Relational Depth In Counselling
This essay relates theoretical understanding to a role play in which one person is the counsellor and the other the client. The first section of this essay is the transcript of the role play. The second section applies Rogerian Theory of Personality and various Existential ideas. In the third section, the perspective of relational depth will be evaluated within the counselling relationship. Lastly, some conclusions will be drawn as to the effectiveness of Person Centred, existential ideas and development of relational depth.
My client at a young age could have been taught that homosexuality is wrong this could be seen as an introjecting value (Rogers, 1951). When she was attending the Catholic all-girls school, she was ‘confused’ about who she was attracted to. At the time, she felt she would be rejected because homosexuality is considered a sin within her religion; she also assumed her parents would reject her too. As a result of this she felt she did not have anyone to confide in thus, she became angry. Despite the introjecting value (Rogers, 1951), she entered into a same-sex relationship (M2a). By her own admission, this relationship was ‘toxic’ (M2a) perhaps because she could not reconcile between her feelings and the implicit introjecting value (Rogers, 1951) she had in her mind. It could also be possible that she …show more content…
subconsciously sabotaged the relationship, therefore, proving to herself everything she had been taught was true.
This introjecting value (Rogers, 1951) could have been internalised and turned into a condition of worth (Tolan, 2012), therefore, the condition of worth (Tolan, 2012) could be I will be loved if I am Heterosexual. Despite ending that relationship, she is still having relationship issues despite being in a ‘guy and girl’ (M27b) relationship. Evidence of this lies in what she says in section M30:
“But I think where I felt so wrong a couple of years ago doing the extreme wrong thing, I still feel the extreme wrong thing even though I could be actually fine, I'm like ... (long pause) I just feel it's just not right.”
While in the same sex relationship she never confided in her family and felt she lost connection with her parents due to her fear of rejection (M2b). As a result of this fear she isolated herself and became angrier at her parent because they were not noticing what she was going through. Despite, her concerns she kept her religion and underwent her confirmation to be accepted into the church as an adult. After the same sex relationship ended she felt the relationship between herself and her parents was rebuildable (M12). However, in section M14a she understands it was rebuilding because she was pleasing them. This could be expressed as conditions of worth (I will be loved if I please them). This condition of worth may have been internalised because later in the session (M31) she admits she is still trying to reconcile for her perceived transgressions by buying them gifts (Tolan, 2012).
These conditions of worth (Tolan, 2012) are now creating incongruence between her self-concept and her organismic self possibly causing the External Locus of Evaluation (Rogers, 1951) seen throughout the exchange (M4a, M13a, M14a etc.). The incongruence is causing her unhappiness as she cannot please her parents, religion and herself. Existential theory could see as anxiety within her three of her four realms (personal, social and spiritual) (Ludwig Binswanger, 1881–1966: Van Deurzen, 2012). However, section M42 and M44 shows she is starting to think about focusing on herself and her own needs. Further therapy sessions could be needed in order for her to realise fully that she can rely on her own internal frame of reference (Rogers, 1951). This could ultimately lead to an internal locus of evaluation (Rogers, 1951) and congruence between her self-concept and her organismic self (Tolan, 2012).
Developing her congruence and locus of evaluation (Rogers, 1951) could also help her to progress into a fully functioning person that is able to self-actualise. However, at this present time, she is not ready as evident by sections M2a, M3, M5 etc. In these sections, the client exhibits difficulty living in the here and now and sifting her own evidence. In order for her to become a fully functioning person, she would need to rely on her own judgement to sort through the information she acquires and start living in the present (McLeod, 2013).
There is an apparent static feeling to the written account of the clients’ process, however, it is not a static process but ever changing. She could move from the current incongruence into a more congruent person and back again. If a greater fluidity is achieved this could mean she is exhibiting self-awareness thus, is able to move in and out of her own experiences. This self-awareness would mean she was engaged in her own process of being thus, filtering the information and conditions of worth thrown at her and living in the present This would ultimately lead to her trusting herself and her inner locus of evaluation (McLeod, 2013).
