Essay meltdown.

Forgot to say in the last entry how completely disorganised I got while J was away and I went to visit with my mum. Consequently I was well behind with preparation and reading for the essay. Had a minor meltdown tizzy and tried to wangle an extension. This would not have been a good thing as every essay is marked down upon late delivery so I bit the bullet, wrote the damn thing and submitted it electronically before midnight on the 22nd. Glad that I did, obviously a howling deadline is what I need. A cool 68%, I thank you and some good critique as to how I could improve. I have posted it for the moderately interested but to summarise, I think humanistic counselling is the one for me. (There, saved you the bother of reading it...)

Discuss a model of counselling covered in the course. Discuss why that model appeals to you.


I shall discuss the humanistic model of counselling as established by Carl Rogers. I shall also discuss the reasons for its appeal to me in terms of my own future counselling practice and compare it to the psychodynamic approach used by a therapist to me when I undertook a course of therapy in 2005. I hope to draw on my own observations with reference to my learning journal as well as insights gained from class discussion with fellow students, as it seems to me that self-awareness is key to any model of counselling that appeals to me. I shall also explore and discuss the six core conditions of humanistic or person-centred counseling to discover what resonates within me as a person.
The following hypothesis by Carl Rogers (1989, p. xiv) is key to the understanding of humanistic counselling, in my view:

‘All individuals have within themselves the ability to guide their own lives in a manner that is both personally satisfying and socially constructive. In a particular type of helping relationship, we free the individuals to find their inner wisdom and confidence, and they will make increasingly healthier and more constructive choices’

I find the optimism and humanism in this hypothesis very cheering. Not only is it not about ‘curing’ unhappiness, as though unhappiness, depression and breakdown were exclusively medical in context and treatment, but it is also about trusting human beings to make choices for themselves, to look within the self in a considered and exploratory fashion and to take the first steps towards beneficial inner change.
The six conditions necessary for client/person-centered or humanistic counselling were established by Carl Rogers in 1956. He believed these conditions were essential for therapeutic change. The helper makes psychological contact with the client, the client is vulnerable or anxious, the helper is congruent or genuine, the helper experiences non-judgemental warmth and acceptance towards the client, the helper experiences empathy and finally, the client receives the empathy, unconditional positive regard and congruence of the helper. Crucially, Rogers proposed these core conditions as central to the helper’s personality. That is to say they are not ‘skills’ or ‘techniques’ but are attitudes or principles at the very core of the helper’s being.
When the helper first makes psychological contact with the client, it is not in the role of ‘expert’ but more as an equal, a fellow ‘being’. This appeals to me precisely because it seems a less prescriptive approach than the psychodynamic model. The helper does not present themselves as some kind of expert. The client may well enter into the relationship knowing nothing of the different models of counselling beyond the usual Freudian-inspired clichés in common currency (I know I certainly did!) They may be expect to be ‘analysed’ and to be told what to do but within the humanistic model it is the beginning of a journey, which will enable the client to understand and resolve within themselves the issues that trouble them. At this initial contact, it would be natural to assume that the client does indeed feel vulnerable and anxious. Why else would they be there? If a client felt they were there at the suggestion or persuasion of a third party, this core condition could not be met. An individual must be motivated by their own feelings, not that of others. A gateway into the client’s feelings can be created by the helper’s congruence and warmth, instilling an atmosphere of trust and confidence in the helper.
I like the fact that this form of counselling is a two way street, in that there is a process taking place within the helper: that of non-judgemental warmth and acceptance leading perhaps to other states of being. Rogers (1989, p137) writes movingly of this:

‘When I am at my best, as a group facilitator or a therapist, I discover another characteristic. I find that when I am closest to my inner, intuitive self, when I am somehow in touch with the unknown in me, when perhaps I am in a slightly altered state of consciousness in the relationship, then whatever I do seems to be full of healing’

