Chris Molyneux & Mick Cooper Dialogue - The Person-centred Approach and Pluralism

I was really glad to be able to speak with Mick Cooper about Person-centred and pluralistic approaches to therapy. We covered a lot of ground including philosophical underpinnings of our approaches, research, directivity and ultimately our approach to working with clients.
We plan to do a follow up dialogue where we have a chance to answer any questions or comments that people have so please leave your comments, questions, thoughts and suggestions below and we will be sure to address them in another video in the future.
It was a really fun and engaging conversation to have and I would be really interested to hear your thoughts.
Part 2 of the dialogue is here - • Chris Molyneux & Mick ...
More info at www.christheco...
and
Find me on social media:
Instagram - / christhecounsellor
Twitter - / cthecounsellor
Facebook - / christhecounsellor

[@sheilahaugh9825]

Thank you both for a very interesting and stimulating conversation which I think has helped clarify some quite important differences between pluralism and the person-centred theory and practice. It is generally accepted i think that all therapies express "person-centred values" as described in the paper Mick referred too (Rogers' '57), so acceptance of such values only means something is person-centred in the most general of terms. Tony Merry and Fred Zimring were of the opinion that you don't need to believe in the actualising tendency for the 6 conditions to provide a healing relationship. The discussion really brought out for me, as Chris mentions, the challenges and problems of a lot of person-centred training, in the UK at least. I am worried about what might is being missed in the training. That young people are being left feeling awkward with silence to the extent they want to leave their therapist is not about person-centred counselling or even the notion of principled non-directivity; it highlights a deep misunderstanding, teaching and learning of (1) the notion of empathy and (2) the very nature of (principled) non-directivity. It is true that Rogers needed to set himself aside from the prevailing theories/therapies of his time (psychoanalytical and behaviorism). Nevertheless, the idea of principled non-directivivity is a radical today as it was in the last century, particularly if we want to consider the issue of power dynamics (which is a bit different from the notion of empowerment). I also note, if 20% of young clients felt the silence awkward, that mean 4 out 5 clients did not. I have not felt particularly defensive or threatened by the notion of pluralism, and I don't know many colleagues who have felt this way. I have felt very (and sometimes very, very!) irritated by person-centred theory and practice being critiqued on ideas that are not proposed by person-centred theory and practice, or are not coherent to person-centred theory and practice (classical or otherwise). At times it seems there has been little notice of any development since Rogers - and there have been many. In respect of the actualising tendency for example, as Chris indirectly mentions, it has been conceptualised far more expansively that just a directional, self-isolated 'force'. This conceptualisation is a very white western model of the human being and has been challenged as such (see Chantler for example). Whilst I know that in many ways practice, theory and philosophical position are almost impossible to separate, my wish for a next installment, would be how all this might look when I am working with someone. Thank you both.

[@helenskelton8745]

I was coming on to comment, then realised Sheila has said much that I was about to! Thank you both for a very thought-provoking and informative conversation - I'm very much looking forward to seeing this dialogue develop. I too am concerned about problems in person-centred training, with misperceptions of person-centred practice resulting. I felt both saddened and slightly alarmed when Mick mentioned the silences that were not liked by the young people - I'm not surprised. However it is very important I think to question this practice rather than to accept it and confirm it as a person-centred, non-directive response, which I think was suggested by Mick's approach to it. Sometimes in the pluralistic debate I seem to hear poor practice being accepted as PC practice and therefore needing an alternative, rather than poor practice being named and a clearer understanding of PC practice being offered. This affirmation is a great shame and I think is potentially and unnecessarily damaging to the approach. . Empathy in person-centred work is a complex attitude expressed by the therapist that is not just aimed at content but also process and client experiencing, and in good PC practice any discomfort in the client would be gently and non-judgementally attended to with an empathic understanding response. (I don't think Rogers ever really used the words 'empathic reflection' - this vastly simplifies and reduces the purpose, practice and impact of empathy in my view. Peter Schmid's work on the essential dialogical nature of PC work and Barbara Brodley's concept of the empathic understanding response captures the radical, nuanced and relational responsiveness of PC practice well for me. Similarly principled non-directivity is far from being passive or doing nothing, but a sophisticated way of responding to the client genuinely, empathically and non-judgementally in a way that does not impose meaning or instruct direction, but actively facilitates the emergence of this from the client. I like this quote from Brodley, which seems to capture the active process of congruent, empathic responding that facilitates change: 'all therapies influence their clients. The universal goal is to influence clients towards growth and healing. A therapy must influence in order to be effective.If it does not influence the client any therapeutic change that occurs is entirely due to the client, not the therapy. The non-directive issue exists at a different level from the discourse on therapy as influencing clients. Beyond this discourse non-directivity is clearly understood at the level of the therapist's concrete intentions towards his client and at the level of the therapist's awareness of how his behaviour may be perceived and experienced by clients.' One of my pet hates is people saying 'I can't do that I'm person-centred' - again the product of poor training in my view. I don't consider myself unable to do anything as a PC therapist and it's important to me to work and dialogue with clients around their preferences and my abilities - this is psychological contact and congruent, ethical, relational working. However whatever I do I believe is more effective when it is guided by my philosophical adherence to principled non-directivity and by my attention to psychological contact, my genuine presence, my empathic understanding and my unconditional positive regard. It is these that help guide what, when, how and why I offer things to a client, and help ensure they come from a deeply respectful, relational and facilitative place.