When applying Existential theory to my client’s phenomenological world view I can see she has anxiety within her four dimensions’. As the dimensions are interlinked I can see her Spiritual realm. has had a great effect on her Personal dimension. Values taught by the Catholic church are having an effect how she makes sense of who she is (Personal dimension). This has had an overall impact on her Physical and Social dimensions. Her Catholic upbringing and membership to the church may have influenced her decisions regarding her sexuality. So, when she had Homosexual feelings and a relationship (Personal dimension) she experienced anxiety within her Social (how she related to her parents: M3) and Physical (M3: self-isolation) dimension (Ludwig Binswanger, 1881–1966: Van Deurzen, 2012). This could be due to her perceived ideas about how her family and church would react. She made the choice to enter into a same-sex relationship (M2a) in spite of the values she was taught. Consequently, she could have been unable to reconcile between the values she was taught and her own feelings. This conflict could have led to anxiety that was outwardly expressed as anger, self-isolation, depression and self-harm. The anxiety was caused by the choices she has made and having to live with the consequences of those choices (Yalom, 1980). Person-centred theory would call this an introjecting value (Rogers, 1951).
Section M3 shows she holds Neurotic anxiety (May, 1996) concerning her parent’s reaction to her sexuality. The result of the anxiety was her isolating herself from her family but not her religion (M13a). However, at the time she made a decision based on the information she had and admits she did not see her parents any other way but strictly religious (M5). There is also normal anxiety (M22) (May, 1996) within her concerning telling her parents how she feels. The potentially lasting effects of this are the continuation of the small argument (M20a), the continued feelings of invisibility (M23a) and feeling like she has to ‘fix’ the relationship (M20a).
Although, she made the choice she denies the responsibility for the choice leading her existence to be inauthentic (Van Deurzen, 2012). She admits this in section M3 when she states:
“I felt like because of the way I portrayed them, it's their fault.”
This could be seen as a defence mechanism: Denial of Responsibility. This defence mechanism involves the individual seeing themselves as a victim of the events they have put in motion. This could also be expressed as a paradox of existence (Freedom vs. Responsibility) my client wants the freedom to act but wants none of the responsibilities (Yalom, 1980).
At the beginning of the session (C1), the counsellor greets the client to welcome them, to put them at ease, relax them into the session and help establish the pace. This felicitates relational depth because it allows the client to know in the session they can breathe and relax (Mearns and Thorne, 2013). On the other hand, if the client does not want to ‘make small talk’ and wants only to talk about their problem it could result in further anxiety for the client. In this instance, the counsellor can forego the greeting and move straight into the session (Mearns and Thorne, 2013).
Another indication of the development of relational depth is the counsellor handing the session over to the client (C2).
This small gesture maintains client autonomy, allows them to control the sessions and establishes them as the expert in their lives. This reflects the establishes boundaries and the overall attitudes of the person-centred counsellor. This helps the development of relational depth as the client, upon first entering the room in the second session, may still have preconceived ideas on what a counsellor should do. The gesture of handing the session to the client also helps to establish a trusting relationship (Mearns and Thorne,
2013).
Throughout the session, there is a convergence of language between counsellor and client. An example of this is found in section C6-C8 the counsellor uses the colloquial term (Yeah) instead of the standard ‘yes’. In linguistic terms, a convergence of language means using language to relate to another person in order to put that individual at ease and relate to them at their level (Clayton, 2012). The appropriate use of language helps to establish rapport and pave the way for greater relational depth. However, councillors with a narrow communicational range will find it difficult to relate to their clients and reach relational depth. Furthermore, in section C8, the client has finished the counsellor's sentence this shows the client feels comfortable and feels like a valued member of the relationship. A disadvantage of the client and counsellor being on this level is collusion (Mearns and Cooper, 2005).
