Philosophy of counseling adolescents (and adults I have learned)

[veritas]

Philosophy of Counseling

As with all philosophical discourses, the initial task is that of finding the foundation upon which to build. In laying a proper foundation, one must know what is to be built, and in this case, it is a theory of counseling. Further specification is needed as to what is meant by counseling, and for the sake of this paper, counseling simply means the method of producing positive change in an individual, and that is the dirt in which this foundation will reside. The tools of which will be used in the building of this philosophy are personal experience validated empirically by the words of those whom have come before, in other words, previous concepts that have been used personally with success.

Introduction aside, this philosophy of counseling believes rapport to be the fundamental principle, and looks to the Rogerian school of psychotherapy for guidance. Although this philosophy disagrees with Rogers’s notion that humanity was inherently good, it is noted that humanity is able to change, even towards a more positive inclination. What is assimilated into, and inherently assumed, in this philosophy is the need for rapport as the causality towards the catalyst. This means that the client will listen because they like the therapist, this means the client will participate in group because they like the therapist, this means that the client will keep a journal because they like the therapist, on and on. It must be herewith noted, that this philosophy assumes all relationships are not on this level from the outset, and thus need to be worked upon, especially with issues like trust, and confidence, and it is the Rogerian methods which do the best towards establishing this dynamic. It must be also noted that this philosophy does not believe rapport to be the end all in terms of catalysts towards progress, howbeit, very significant. Previous assumption noted, Rogers lays the theoretical foundation for enacting tactics aimed at the building of rapport, tactics such as congruence and empathy. This philosophy places heavy stresses upon the need for the therapist to be highly schooled through cognitive understanding and practical experience gained through the professional application in and of these tactics.

It is assumed that most clients (there exists exceptions to the rule) enter into the therapeutic relationship with a basic mistrust of the therapist, or at very least, the principles signified by the therapist, that of basically the fact that because the therapist is present, help is needed. The therapist must have empathy not only towards the clients presenting problems, but for the humbling experience counseling actually is. It is a hard thing indeed for a human to ask another human for help, and even greater for the previous to admit that what had been done up until that point was unsuccessful. This philosophy assumes that most therapists do not possess empathy initially, confuse it with sympathy, and need training in its art.

Rogers also spoke heavily on the need for the therapist to be congruent or more simply stated, to be real. This realness is achieved through honesty, and this philosophy assumes that most therapists do not actually present their inner mind upon their outward speak, and must be trained in this art as well. Rogers believed that when the therapist showed congruence and possessed empathy, this would provide an environment that would act as the above noted catalyst for therapeutic change. This philosophy embraces that statement fully.

This philosophy also leans upon the style of Rogers for one more aspect, that of the therapist to act more like a coach, and less like a judge. Experience testifies to the usefulness of this tactic. When the client feels judged, they will shut down, where as when they feel like they are receiving care filled suggestions, they respond positively. It is assumed that this occurs because the judging process inherently assumes that one is greater than the other, for how else would judgment occur? Experience testifies to the harsh response the feeling of being condescended to produces. When a therapist judges in the manner of giving advice, it can easily be taken to mean, “ I am better than you, and I know more then you.” Notice the difference between this previous statement and thus, “Hey, have you ever thought about trying this?” it is assumed that one may see the difference in these two approaches, and how the one will fail, while the other succeed, and this is the sort of banter that this philosophy endorses, essentially the rapport building style of Rogers.

This philosopher currently serves a population of adolescent males, age ranges 12-17, whom need treatment for alcohol and drug abuse, and or psychological disorders. Here is where the personal experience shapes the philosophy. It has been observed that the first principle towards getting any sort of progress to be made upon their behalf, requires the above mentioned rapport, simply put, this population must like you before they listen and or talk. This population is a perfect fit for this philosophy, although not to say that this philosophy would be ineffective in other populations, however no experience has of yet to be gained.

This philosophical theory has numerous limitations. The first limitation is that some may not have the cognitive ability to think of their own solutions to their own problems, even if empathetically coached. Another limitation, and perhaps the greatest, is that not every therapist is a competent one, and may be unable to understand that fact that they do not possess all of life’s answers for the clients they serve. Furthermore, these therapists may also be unable to comprehend the need for being real, and thus hide and judge secretly in the dark tributaries of their minds, while the client, although not sure exactly why, feels that they do not trust the therapist, and therefore, especially in the above mentioned population, shuts down.

Ethically this therapy appears to be sound, the only mishap would be where empathetic coaching would turn into a general acceptance of whatever the client proposes, an example may be framed such, “so I understand you wish to kill your neighbor, because they are too loud, ok how does that make you feel?” As laughable as this example may seem, theoretically it is not impossible, for this indifferent acceptance is the unbalanced opposite of the judgmentally condescending.

In conclusion I feel this philosophy to be excitingly ambitious and practically simple. I have seen the principle of rapport produce big changes and cognitive growth. What draws me the most to it, is its universality, for has it not been said by another far greater, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. I feel that this is the essence of what is being described, and its effectiveness without question if properly utilized.

Finally, two areas of exploration is needed, since theoretical, a theoretical name will be given to this concept, that being the study of the existence of “rapport keys”. Rapport keys describe the one thing that instantly turns a person positively towards another, it may be humor, sports, empathy, for all it is different, but this theory postulates that all have one, and study as to the veracity of this claim is in order. Also the effectiveness of gently coaching an individual to learn the art of making life a series of win-win choices, not the usual win-lose. This concept would be more the style of Michenbaum, but unique in that the client learns to manipulate their own thoughts into perceiving choices in a manner that they win every time, coupled with the coaching counseling style described earlier, it is believed that the two would go hand in hand and ultimately form an unique alliance for the advancement of mankind.