I think it is part of the reward of counselling that the helper may also gain self-awareness and knowledge through the counselling relationship that co-exists with the resolution of the issues that the client brings. There seems to be a humility in this that refutes the prescriptive or interpretative approach to helping. I also like the framework of the final core condition. If the client is successfully receiving the unconditional positive regard and the warmth then the journey can begin! Above all, these conditions contain the client in a relationship in which the client’s safety as a vulnerable and anxious individual can be established from the outset. It is as though the feelings of unconditional acceptance and warmth are possible within these specified frameworks and the transcendent insight can be achieved, thus freeing up the client’s way of seeing themselves. Rogers (1989, p.137) wrote, ‘our relationship transcends itself and becomes a part of something larger. Profound growth and healing and energy are present’. This is very compelling! Rogers does not mention God in the traditional or accepted sense yet there lies in his theorising and experiences a deeply spiritual aspect that is very powerful and appealing to my secular spirit.
This is another way in which my own humanism seems to tie in with a humanistic approach to counselling. That is to say a humanistic approach may transcend difference in religious or spiritual terms, it might create a bridge of understanding over the gulf of difference, mindful of the difference over which it reaches in the client -helper relationship, as it were. A colleague on the course had a very interesting insight into this. We were speaking of the deep empathic bond between helper and client, which must be present as a core condition. We discussed the possible danger of this in that the helper might somehow become lost in the experience of empathy with their client, so powerfully do they see their own feelings and experiences mirrored in those of the client. We pondered how much the client might expect a certain ‘professional’ distance from the helper to aid clarity and enquiry. We concluded that the process of self-reflection so vital in any counselling process would contribute to self-awareness and therefore guard against potentially unhelpful attitudinal shifts in which the helper could become less congruent or genuine.
With regard to unconditional positive regard and non-judgemental attitudes, I have wondered in my own learning journal how one might counsel someone like Josef Fritzl. I concluded that it was possible within a well-delineated framework. That is to say, he is already imprisoned, he has admitted to the crimes of which he stood accused. Another part of the framework perhaps is that he must now find a way of being during his last years, which helps to resolve the issues he carries within himself. Is it possible therefore for his helper to transcend the widespread public opprobrium of his crimes in order to facilitate therapeutic change untainted by a judgemental attitude? There is something in the very real challenge of that task that I find appealing though I feel that the degree of experience on the part of the helper would have to be extensive. Rogers (1989, p.138) proposed that:

‘When the person-centred way of being is lived in psychotherapy, it leads to a process of self-exploration and self-discovery in the client and eventually to constructive changes in personality and behavior. As the therapist lives these conditions in the relationship, he or she becomes a companion to the client in this journey toward the core of self.’

I like the fact that as a helper, one ‘lives’ the conditions of humanistic counseling. They are not skills or a kind of professional ‘act’. It is also implicit in the above quotation that the client’s journey may also be reflected in the helper’s own progress toward a better way of being that is very heartening and liberating.
In 2005, following marital difficulties I approached the Tavistock Centre to engage in a course of psychotherapy. Whilst extremely helpful to me at the time (I had no knowledge of other forms of therapy or counseling), I find, looking back, that my therapist was perhaps a little prescriptive in her interpretation of my situation. For example, she said during one session that I must have felt it was very unfair that my son had been left disabled following a serious childhood illness. I reacted with puzzlement to this. ‘Bad things happen to people all the time’, I replied, ‘as a family we are by no means unique’. She persisted in her analysis by trying to get me to dwell on this unfairness but it was a point of resistance between us, which to this day, I still ponder. I am still relatively new to my understanding of the humanistic counselling model but if I was myself counselling another parent in similar circumstances, I can imagine myself asking the parent if they felt it was unfair that their child had been so affected. I can remember thinking along similar lines when we watched a counselling video in which the helper kept telling her client how she ‘must’ feet. I can remember the same feelings of puzzlement returning to me (not to say annoyance!) I felt then (and I still do) that a form of questioning, paraphrasing and clarification are more appropriate to the process. Having learnt more about psychotherapy, I now feel that my therapist was perhaps projecting her own feelings about what it would be like to have a child with disabilities onto me. It would be difficult to say for sure however because although she knew lots about me, I knew almost nothing about her so it is perhaps unfair of me to assume that.
As the human body can ‘repair’ itself physiologically (given the right conditions), is it not also possible that the human being can ‘repair’ itself psychologically given the set of core conditions as established by Rogers? Healing can happen if the conditions are all present physiologically: that is to say, the body will be well providing there are no underlying problems such as medical conditions that work against the self-healing properties of the human physiological organism. Is it possible that the six core conditions of humanistic counselling can enhance the human capacity for psychological self-healing? Even writing that, I see it is hard to escape medical terminology but as the physical and mental selves are inextricably intertwined so must notions of self-help and helping; the dynamic of the client-helper relationship is reflected in the complex intertwining of mind and body.
In conclusion then, I am drawn to the model of humanistic or client-centred counselling because it is a set of attitudes and principles that one holds at the core of the self. It contains within it the capacity for transcendent moments of insight that can lead to therapeutic change. It is not so much interpretive or analytical as a reflective process for both client and helper in that the helper may mirror, amplify and clarify the feelings of the client to set them on the path to beneficial therapeutic change.