In conclusion, there are advantages and disadvantages to relational depth however, if the counsellor can foster a meaningful sense of relational depth in sessions then clients could open up and gain a better sense of emotional well-being.
My client at a young age could have been taught that homosexuality is wrong this could be seen as an introjecting value (Rogers, 1951). When she was attending the Catholic all-girls school, she was ‘confused’ about who she was attracted to. At the time, she felt she would be rejected because homosexuality is considered a sin within her religion; she also assumed her parents would reject her too. As a result of this she felt she did not have anyone to confide in thus, she became angry. Despite the introjecting value (Rogers, 1951), she entered into a same-sex relationship (M2a). By her own admission, this relationship was ‘toxic’ (M2a) perhaps because she could not reconcile between her feelings and the implicit introjecting value (Rogers, 1951) she had in her mind. It could also be possible that she …show more content…
subconsciously sabotaged the relationship, therefore, proving to herself everything she had been taught was true.
This introjecting value (Rogers, 1951) could have been internalised and turned into a condition of worth (Tolan, 2012), therefore, the condition of worth (Tolan, 2012) could be I will be loved if I am Heterosexual. Despite ending that relationship, she is still having relationship issues despite being in a ‘guy and girl’ (M27b) relationship. Evidence of this lies in what she says in section M30:
“But I think where I felt so wrong a couple of years ago doing the extreme wrong thing, I still feel the extreme wrong thing even though I could be actually fine, I'm like ... (long pause) I just feel it's just not right.”
While in the same sex relationship she never confided in her family and felt she lost connection with her parents due to her fear of rejection (M2b). As a result of this fear she isolated herself and became angrier at her parent because they were not noticing what she was going through. Despite, her concerns she kept her religion and underwent her confirmation to be accepted into the church as an adult. After the same sex relationship ended she felt the relationship between herself and her parents was rebuildable (M12). However, in section M14a she understands it was rebuilding because she was pleasing them. This could be expressed as conditions of worth (I will be loved if I please them). This condition of worth may have been internalised because later in the session (M31) she admits she is still trying to reconcile for her perceived transgressions by buying them gifts (Tolan, 2012).
These conditions of worth (Tolan, 2012) are now creating incongruence between her self-concept and her organismic self possibly causing the External Locus of Evaluation (Rogers, 1951) seen throughout the exchange (M4a, M13a, M14a etc.). The incongruence is causing her unhappiness as she cannot please her parents, religion and herself. Existential theory could see as anxiety within her three of her four realms (personal, social and spiritual) (Ludwig Binswanger, 1881–1966: Van Deurzen, 2012). However, section M42 and M44 shows she is starting to think about focusing on herself and her own needs. Further therapy sessions could be needed in order for her to realise fully that she can rely on her own internal frame of reference (Rogers, 1951). This could ultimately lead to an internal locus of evaluation (Rogers, 1951) and congruence between her self-concept and her organismic self (Tolan, 2012).
Developing her congruence and locus of evaluation (Rogers, 1951) could also help her to progress into a fully functioning person that is able to self-actualise. However, at this present time, she is not ready as evident by sections M2a, M3, M5 etc. In these sections, the client exhibits difficulty living in the here and now and sifting her own evidence. In order for her to become a fully functioning person, she would need to rely on her own judgement to sort through the information she acquires and start living in the present (McLeod, 2013).
There is an apparent static feeling to the written account of the clients’ process, however, it is not a static process but ever changing. She could move from the current incongruence into a more congruent person and back again. If a greater fluidity is achieved this could mean she is exhibiting self-awareness thus, is able to move in and out of her own experiences. This self-awareness would mean she was engaged in her own process of being thus, filtering the information and conditions of worth thrown at her and living in the present This would ultimately lead to her trusting herself and her inner locus of evaluation (McLeod, 2013).
