill doubt. One could almost say that we are not looking for a Unified Theory (as this would surely mean the end of the field), but rather the continued dialogue and struggle to find that within ourselves that helps another - and surely each of us can contribute something (a lesson, perhaps) that is wholly our own, wholly subjective.
     To argue is to seek continued survival; to find perfection is to encourage death. This is odd, in that one could think that I am purposefully undermining a perfect theory - but that is the exact problem: there is no perfect theory! We each must continually question how we practice in order to be better ourselves.

Teaching Theories and Basic Skills

     I still have some major internal conflict on the topic of teaching theories to therapists. I'm still unsure of whether it is a good idea or not. I think that the main counseling skills of true active listening, empathy, reactive choices (interpretations, reflections, minimal urges, etc.), and appropriate self-disclosure. Of course, some of these skills come easier to some student of the field versus others. This should be monitored, as we do not want to continue teaching the expert. I'm starting to think that some mastery of these skills should be shown before moving on to deeper theories of the field. To put this whole paragraph a different way: While theoretical orientation is of high impact, it should not be taught before the basic elements of the craft are honed in the budding clinician.
     Theories are all well and good (and I will get to these parts in a moment), but they do not fulfill the needs of the therapeutic dyad that the basic counseling skills do in full. A therapist without active listening is deaf; a therapist without empathy is cold and uncaring; a therapist without correct reactions is ineffective; and a therapist without a personal and semi-transparent identity is not a true person, but a cheap mask. No amount of theoretical knowledge will help that therapist - he or she is not a researcher, an occupation where warmth, though encouraged, is not vital. Simply being intelligent in theory might increase the positive content of the message, but as every good therapist knows, how a message is conveyed is not of secondary importance.
     While it might seem as if I am bashing theories, allow me to be the first to quash this idea. Theories provide us with important information about what might be going on behind the eyes of a client. They also inform us as to what reaction might be appropriate for the clinician and the client. It must also be said that the basic counseling skills can be learned, and even monitored, by anyone, without the necessary education that therapists undergo. The layman is, of course, capable of reading any text that a budding or expert therapist might, but I would say (hesitantly) that the layman is not able to understand the implications of the text without the same education. This is, to some small degree, what separates the therapist from the natural-born thinker.
     It would be very difficult to measure the ability of trainees in the basic counseling skills. Observers would need to be use, in order to grade trainees in real interactions with clients. Pen-and-paper exams would be useless here. This would further push the impact of professors and instructors in their job as gatekeeper for the field. Were they to observe a student who shows no aptitude in these basic skills, they would need to take action for the sake of their university's program and, more importantly, to keep the bar set high for incoming professional therapists.

Answers

     Sometimes I have to laugh at my own ego. I think that I have the answer to other people's problems - that somehow the books I read have an answer to their troubles. Sure, that information can give some insight into the general, the objective, the well-known, but can anything written in these tomes get to the core of the person? Said otherwise: Might the presentation of a book help a client through their concern? This has, of course, occurred; how else would bibliotherapy be seen as a viable sub-theme of psychotherapy? Of course, people have also found inspiration in books. But inspiration is much different than true insight. Insight requires the addition of a second person who shares goals, but does not share eyes. In this way, therapy is more about communication and undersanding that it is the knowledge gleaned in a classroom. Such knowledge is a frame while listening and understanding is the beautiful painting housed within. Which is the real art? Which took more effort and understanding? That is a difficult question - one that causes science and art to become at odds. I do not, at this time, endeavor to belittle either in favor of the other. Instead, should not the pairing be celebrated?

What is the Highest Ideal?

     I do wonder . . . what do we want for our clients? Many therapists might say peace; many might say stability; others could say health. Some therapists push their clients toward that ever-elusive Maslowian self-actualization. I do wonder whether that might be a too-lofty goal. Of course, I'm not saying that self-actualization is not a relevant goal worth seeking. What I am trying to critique is the probability of a client, or even anyone, to reach this goal. Even Maslow commented on the low probability of this end. For the everyman, then, what is the end goal? It can't be a self-actualization. Why not happiness? Is that not enough?
     Most people, I would say, want a sense of happiness. What this means for them depends very mcuh ont heir personality, so I will not break happiness down into component parts. Is it wise for a therpaist to ask a client if they are happy? For many clients, the answer is most likely yes; I do, though, want to push some hesitation on the budding therapist to think about their client before asking, as happiness itself might be an unattainable ideal to them.
     A good example of this might be a client in current crisis or one with significant traumatic background. That client, most likely, is not interested in developing themselves in that manner, but rather is looking for an alleviation of their current negative symptoms. Asking an idealistic question (for that is what a query about happiness is), can be almost a slap in the face. A client might think that the clinician is not listening to them.
     Viktor Frankl, in an article or book (I can't remember which), mentioned that happiness is not the most proper ideal that man can aspire to. The interesting thing to me is not that he talks about meaningfulness being a more proper ideal, but rather that he mentioned happiness altogether. I'm wondering whether he would think that meaning lays on the path to happiness or vice versa. Differently said: Does having purpose bring one happiness or does happiness generally cause one to gain purpose? Did Frankl think, perhaps, that happiness is off the table because meaningfulness is a logical step to be gained first - and perhaps can only organically arise through the search for and attainment of purpose? Are there truly happy people who do not have purpose in their lives?