REFERENCES:

Rogers, Carl (1989), ‘introduction’, in H. Kirschenbaum and V. Henderson (editors) The Carl Rogers Reader, New York: Houghton Mifflin. p. xiv

Rogers, Carl (1989), ‘A Client-centred/Person-centred Approach to Therapy’, in H. Kirschenbaum and V. Henderson (editors) The Carl Rogers Reader, New York: Houghton Mifflin. p. 137

Rogers, Carl (1989), ‘A Client-centred/Person-centred Approach to Therapy’, in H. Kirschenbaum and V. Henderson (editors) The Carl Rogers Reader, New York: Houghton Mifflin. p. 137


Rogers, Carl (1989), ‘A Client-centred/Person-centred Approach to Therapy’, in H. Kirschenbaum and V. Henderson (editors) The Carl Rogers Reader, New York: Houghton Mifflin. p. 138

READING
Sanders, Pete (2002), First steps in Counselling: A Students’ Companion For Basic Introductory Courses, third edition, Ross-on-Wye, PCCS books.

Back in the swim 24th March 2009

So, new start of term and a new essay looms! Ha, bring it on I say...

It was good to see everyone again and interesting as A noted that if a client has had a break from counselling then sometimes the first session back is notable for the absence of client. Our group was no exception as a couple of members did not return.

We concentrated very much on reconnecting and starting to think about writing styles for the essay. A divided these styles into four categories: Diver, Patchworker, Architect and Grand Planner.

DIVER: Just gets straight in there and comes up with something.
PATCHWORKER: Draws research from a variety of areas and patches it all together.
ARCHITECT: Structured, planning. Methodical.
GRAND PLANNER: Writes it all in their head and just does it. No re-drafting.

We divided into groups according to which style we felt we were and brainstormed the advantages and disadvantages of each style. K and I were architects. The advantages were, organisational, methodical, logical, sound structure, intro, body and conclusion. The disadvantages were mainly to do with spontaneity (or lack thereof!) and the ability to admit valid new discourses. Ie: Don't get hung up too much on the planning to deny new ideas. This was an interesting approach with new essays imminent.

We then worked in triads to give, receive and observe counselling on writing styles. This got more complicated because there were three feedback forms to fill in. One self-reflective and the other two for the giver and receiver of the counselling. This will take a while to get used to. It was impossible for me to divide myself the-writer-as-counsellor from me the writer-of-scripts though I was certainly prepared to admit that my creative writing could also use the freedom of admitting new ideas and concepts.

Result!

64%. Oh yes. Very happy with that. Plus some excellent feedback on developing my writing style around referring directly to this learning journal and the experiences of others and myself in the class.

