I've been thinking a lot about new theories and such. To a degree, just like a choir director or horse trainer must break the choir members' voices or the horse of its behaviors, it seems to me that a therapist must break a client. What does this mean? I almost think that one could view catharsis in any form as the behavioral affect of such breaking. Freud sought catharsis as the key healing factor in his work. Today we know to pursue the client further than mere cathartic reaction.
I really don't like the term breaking, though. It's much too rough and lacks a certain finesse and cold vocabulary that is used nowadays. Until I think of a better term, it will do. To break someone, the therapist must only pursue the client's "programming" down to the most basic ciphers. This requires a lot of uncovering of bad programming. Some good examples of bad programming came from Ellis's musts and shoulds. Once these are dealt with, a deeper understanding of the client can be gleaned.
I think that it could almost be said that a client isn't necessarily looking for the counselor to fix them. Instead, what they came to find (sometimes with the help of the counselor) is that they want to be understood. As said, this deeper understanding of the positive aspects of the core person can only be accessed after their negative behaviors are cast aside. Once their natural beneficence is free and observed, to a degree I think that it is the counselor's job to assist that person in building themselves back up.