[@user-gu5hn8fc3k]

Great content, thanks for sharing

[@ChrisTheCounsellor]

Thank you 🙏🏻

[@user-ck2vr5jb1i]

Fabulous description of PCC. Believing/thinking its therapy lead for me is missing the point of its essence. Its a way of 'being" rather than a way of 'doing' it cannot be faked, and that's what I love about it. Just because some clients feel uncomfortable with the silence doesn't make it the 'wrong' therapy for them. I've never got the point of too much analysing and evaluation, things are as they are and that's okay. Acceptance is the golden key.

[@ChrisTheCounsellor]

I can see a lot of your points and ultimately, if a client is uncomfortable or struggles with any part of therapy (like silence), then empathy would be used to help understand and work with this, rather than just impose it on the client as it seems to have been represented here. Appreciate your comment and thoughts :)

[@julienaylor5180]

This was SOOOO good 👏👏 I think you’ll get so many detailed comments, drilling down into different aspects of what was discussed here, so I’ll just go with my first, intuitive response......... the notion of PC being a philosophy the therapist lives, is central to my own process (personally and professionally), so I loved that this was highlighted so much here, Chris. I think what I heard is ‘if we hold that philosophy, respect and knowing, re clients, then how can we direct them in any way, as that can somehow feel opposite to that which we hold as fundamental in relation to other humans.’ I also REALLY appreciate that you touched on PCT not being passive. That resonated so strongly with me. Sometimes, I feel, in a variety of different circles, that the perception of it is us sitting there, nodding along with everything clients are saying, with a few long silences thrown in. That couldn’t be further from how I work and my own experiences as a client in PCT. Genuinely love how this was discussed so respectfully and how the focus was on clients and their process, what they want and need and what works for them. Keeping it real 👏👏👏 Thats what it’s all about, for me. Thank you guys.

[@rachelgh]

This is an interesting conversation I feel grateful you two could cross the divide and have it. I hear pluralism being hailed as the great way forward validated by research against a lot of wary noise about it being 'another version of integration' or being 'too active' with some manning of the barricades from the person centred side about non-directivity is the only way. I'm wondering why we're so fearful at times. I can only measure this in terms of my own evolution as a therapist over a very long period. There has always been directionality in my model, I started in one place and travelled purposefully towards somewhere else, propelled by what I learned from my clients, my supervisors, my peers and research. I was trained humanistically but my greatest learning came from being in an agency where I sat alongside therapists from all modalities. But the fundamentals of how I build a working alliance with my clients has not changed and that's the core conditions (all of them). Now I find myself travelling back towards psychodynamic and attachment theory (that feels a bit like when you get told you'll only get opera when you're old). My philosophy hasn't changed, keep the client at the centre of everything you do and stay curious and keep yourself out of it. I learned this practising long term therapy. There's something about the cultural narrative that says everything has to be time limited and the industrialisation of therapy that is going to deprive students of learning how to be patient with themselves and with clients which I'm worried pluralism is going to get caught up in. Thx for sharing this.

[@nataliablair9973]

I absolutely love this episode. The best discussion I've seen on the Internet.

[@ChrisTheCounsellor]

Wow! What lovely words to read!! Thank you so much and so glad it landed well Natalia

[@ich2410]

I wonder, what both of you think, two years later? And, i realise there is a lot of research work done, in terms of Trauma ( c/Ptsd) and the development of the Self-Concept ( emotional immaturity/ abuse in his differed forms) I would really love to know, what does the PC-Family thinks about it and what does this means to work in practice?