When applying Existential theory to my client’s phenomenological world view I can see she has anxiety within her four dimensions’. As the dimensions are interlinked I can see her Spiritual realm. has had a great effect on her Personal dimension. Values taught by the Catholic church are having an effect how she makes sense of who she is (Personal dimension). This has had an overall impact on her Physical and Social dimensions. Her Catholic upbringing and membership to the church may have influenced her decisions regarding her sexuality. So, when she had Homosexual feelings and a relationship (Personal dimension) she experienced anxiety within her Social (how she related to her parents: M3) and Physical (M3: self-isolation) dimension (Ludwig Binswanger, 1881–1966: Van Deurzen, 2012). This could be due to her perceived ideas about how her family and church would react. She made the choice to enter into a same-sex relationship (M2a) in spite of the values she was taught. Consequently, she could have been unable to reconcile between the values she was taught and her own feelings. This conflict could have led to anxiety that was outwardly expressed as anger, self-isolation, depression and self-harm. The anxiety was caused by the choices she has made and having to live with the consequences of those choices (Yalom, 1980). Person-centred theory would call this an introjecting value (Rogers, 1951).
Section M3 shows she holds Neurotic anxiety (May, 1996) concerning her parent’s reaction to her sexuality. The result of the anxiety was her isolating herself from her family but not her religion (M13a). However, at the time she made a decision based on the information she had and admits she did not see her parents any other way but strictly religious (M5). There is also normal anxiety (M22) (May, 1996) within her concerning telling her parents how she feels. The potentially lasting effects of this are the continuation of the small argument (M20a), the continued feelings of invisibility (M23a) and feeling like she has to ‘fix’ the relationship (M20a).
Although, she made the choice she denies the responsibility for the choice leading her existence to be inauthentic (Van Deurzen, 2012). She admits this in section M3 when she states:
“I felt like because of the way I portrayed them, it's their fault.”
This could be seen as a defence mechanism: Denial of Responsibility. This defence mechanism involves the individual seeing themselves as a victim of the events they have put in motion. This could also be expressed as a paradox of existence (Freedom vs. Responsibility) my client wants the freedom to act but wants none of the responsibilities (Yalom, 1980).
At the beginning of the session (C1), the counsellor greets the client to welcome them, to put them at ease, relax them into the session and help establish the pace. This felicitates relational depth because it allows the client to know in the session they can breathe and relax (Mearns and Thorne, 2013). On the other hand, if the client does not want to ‘make small talk’ and wants only to talk about their problem it could result in further anxiety for the client. In this instance, the counsellor can forego the greeting and move straight into the session (Mearns and Thorne, 2013).
Another indication of the development of relational depth is the counsellor handing the session over to the client (C2).
This small gesture maintains client autonomy, allows them to control the sessions and establishes them as the expert in their lives. This reflects the establishes boundaries and the overall attitudes of the person-centred counsellor. This helps the development of relational depth as the client, upon first entering the room in the second session, may still have preconceived ideas on what a counsellor should do. The gesture of handing the session to the client also helps to establish a trusting relationship (Mearns and Thorne,
2013).
Throughout the session, there is a convergence of language between counsellor and client. An example of this is found in section C6-C8 the counsellor uses the colloquial term (Yeah) instead of the standard ‘yes’. In linguistic terms, a convergence of language means using language to relate to another person in order to put that individual at ease and relate to them at their level (Clayton, 2012). The appropriate use of language helps to establish rapport and pave the way for greater relational depth. However, councillors with a narrow communicational range will find it difficult to relate to their clients and reach relational depth. Furthermore, in section C8, the client has finished the counsellor's sentence this shows the client feels comfortable and feels like a valued member of the relationship. A disadvantage of the client and counsellor being on this level is collusion (Mearns and Cooper, 2005).
In conclusion, there are advantages and disadvantages to relational depth however, if the counsellor can foster a meaningful sense of relational depth in sessions then clients could open up and gain a better sense of emotional well-being.