- Thread starter David Baxter PhD
- Start date
David Baxter PhD
Late Founder
In that case, I must emphatically disagree. The two are independent, orthoganal.
The essence of client-centered therapy is that the goals of therapy are identified by the client, typically witrh the assistance of the therapist. Whether or not a diagnosis is explicitly given doesn't change that. Moreover, whether or not a diagnosis is explicitly formulated, most qualified therapists will have formed hypotheses about the origins of the patients issues, symptoms, or complaints within the first session.
I would also take issue with your statement above that one cannot use an eclectic approach to therapy if one uses client-centered therapy as the basic approach. I don't see how or why they are incompatible in any vreal sense. The approach taken at any given stage of psychotherapy is (or should be) driven by what the client needs.
Ok. My view is that it does make a difference for the client to have been diagnosed "as a problem", and that it will contaminate the process of therapy in CCT. I am not even sure that with CCT clients have to, need to, or just set goals, or/and that CCTherapists assist. I believe that the CCTherapist facilitates rather than assist. Perhaps the difference is in the details.
It seems to me, and this is from far-away-memories, so I apologise if I am mistaken, that Rogers created "Counselling" to get away from the medical schools of thoughts and therefore away from medical diagnostics, as he did not believe that it was necessary (and was rejected by the Medicals). Rogers was not a psychiatrist, but a psychologist and also referred to himself as a Counsellor. He did not have the medical background to form a medical judgement. Nevertheless, he formed his 6 core conditions, and his Client/Person-Centred Approach that is about 6 core conditions, not 5, 4 or 3, but 6. The 6 are necessary, all together. This is what makes the difference with the other approaches that would be more instrumental, and why I think a medical view is not necessary, because this is the client who knows what's wrong. A diagnostic would erase the benefits of real CCTherapy, in my opinion.
I used to be quite passionate by that approach. I admit it's been a long time I have not put my mind into it. I hope to be back into reading some of the approaches in therapy soon and again, and to be more helpful here when I express my views and understandings on some theoretical concepts and therapeutic practices.
Thank you for your patience,
lili
It seems to me, and this is from far-away-memories, so I apologise if I am mistaken, that Rogers created "Counselling" to get away from the medical schools of thoughts and therefore away from medical diagnostics, as he did not believe that it was necessary (and was rejected by the Medicals). Rogers was not a psychiatrist, but a psychologist and also referred to himself as a Counsellor. He did not have the medical background to form a medical judgement. Nevertheless, he formed his 6 core conditions, and his Client/Person-Centred Approach that is about 6 core conditions, not 5, 4 or 3, but 6. The 6 are necessary, all together. This is what makes the difference with the other approaches that would be more instrumental, and why I think a medical view is not necessary, because this is the client who knows what's wrong. A diagnostic would erase the benefits of real CCTherapy, in my opinion.
I used to be quite passionate by that approach. I admit it's been a long time I have not put my mind into it. I hope to be back into reading some of the approaches in therapy soon and again, and to be more helpful here when I express my views and understandings on some theoretical concepts and therapeutic practices.
Thank you for your patience,
lili
David Baxter PhD
Late Founder
I consider myself to be an "eclectic therapist" - I try to tailor my approach to the individual, not to a theory.
I also consider the foundation of my practice to be client-centered therapy very much consistent with the way Rogers described that.
I also forumulate and convey diagnoses. Indeed, as part of my job I have both the legal authority and a requirement to do so (for example, when clients are applying for insurance benefits, especially long term benefits, they often require a diagnosis). Conveying a diagnosis does not depart from a focus on client-centered therapy, not from what is in the best interests of the client.
I am a psychologist, not a physician.
And I am not sure where you get this notion that diagnosis is the devil and that diagnosis is in conflict with the principle of diagnosis.
I also consider the foundation of my practice to be client-centered therapy very much consistent with the way Rogers described that.
