I recently attended a two-day gathering of several hundred people. This large group could be divided into several sub-groups, with each sub-group thinking that they were the ones who were right, they had the real truth, they were the ‘pure and faithful ones’, they were the ones who could ‘really help’. You would think that each group was radically different from the others, and yes, there were profound differences, but at the core, each group had similar motives, similar aims, and despite semantic differences, actually had a lot of common practices. In the fight to be distinctive, the amount of overlap was often lost.
It reminded me a bit of my former past life when I was a Christian. Not only were there seemingly trillions of separate denominations with their separate views of doctrine, liturgy, and ethical practice, but then each denomination could be sub-divided in multiple other ways. So for example, you could have, traditional baptists (smart and smiling), strict baptists (very old-fashioned smart and tending to the severe), charismatic baptists (casual, smiling, hands in the air and falling over), strict and peculiar baptists (very old-fashioned smart, severe, hatted women) etc. Each sub-group thought that they were the ones who were right, they had the real truth, they were the ‘pure and faithful ones’, they were the ones who could ‘really help’. You would think that each group was radically different from the others, and yes, there were profound differences, but at the core, each group had similar motives, similar aims, and despite semantic differences, actually had a lot of common practices. In the fight to be distinctive, the amount of overlap was often lost.
There are some Christians who recognise that their divisions are killing the effectiveness of their message and weakening the cause, who realize that the communality is more important than the division, that humility is important, and that unity in pursuit of a common goal would lead to great effectiveness. They know that tribalism leaves them handicapped and makes them less credible.
The gathering that I attended was the Annual Conference (2009) of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy in Newcastle Civic Centre. It certainly wasn’t a religious gathering, but the divisions felt religious at times. The historical divisions can broadly be explained in two ways.
First, there is the major division between counselling and psychotherapy, and between those who believe that there is a distinction between the two, and those who argue that it is impossible to distinguish between them and that in practice, any such distinction is meaningless. Secondly, there is the distinctions between the different schools of counselling - for example, Person Centred, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Psychodynamic, Psychoanalytic, Existential (to name just a few). And of course, there are those who describe themselves as Integrative, admitting that they are influenced by the philosophy and practice of more than one school.
The tragedy is this. At the moment, the therapeutic profession is facing huge external challenges, and needs to be united more now than it has ever been before. It is facing the challenge of external regulation from the Health Professions Council that seems to be wanting to divide the profession in two and have two protected titles (Counsellor and Psychotherapist) at different levels - with implications for work and pay. Only a strong professional voice will be able to negotiate and acceptable way forward. It is also facing a government that, despite the evidence, seems to be promoting just one type of therapy (CBT), in the fundamentally flawed belief that that one is the only one that is effective. Again, the profession needs to be able to take a strong, united stand in challenging this.
Two things stuck in my mind. One speaker said that despite what we say, a lot of therapists are like cats. We tend to do our own thing in private with clients and don’t stick rigorously to one philosophy or practice. We do what we think will benefit the client most. Another speaker pointed out that a mature profession is able to move beyond sticking religiously to the practices and divisions of the founders - it is confident enough to adapt to changing circumstances and cultures.
I want to be part of a profession that is able to chunk up - to find, and focus on the over-arching things we have in common. We do share a desire to help people and a desire to work in whatever ways seems best for them. We do have several practices in common, even though there may be semantic differences. Most therapists I know do want to be part of a credible, effective profession, rather than part of a divided, less effective cottage industry.
If the external pressure have frightened us, they have also stimulated some serious thinking in the profession. I seriously hope that those pressures lead to greater unity and a changed future.
[...] post: Chunking Up October 13th, 2009 | Tags: divided-into, from-the-others, had-similar, large, large-group, ones, [...]
While it’s not strictly true that the government is promoting only CBT, the government is certainly promoting the idea that psychotherapy and counselling must be centrally controlled. Calls for a united “strong professional voice” collude with that, and a focus on the things therapies have in common risks dumbing therapies down to those elements that bureaucrats can most easily measure. So I do not think therapists are like cats. I think too many are like sheep, believing there is safety in a large flock. In the long term, there would be more safety in promoting individual freedom to grow and to innovate.
I don’t know enough about the world of counselling to comment really but it does seem a shame when people pulling in opposite directions and getting too firmly entrenched in their own camps, prevents sharing and discussion and makes things more difficult for the clients to choose. I guess that if I were going to see a counsellor, I would want to think that they would target their approach according to my particular situation and needs and that approach could change over time.
I would prefer it if they didn’t miaow or baa at me either.