On Saturday, I listened to a presentation on further study progressions. I'm thinking about a MSc in Humanistic counselling. It's going to be expensive (£3500 per year) plus your own counselling fees. Before that, one more year at Birkbeck for the Certificate!

Friday 6th March 2009: Presentation

Had some very good reading for today's class: all about power and equality and how counselling takes place for 'minorities' ie; lesbian, gay, bisexual, disabled, old, ethnic people and how a counsellor might not be able to counsel effectively if they don't belong to one of these groups. Thinking about it, I'm sure it's possible to extrapolate from my experience as the parent of a disabled child (a sub-division of the disabled people minority) in order to feel empathy for a client from another minority group. We shall see!

Couldn't get in today as the boy had a fever and was sick last night. Gave him the day off today. He is pale but interesting.

Next week is my turn for the presentation. How hard can it be? All I have to keep doing is talk for 5 minutes on a subject of my choice. Not quite sure of the subject yet. Linking it into the essay, I might consider how the roles of counsellor and friend are mutually exclusive...

Friday 27th February 2009: The essay and the counselling video

I handed in the essay actually having done what a good essay should do: it taught me something in the process. To summarise, a counsellor is different from a friend. To be a friend requires sympathy and a counsellor requires empathy. I also came to the conclusion that you can't be both at the same time. For the moderately interested, I've posted it below.

We then watched an assessment video from the nineties (that hair, those clothes!!) in which a real counsellor assesses the need for counselling from a trainee counsellor playing a newly separated woman in the 'client' role. It was fascinating to see how the video inspired fairly impassioned responses if not downright antipathy from the group. We nearly all felt that the counsellor started off on the back foot by telling her client how she 'must' feel. As the mother of a child with disabilities this did irritate me somewhat. Lots of perfectly well-meaning people told me how I 'must' suffer (and still do, apparently), how I 'must' have felt life was so unfair etc. Yeah right, for about twenty minutes then I moved on from that. I suppose that people are projecting their own feelings about disability onto me. Oh well. Surely a better approach for the counsellor is to ask how the client feels at the start? Just like people could ask how I felt about parenting a disabled child but then I might tell them and they might not want to hear the answer if I'm not having a good day!

But I digress, the video was shown to us in four parts with the client gradually being coaxed by the counsellor to understand that their was no magic wand to wave that would eradicate the client's unhappiness and depression but, and this seemed to be a vital ray of hope, a course of counselling and the gradual unpicking of all the issues that underlay the client's distress (low self-esteem and lack of personal fulfillment). Also that the process would be slow and that the client must learn to expect realistic amounts of help from friends/counselling then perhaps the need for the magic wand would naturally diminish. I think we all disliked the counsellor at the start (rather like the client - now who's projecting!) but I felt we all warmed up to her in the end (again just like the client). Interestingly, K came in about half-way through and as she is in therapy at the moment endorsed what the counsellor was doing during the assessment process.

Anyway here is the essay but feel free not to read it. I won't take offence.

How does a counsellor differ from a friend?