I also forumulate and convey diagnoses. Indeed, as part of my job I have both the legal authority and a requirement to do so (for example, when clients are applying for insurance benefits, especially long term benefits, they often require a diagnosis). Conveying a diagnosis does not depart from a focus on client-centered therapy, not from what is in the best interests of the client.
I am a psychologist, not a physician.
And I am not sure where you get this notion that diagnosis is the devil and that diagnosis is in conflict with the principle of diagnosis.
David,
I don't know how to be clearer than I did.
I have nothing against diagnosis and ecclectic psychotherapists.
It is not to be taken personally. I am trying to give my views on what CCT expresses and how it distinguishes itelf from other Models of therapy, that's all.
David, you work as you wish, as it feels for you. You find your own approach, and if a diagnosis is a tool you like working with, fine.
If you need a diagnosis for your medical fees and insurance, fine.
I was just saying that Rogers was not ecclectic.
His 6 core conditions were sufficient and necessary.
If you can just be the 6 core conditions, you basically don't need anything else, with every client, all of them, diagnosed, not diagnosed, ... you list them.
However, I would still argue that if one is ecclectic, they cannot practice CCT. CCT is is non-directive approach. Playing with other approaches would not help a therapist to keep a CCT approach. I don't think. It is too easy to "play with tools" with other approaches, why would you then just use the 6 core conditions suddenly? CCT is not a tool, it is an attitude but if you use it as a tool (sometimes CBT, sometimes CCT because I want that silence here or there or show some empathy), then this is not CCT, this is just instrumental, which is far far away from what Rogers wanted to communicate about therapy and his 6 core conditions.
I will have to stop here unfortunately.
lili
I don't know how to be clearer than I did.
I have nothing against diagnosis and ecclectic psychotherapists.
It is not to be taken personally. I am trying to give my views on what CCT expresses and how it distinguishes itelf from other Models of therapy, that's all.
David, you work as you wish, as it feels for you. You find your own approach, and if a diagnosis is a tool you like working with, fine.
If you need a diagnosis for your medical fees and insurance, fine.
I was just saying that Rogers was not ecclectic.
His 6 core conditions were sufficient and necessary.
If you can just be the 6 core conditions, you basically don't need anything else, with every client, all of them, diagnosed, not diagnosed, ... you list them.
However, I would still argue that if one is ecclectic, they cannot practice CCT. CCT is is non-directive approach. Playing with other approaches would not help a therapist to keep a CCT approach. I don't think. It is too easy to "play with tools" with other approaches, why would you then just use the 6 core conditions suddenly? CCT is not a tool, it is an attitude but if you use it as a tool (sometimes CBT, sometimes CCT because I want that silence here or there or show some empathy), then this is not CCT, this is just instrumental, which is far far away from what Rogers wanted to communicate about therapy and his 6 core conditions.
I will have to stop here unfortunately.
lili
David Baxter PhD
Late Founder
And I would have to argue that you are dead wrong. If what the therapist is doing is adjusting his/her approach and the tools s/he uses in accordance with what is best for the client, this is entirely consistent with the principles of client-centered therapy. I would argue that to remain locked into one strategy or approach, in effect stuffing the client into that approach rather than adapting the approach to what the client needs, is in fact antithetical to the principles of client-centered therapy.
You seem have an overly rigid view of client-centered therapy and what it entails. That's rather ironic since the essence of client-centered therapy is flexibility in consideration of what the client needs rather than what the therapist or a theory needs.
David,
CCT is not a strategy.
It is A Way of Being.
You leave your theory in your cupboard. The only tool is yourself.
Of course Congruence plays a huge role.
it is not about being flexible neither. Just be yourself. In fact this approach is first very complex, however if it suits your personality like a glove, it is the easiest to practice. If it is you, and when it is you, you've got everything with CCT because a CCTherapist is non-directive yes clients can choose to speak or play whatever they want...and the CCT will follow surely...but the tools are nothing compared to being deeply empathic and when clients start realising that, they want nothing else... it feels good to be with someone who can really listen, be empathic, non judgemental and on the same wve length...