[@untangledbecoming]

I have been reflecting a lot on this. I feel that Mick's point at 7:25 (and his recent article in TT) provides a sticking point for me. It (the PCA) is therapy centred in a roundabout way because it is deeply philosophical about people, not just a practice. and I am not sure for me that is a bad thing. Mick makes the point at 18:00 about people telling him what he wants irritating him. At the moment, there is something happening here (in the wider world), as a trainee, that I am being 'told' as a person-centred trainee, that what I want and who I am is not enough, I should be more to offer more for the sake of the client because they want more, but is this ethical if it is outside of my philosophical beliefs? This is the juxtaposition, of Mick's arguments- it feels like authenticity and my deep belief in the actualising tendency in the PC interpretation of self is traded for service provision. How do we balance this? For me (today) it is in the acknowledgement, I simply can not offer all things to all people (across the whole of my life, not just in therapy). Hopefully, I can BE with people as moments unfold in what Schmid and Mearns (2011) describe as a co-created, relational way. There are plenty of other therapists who can offer other options authentically and I value that offering. I know what I am, I know what I am not, to offer more or less than that, feels inauthentic. The actualising tendency (mine and others) greatly informs this. Just again harking back to the recent Therapy Today article, it isn't just about training, there is something very real happening for students, who may be doing PC courses, and want to practice in a PC way, who then get out on placement and are told, forget about everything you've learned, we do things this way. Again adding to the mixed messages the PC trainee receives from the wider counselling and psychotherapy world. One deeper piece of research that I feel may complement Mick's research on client's wanting advice, is WHY clients feel they need that advice from others? That isn't something I personally want from therapy but perhaps that is my PCA roots showing.

[@dominick8656]

This is a gem of a comment, thank you for posting your thoughts!

[@TheNormallyOpen]

'It's not an either or' - I found that to be a very wise statement.

[@worldisbig]

Peace 🙏🕊️ I personally feeling strong when Chris mentioned about it is individual, like considering the multiculturalism of each clients. Like for Asian who culturally collectivism, maybe at some extreme end of embracing hierarchical aspect in relationships, might be very frustrating when counselor let them lead the whole way. Maybe that time, still client-centered, guide from one step behind would be more effective for the client? But then it would not be the classical Rogerian non-directivity way, perhaps a bit more towards motivational interviewing?

[@ChrisTheCounsellor]

It's an interesting question and consideration. There may be something of a mixed approach from the counsellor, both in being attentive to the client and their approach / individual needs and maybe also the importance of cultural/contextual awareness of the clients that see us too. However, I am not sure that motivational interviewing would really come into a person-centred framework, but I do agree that culture and environment are really important considerations in understanding our clients, their process and needs. Hope that helps, but if that misses anything, or anything further needs explaining or exploring, feel free to let me know

[@katesmith2370]

Thank you Chris for your insightful explanations of your approach. I particularly like the idea that a shared, or at least similar underlying philosophy which is enacted in different ways can show how therapies exist in a family tree and are (potentially) evolving. Also, couldn’t agree more that passive non-directivity and a simplistic operational approach to using PCT is a problem! As a pluralist I have nothing but respect for those who are able to understand and apply their approach with integrity, knowing what you offer and why is core to pluralism too..

[@martinratcliffe5987]

I can't see how these approaches can't be the same way of saying the same thing - providing there is a firm basis of respect for client moment to moment valuing.

[@ChrisTheCounsellor]

Hi Martin, thanks for the comment. We are due to do another video shortly and that should go a bit more into the similarities and differences. Hopefully should be uploaded in the coming weeks/months

[@RobbieRob-yw6fm]

I don't know whether either of you have read Tudor and Worrall's (2006) "Person-Centred Therapy: A Clinical Philosophy", but taking into account some of its findings would certain enrichen the debate. Chris, I think you are thinking along the right lines - but it would be very beneficial for you to become better acquainted with it.

[@ChrisTheCounsellor]

Appreciate the heads up, Robbie - thanks

[@VladyslavKL]

🕊

[@dominick8656]

Cooper, when you go off on the anti-western, anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist rant, you simply lose me. Reciting the usual radical leftist talking points... The fact that PCT originated in the west is not nearly as brilliant a criticism as you might think. It had to originate somewhere. If it had originated in Zimbabwe, would you be as enthusiastic about trashing it's level of cross-cultural applicability? Do you think Rogers should have swam to Papua New Guinea in the 50's to conduct research on PCT's effect on the natives? You can't even conduct reliable psychotherapy studies with current technology let alone what would have been available in the 50's.

[@laetitiacunliffe3862]

Listening to Mick and/or reading much of his work, he does come across as someone who is "time-jammed" in 1980s' ""radical"" student politics. He hasn't moved on, whereas it is maybe high time he did. There is a distinct Manichaeism in his thinking, with everything related to orthodox person-centred therapy being portrayed as "reactionary", "individualistic", "purist", "old school" and "fuddy duddy" (i.e. EVIL), whereas any new manifestation, particularly if Mick himself is involved in it, is "radical", "relational", "dialogical", relentlessly responsive to "the Other" (i.e. GOOD). There is a binary opposition in Mick's writing and thinking on person-centred vs. pluralistic therapy that is RIPE for deconstruction, if anyone had the inclination.