APPLICATION OF GROUP THEORIES TO PRACTICE COMMON AREAS OF AGREEMENT IN COUNSELLING APPROACHES

APPLICATION OF GROUP THEORIES TO PRACTICE COMMON AREAS OF AGREEMENT IN COUNSELLING APPROACHES

PROS AND CONS OF UNCONDITIONAL POSITIVE REGARD

The term ‘unconditional positive regard’ (UPR) was coined by Carl Rogers

and equates with a deep acceptance of the client. Sometimes it is referred to as

warmth, non-judgementalism and prizing. It is asserted that no effective counselling can take place without such acceptance, since a counsellor who overtly or covertly transmits their judgement or rejection is reinforcing exactly those negative experiences that others, such as parents, have been responsible for; and no successful counselling is likely to happen in a non-accepting relationship. The ‘U’ in the UPR connotes an ability to rise above typical social values and prejudices but it is often said that one does not have to approve of all a client’s actions and attitudes – rather UPR means that you positively accept him as a person, perhaps sometimes bracketing off his more offensive features or understanding

them as part of his best efforts to survive within difficult conditions. Sometimes

it is said that UPR resembles the highest Christian form of love or agape

(a pure concern for others, not based on any moral evaluation). As many religious adherents know, such love and also forgiveness can be extremely powerful, particularly for those who have known very little love or decency in their lives.

When asked at interview whether they have any difficulties with any individuals or groups of people, most candidates for training say something like this: ‘No, I get on with everyone, I accept all kinds of people, I have worked in many multicultural settings’. UPR is thus conflated with a ‘politically correct’ attitude of celebrating diversity, having no conscious prejudices and actively striving to reduce or eliminate any residual ones. It can be too easily taken for granted from the outset that applicants for counselling training do not suffer from judgementalism and do not need much work on fostering UPR. Rigorous person-centred counsellors will insist that UPR is not a superficial attribute, does not come automatically or easily and requires disciplined personal development work.

The clearest area in which trainees will declare some difficulties is paedophilia. ‘I could not work with paedophiles’ is quite a common admission. This may be followed closely by rapists and hardcore racists. Paedophilia is often seen as beyond the pale, as impossible to understand or even to try to understand or forgive, as if such an attempt almost condones the paedophilia or lessens its seriousness. Then there is the attempt to suggest that one could accept the person of the paedophile but not his actions. Fundamentally, the paedophile like everyone else is ‘good’ but has met some challenging life circumstances that have set him on the wrong path. If he experiences UPR, combined with persistent empathy, then in theory he should be able to confront his own actions, accept his own ‘pre-paedophilic’ self, forgive himself and cease his paedophilia. But paedophilia, like drug addiction, is a hardened condition, frequently with a poor prognosis for positive change. Many trainees and practitioners instinctively know this and will thus avoid such work, and perhaps also feel that they might be contaminated by working with paedophiles. UPR in these circumstances may seem impossible. But others, with a strong faith in human beings, will believe that even the paedophile deserves profound human consideration, or deserves the effort to be contacted at a relational depth. Some counsellors might try to distinguish between paedophiles (or rapists) who are motivated and unmotivated for change.

Some people are more likeable than others, whatever their ‘failings’ or negative attitudes. Some counsellors are themselves not naturally very warm or forgiving, or may have idiosyncratic resistances and reactions to others’ foibles. It seems likely that those with a natural openness will find UPR much easier. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that openness is always accompanied by an ability for active empathy, or technical creativity or imaginative therapeutic work. It’s possible that a highly conscientious and intelligent counsellor may have to work hard at certain aspects of UPR if, say, he comes from a family or culture in which he learned to be judgemental. UPR may be of a bland kind

Congruence can also seem to be at odds with UPR. At one level I accept, or

strive to fully accept, my client. But at another I may have feelings that I cannot deny I have, of anger or irritation, unease or rejection towards my client.

I have to decide whether, and when and how, to voice these feelings. Radical honesty as a human being, or a pressure for congruence within therapy, sometimes compels us to tell the other person that we object to their attitude, their language, views, poor hygiene or whatever. We may strive to ‘say it nicely’ but sometimes it will be experienced as rejecting or conditional. We may be able to work through such difficult moments successfully and sometimes they can even strengthen the therapeutic bond. Sometimes however they will not. It looks likely that there are shades of UPR, including the somewhat false variety (the superficial ‘portrayal’ of UPR) at one end of a spectrum and a profound, perhaps spiritual quality of tender UPR at the other. There may be moments when the client might benefit from some straight talking about his or her obnoxious or self-defeating behaviour, when we ought to put aside any pretence of UPR (for example, ‘It makes me shudder when you talk about your wife in that hateful and dismissive way’). Psychoanalysts might object that too strong or obvious an experience for the client of UPR might distort her unconscious feelings or their expression, just as some CBT writers have cautioned that too warm an acceptant style could encourage a client to be dependent on the counsellor and increase irrational beliefs about the need for others’ love. Others might argue that although professional courtesy is a sine qua non of counselling practice, there is no particular onus on practitioners to feel or convey anything as grand or idealistic as UPR. Pragmatically, we might say that a high level of aspirational acceptance is necessary but this must be balanced by honesty, realism and therapeutic constraints.