Of course, Rogers was kind of exceptional in his own empathy. He had real abilities, a natural talent. This is what CCT requires I believe, whilst other Models just require that you learn how to use the tools, the theories and practice will make a bit more perfect...
Ok, I said enough.
Good day to you.
lili
CCT is not a strategy.
It is A Way of Being.
You leave your theory in your cupboard. The only tool is yourself.
Of course Congruence plays a huge role.
it is not about being flexible neither. Just be yourself. In fact this approach is first very complex, however if it suits your personality like a glove, it is the easiest to practice. If it is you, and when it is you, you've got everything with CCT because a CCTherapist is non-directive yes clients can choose to speak or play whatever they want...and the CCT will follow surely...but the tools are nothing compared to being deeply empathic and when clients start realising that, they want nothing else... it feels good to be with someone who can really listen, be empathic, non judgemental and on the same wve length...
Of course, Rogers was kind of exceptional in his own empathy. He had real abilities, a natural talent. This is what CCT requires I believe, whilst other Models just require that you learn how to use the tools, the theories and practice will make a bit more perfect...
Ok, I said enough.
Good day to you.
lili
David Baxter PhD
Late Founder
Can you not see the contradictions in what you say? It is not about being flexible - it is about being yourself - it is about being "someone who can really listen, be empathic, non judgemental", etc.? How is any of this inconsistent with eclecticism in therapy?
David,
I like this question.
I also like contradictions and contrasts.
I think the difference between Rogers' approach and being ecclectic rests on whether we follow a theory or the client, whether you are theory-centred or client-centred.
As soon as we think "you need that" "that will solve your problem", this is taking the power away from the client to find the means to solve his problems himself, this is following a theory rather than the client. The attitude is extremely different. I am not saying it is wrong to be ecclectic, I am just saying that starting analysing "a problem" and trying to get rid of it or solve it is not CCT, being ecclectic takes you away from being yourself, but perhaps not from being a therapist.
I find this to be a contradiction in itself and yet I think this is what Rogers could be. He was a therapist but not in therapy and yet it was therapeutic.
I just wish I could write better to express myself. I am not patient enough with writing.
I will have to make time for it if I don't want to offend any of you and still be clear with what I would like to communicate here.
Another day,
cheers,
lili
I like this question.
I also like contradictions and contrasts.
I think the difference between Rogers' approach and being ecclectic rests on whether we follow a theory or the client, whether you are theory-centred or client-centred.
As soon as we think "you need that" "that will solve your problem", this is taking the power away from the client to find the means to solve his problems himself, this is following a theory rather than the client. The attitude is extremely different. I am not saying it is wrong to be ecclectic, I am just saying that starting analysing "a problem" and trying to get rid of it or solve it is not CCT, being ecclectic takes you away from being yourself, but perhaps not from being a therapist.
I find this to be a contradiction in itself and yet I think this is what Rogers could be. He was a therapist but not in therapy and yet it was therapeutic.
I just wish I could write better to express myself. I am not patient enough with writing.
I will have to make time for it if I don't want to offend any of you and still be clear with what I would like to communicate here.
Another day,
cheers,
lili
David Baxter PhD
Late Founder
The problem seems to be that your understanding of "eclectic" assumes that the client and his/her wishes or goals are left out of the equation. I'm not sure where this comes from and I do know that it is incorrect (or at least not necessarily correct).
How does being flexible and responding to the client's wishes or needs take you away from being yourself? How is it NOT the essence of client-centered therapy? How is it "following a theory rather than the client"? Indeed, it seems to me that an eclectic approach is the polar opposite of following a theory.
How does being flexible and responding to the client's wishes or needs take you away from being yourself? How is it NOT the essence of client-centered therapy? How is it "following a theory rather than the client"? Indeed, it seems to me that an eclectic approach is the polar opposite of following a theory.
Replying is not possible. This forum is only available as an archive.
Similar threads