In order to answer this question I will define the terms ‘counsellor’ and ‘friend’ and place them within a metaphorical Venn diagram in which I will explore how these terms overlap and also how they are distinct and discrete from each other. I propose that the differences stem mainly from the framework and context of the counselling or friendship relationship. Also, that to be a friend requires sympathy and to be a counsellor requires empathy if the helping relationship is to be effective. I suspect that the Venn Diagram might become three-dimensional in order to fully express and illustrate the answers to the question.
The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology defines counselling as: ‘A generic term that is used to cover the several processes of interviewing, testing, guiding, advising etc. designed to help an individual solve problems.’(Reber & Reber, 2001a, 162). The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary has the following definitions for ‘friend’: ‘1. Someone whom one knows and likes and to whom one shows loyalty and affection; a close or intimate acquaintance. 2. Someone who gives support or help.’(Robinson (Ed), 1999, 532). Even just with those two definitions it is easy to see how the roles of counsellor and friend may be seen as similar. The area of ‘overlap’ being the act of helping, as it were. Interestingly, Sanders draws a very clear distinction, proposing that: ‘What Counselling is Not: Being a friend’ (2002, 10).
As these definitions float in the metaphorical Venn Diagram so the relationships of counselling or friendship reside within distinct frameworks. A counsellor has the designated time and place for such activity. The type of counselling offered may be psychodynamic, transactional, cognitive behavioural, humanistic or a combination of these. The counselling might be paid for by the client or offered on a voluntary basis, in a place of work or study or within a psychiatric or medical setting. Thus we see that the scope for help and support is contained within specific and well-delineated contexts of type of counseling and physical space, the terms of which are negotiated and contracted at the outset of the counselling relationship between client and counsellor.
Seeking help from a friend is by its definition a more nebulous and flexible phenomenon. There is not necessarily a set time or place beyond the convenience of the people involved. The setting is more likely to be within the domestic sphere in a more informal atmosphere. There are not necessarily any constraints on the time spent in the helping activity. As Gray says in ‘The Frame’: ‘When friends tell us about distressing experiences it is likely that we will take their side, offer advice, put our arms around them should they cry. This is right and proper; it is what friendship is all about’ ( 2002a, 15). Thus we see that help and comfort lies in a direct physical and emotional reaction to the plight of the friend. This degree of intimacy and prior knowledge is not within the counsellor-client relationship which, in order to be effective must maintain a set of rules that enforces a kind of emotional distance. This facilitates a space whereby the client can better explore the issues thrown up by their distress. As Gray goes on to say, ‘if we can believe that we are on our client’s side, not in the sense of comforting them or telling them how right they are but in bearing their feelings, then we provide them with an opportunity to experience emotions that have hitherto had to be suppressed’ (2002b, 15). Clearly then, it can be seen that the same distress can have different depths of resonance and resolution depending on whom, the friend or counsellor, one calls. I believe it is the difference between expressing sympathy, as one would as a friend and expressing empathy, as one would as a counsellor. The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology defines sympathy as, ‘the sharing in the feelings of another.’ (Reber & Reber, 2001b, 731). Cozolino defines empathy thus:

…as often confused with sympathy, compassion and emotional resonance. Although these are all important aspects of intimate relationships, empathy is somewhat different. Empathy is a hypothesis or educated guess concerning your client’s internal state. It is a method of observation that relies on your interpersonal skills, combined with your capacity to think about what you are feeling. You dip into another’s experience as best you can using your emotions and imagination, then subject your experiences to conscious consideration in light of your knowledge and training (2004,135-136).

