Carl Rogers, C. S. Lewis and counselling

[postodave]

The conflict between Lewis's view of man and that of the determinists is widely recognised. B. F. Skinner choses to cross swords with Lewis in 'Beyond Freedom and Dignity' declaring that he would like to abolish what he calls autonomous man (ie a person able to make free rational choices). Even though I disagree with Skinner's philosophical determinism I have used behavioural techniques and seen them work and improve the quality of people's lives.

But what happens when you compare Lewis with someone from the supposed opposite pole of humanist psychology, namely Rogers. Is Lewis view of man more like that of a person-centred rather than a behaviourist psychologist. I tend to think not: and I suspect the differences would be over the issue of objective as opposed to subjective values. If that is a genuine difference how would that tend to modify the practice of counselling? How can we recognise the validity of values we do not share and still remain true to the concept of objective value?

[Neil]

[girlfreddy]

[postodave]

[postodave]

[WolfVanZandt]

The goal of the counselor is to help people cope with life - values don't come into the picture. I don't agree with a lot of my clients' lifetyles but in a counseling relationship, that's not an issue. I want the client to have the best possible life given their circumstances, so they have to develop the strategies that work for them. Their lifestyle is part of their lives and I know better than to try to change that so I don't try - that would be counter to my goal of helping them improve their mental health. The goal of a psychotherapist, restated, is to guide (trick) their clients into coming up with constructive strategies to cope with life. Values still are not an issue.

There is good research that indicates that all accepted forms of psychotherapy are equally effective. Considering that many forms of psychotherapy are based on drastically different world views (Skinner vs. Rogers, for instance), that is surprising.

One explanation is that the fact that someone actually cares in itself is therapeutic and, at the bottom line, is what works in psychotherapy.

It's not hypocritical to wish someone the best - even though you don't agree wih them. THat the bottom line of true professionalism - the client's best is the number one priority.

Now, that becomes rather blurred when a person's lifestyle is self and other destructive. Take for instance, a gang member whose lifestyle requires him to kill, rape, and steal to be accepted by his peers. Do you try to change his values, then? - ideally, you try to guide im to change his own values.

[postodave]

[WolfVanZandt]

[postodave]

I must be missing the point here. How can you say both that valuing is not an efficatious element and that the efficatious element is that the clients feel valued.

[postodave]

Also I wouldn't mind taking a look at some of the research you are talking about. If the key to counselling is the attitude of the counsellor then that is pretty much what Rogers argued in the fifties, and the reason why all forms of counselling seem to work may be that counsellors of other kinds have adopted a Rogerian attitude.

When I used behaviour modification techniques it was very important not to express a valuing attitude when a client was acting destructively, that is the very opposite of Rogers unconditional positive Regard ie regard conditioned on behaviour.

In any case my original question was about the differences between Rogers and Lewis on this issue of valuing, and I think there are some important issues there about what personal growth is and how it can be fostered. Maybe, you see, it matters both what you value and how you value it. Whether you internalise the Tao or take it from the value systems of others. But what if you are a psychopath: maybe you have to aquiire a moral system without ever intuiting its validity. Could that apply to all of us to some extent?

[WolfVanZandt]

Actually, I was going a little beyond what I really meant in talking about "valuing" - the form that's fairly constant in psychotherapy is something that's pretty impersonal. Have you ever heard of the Hawthorn Studies? I mean that the client makes the assumption that, if you're paying attention to them at all, you must have some regard for them.

Your behavior modification is sorta tinged with cognitive emotive therapy.

I can try to find some references.....I just moved my psych library to my office and I'll need to remember while I'm there and I'm getting scatterbrained in my old age (could you send me a email at wolfvanzandt@eswcarc.us ?). I don't have access to a research library any more (whine).

You're right, a psychopath would not be able to intuit a value system - that's their promary distincton. But at the same time, I don't think they take it from others - not in any direct since. Generally, a psychopath doesn't value the morality of others. They may refer to the value system of others on an intellectual basis, sorta like you would refer academically to a work by Samuel Johnson. I think it's more to the point that they deduce a value system (if they have any at all) on the basis of intellectual reasoning.

But I think that should apply to us all in some degree. I hope we reason out our moral values. It's just that I think that in most of us, our visceral reaction to a moral imperative will overrule our reason.

I've found that, when working with psychopaths, it's much more fruitful working in a problem solving mode.

[postodave]

[WolfVanZandt]

In a strictly logical sense, he may be right, but that also assumes that Fundamentalists are strict behavioral machines (who are obsessive/compulsive) whose only priority is evangelism. That isn't the case.

If you notice how the first evangelist, Jesus, did things, he took care of primary, physiological needs first before he even began to work with spiritual needs (He read Maslow :) ). It's the same with (good) fundamentalist counselors. They realize that a person needs to be stable emotionally before they can begin to work on their spiriual needs. If they force the spiritual issue before they address the emotional one, it will be counter-productive.

Also, if the primary issue isn't the moral valuing of the counselor, and the more basic valuing of the client as a person is the efficacious element, then the fundamentalism is an unrelated issue (as long as it doesn't dominate the client-counselor relationship. In that case, the Counselr can even evangelize to a certain degree without endangering the therapeutic relationship.

And, anyway,there are too many successful fundamentalist counselors for it to actually be true. Observably, fundamentalist counselors are effective, so the idea that fundamentalist counselors cannot be effective counselors must, by necessity, be flawed.

[postodave]

Sounds wise. Still not convinced by your theory of why counselling works but not ruling it out either. It was really the moral validity of a fundamentalist counsellor he was questioning not the efficacy as such. He gives the example of pro-life abortion counsellors who will just drop a client if they say they do want an abortion. But your own approach to counselling does not seem to be the one he expects of a fundamentalist.

[WolfVanZandt]

I think you hit on his "method". He's operating on what he expects of a fundamentalist, but that paints fundamentalists as simple, one-dimensional people. You can approach the way they think from different angles and come up with different theories. THat is, if you make the same assuptions that he does, then you almost have to come up with the same conclusions, but if you start with different expectations, you will come up with different conclusions.

Of course, if you bring morality into the picture, and you begin with the fundamentalist assumption that the only complete healing comes from Christ, it would be inconsciounable to not take the stance that he assigns fundamentalists. For him to say that it's immoral for fundamentalists to be counselors, even making the assumptions he does, he would have to show that they are wrong. That's going to be sorta hard to do.