Recently a good friend of mine, currently undergoing a difficult divorce, left her own house in some distress. She had recently been on a short break and had a wonderful time. She returned to her own house to find that her ex-partner had removed an item from her bedroom and that her adult children had had done some clearing out in the house and subsequently my friend could not locate several things that were important to her. The friend in me obviously wanted to sympathise and take take her side as she was very upset and overwhelmed. Before I started on the Introductory Course In Counselling, I would have done just that. Rather to my own surprise (but with a hunch that it might be more useful), I offered to put my counselling ‘hat‘ on and maybe give a less emotionally charged response to her unhappiness. Having given my friend a choice in the matter, she was agreeable. I then asked if she felt that any of her family were respectful of the boundaries she took for granted. She was obliged to admit that they weren’t: her ex-partner entered the room he no longer shared with her to remove the item while she wasn’t there. Her children threw away things she would have kept (had she been asked). To compound her unhappiness, her protests were dismissed which led her to leave the house. In a sense, another boundary transgressed. The subtext of our subsequent discussion was how to re-establish the boundaries in a calm negotiated way that meant that all parties concerned could be in no doubt as to where their responsibilities lay and also that my friend, notwithstanding the divorce, felt strong enough to speak up for herself and make her voice heard without unduly hurting the feelings of anyone else during a difficult time.
Familial discourse is a fluid awkward thing, a kind of ramshackle intimacy in which conscious and unconscious dynamics operate. I was deeply sympathetic to my friend. We are a similar age, our children are roughly the same age and grew up together and we have been married to our respective partners for a similar amount of years. It is not difficult therefore to see how I might identify with my friend’s situation given my intimacy with her. Which leads me to reflect why and how individuals might seek help from a person of, broadly speaking, similar cultural background with the perception that their distress might be better understood. I felt that I could capitalise on our shared values to ask a question that dug deeper and might help my friend at a more profound level. It was as though I had to forget she was my friend (albeit momentarily) and consider her distress in more dispassionate terms, which I feel is essentially the difference between sympathy and empathy. If I started by sympathising with my friend I tried to help by empathising with her and asking a question of her in a relatively detached manner that, devoid of overt emotionalism, might throw light upon her shifting family dynamic and its implications for the future. To me, this is the central difference between being a counsellor and a friend. The empathy can only be brought to bear within the framework I have described when it is negotiated, set up and agreed upon between counsellor and client. Interestingly, it felt, even momentarily, that we were able to put aside the fact of our friendship in order to have a brief counselling discourse. In this respect, I agree with Sander’s assertion that a counsellor is not a friend.
There are many other aspects of the helping relationship that must be considered whether one is counsellor or friend. Firstly, confidentiality: the individual must rest assured that their business will not be discussed with a third party without their consent. Within a counselling framework, the ethical guidelines set up to protect the client such as non-maleficence (doing no harm) and beneficence (well-being) must be established. Equally If my friend comes to me for help in a state of vulnerability she must be confident that I will not use that information in such a way as to cause her harm. An ethical framework established by the relevant body is one thing but a set of assumptions and social conventions surrounding the ethics of friendship (which may be unspoken), again, by definition is a more nebulous phenomenon but one in which predetermined factors such as trust and intimacy are already well established. As friends we may take these assumptions for granted but as counsellor and client we must establish the boundaries of trust at the outset, to create, as it were, a similar framework that echoes the relationship of friendship but clearly defines it. If the dynamics that govern friendship are often unspoken they may well be unconscious. It is the purpose of counseling discourse to make these concerns fully conscious. To reiterate Gray, ‘… the more we begin to understand the motives underlying behaviour the more we understand the action.’ (2002c, 8)
To summarise then: to be a counsellor or a friend means that one has the desire to help. This help can be given in a sympathetic way, in which the friend is reassured, comforted and supported in their distress. But if the help is to be given in an empathetic way then more searching questions may be asked that reach below the distress in order to help ascertain the underlying cause of distress. In the metaphorical Venn Diagram the area of overlap is the word ‘help’, but as I have just described, the word ‘help’ has two similar meanings in terms of its broad purpose but in expression has discrete meanings. That is to say, if I had just sympathized with my friend by taking her side, she might have left comforted but, in a sense, be back at square one. By helping her in a counselling way, using empathy, a subtle shift in understanding may have taken place in which she might consider a different approach to understanding her distress. The same could be said of the ethical framework or contexts for helping in a counselling way or as a friend. That is: friendship presupposes trust, confidentiality, warmth and caring. Counselling cannot take these assumptions for granted but must establish them at the start of the process in order that resolution of the distress may be made in full awareness of the process. Distinction is important in that a certain emotional distance may be useful in illuminating the underlying causes of distress.
In conclusion, I think the main difference between being a counsellor and a friend is a matter of depth. Counselling can reach deeper than friendship in order to alleviate distress and to effect meaningful change in the person seeking help. A friend, broadly speaking will agree. A counsellor, broadly speaking, will ask pertinent questions and listen.
To return to the Venn Diagram, I believe it can be expressed in three-dimensional terms. That is to say that the part of the diagram relating to ‘friend’ exists more on the surface. The ‘counsellor’ part is more rounded and has greater depth due to its interrogative and discursive elements.
1949 words



REFERENCES
Cozolino, L. (2004), The Making Of A Therapist, Norton, pp.135-136.

Gray, A (2002a & b), Chapter 1: ‘The Frame’, An Introduction To The Therapeutic Frame, London, Brunner Routledge, p. 15.
Gray, A (2002c), Chapter1: ‘The Frame’, An Introduction To The Therapeutic Frame, London, Brunner Routledge, p. 8.

Reber, Arthur S., & Reber, Emily (2001a), The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology USA, Penguin, p. 162.
Reber, Arthur S., & Reber, Emily (2001b), The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, USA, Penguin, p. 731.

Robinson, M (Ed) (1999), Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, Edinburgh, Chambers Harrap, p. 532.

Sanders, Pete (2002), First steps in Counselling: A Students’ Companion For Basic Introductory Courses, third edition, Ross-on-Wye, PCCS books, p. 11.

READING
De Board, R (1997), Counselling For Toads: A Psychological Adventure, UK, Routledge.
Yalom, I (1991), Love’s Executioner And Other Tales Of Psychotherapy, USA, Penguin.

Essay: 13th February 2009

The essay looms! It's half-term, the boy is upstairs, my friends have called, the House is reasonable and now I have run out of displacement activities. I don't know why I do this: I love writing, especially essays. The title is a doozy:

How does a counsellor differ from a friend?

Lots of people on the course are doing this one. I think because friends have told us we'd make good counsellors. Now all we have to do is to decide why that is. Musing upon it, I think it comes down to frameworks and context. If this question were a Venn diagram, the two categories would definitely overlap but some aspects of the respective states would remain distinct and discrete.

Well, no good procrastinating about it, I'll have to write it now and will post it on here when it's all done and dusted.

L gave a very interesting presentation today about her daughter who was born at 25 weeks gestation. L was pondering how this experience had affected her daughter psychologically and if it had any ramifications for her in later life if she should seek counselling. A thought it depended very much on the type of counselling sought. So a psychodynamic counsellor would give different weight to the fact of prematurity compared to a transactional analyst. This found favour with the group as a whole.

We then moved on to definitions of mental health. It became clear that cultural heritage can play a part in this. For example people with an Afro-Caribbean heritage were more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia. People of Asian heritage were less likely to present to their GPs for diagnosis. Interesting and sobering when considered within the context of colonial history.

L and I took turns to listen and respond in a counselling fashion about the essay question. This proved to be harder to maintain in terms of time boundaries (5 minutes listening). As T pointed out, we are all becoming friends, so that framework of counselling became looser and more about discourse than the practice of counselling skills per se.

Writing styles: 6th February 2009

Today we discussed different writing styles in preparation for the first essay.

It became apparent that a certain balance between the academic and the vernacular was preferable. On the one hand, any quotes should be rigorously referenced to back up (or disprove) your argument but on the other hand there was every danger of sending your tutor to sleep if the tone was too dry and removed from personal experience. Spacing, font, paragraphs and grammar all have their part to play here. Also an awareness of the audience, as it were.

This followed a very honest presentation by M who spoke candidly about how he has altered in his relationships since beginning the course.

Final post of 2008

We had a very interesting discussion last week about the subject of a forthcoming essay title. Now, personally, I love a good essay. 1500 words? A mere bagatelle. But then I say this as a writer anyway. Slightly different for those who are not used to writing essays and are coming to it fresh, and in some cases, with English as a second language.

The question to be answered was: What are the differences between counselling as a friend and counselling as a 'counsellor'. It seems fairly straightforward. For example, if you have a friend who asks for your advice concerning an aggressive partner, your response might well be; Get a restraining order and LEAVE. As a 'counsellor' I think my approach would be rather more restrained and devoid (as far as possible) of emotion. I think I would ask questions in order to help the 'client' understand why she might stay with an aggressive partner. Is she repeating a pattern of behaviour from earlier relationships or even from childhood? I think what I mean is that good counselling is not necessarily advice as such, but asking pertinent questions and LISTENING.

So, job done! All I have to do is expand that to 1500 words.

No stress then.