[FINAL DRAFT]

D. Owen C Pearce

30 January 2012

Drawing from personal experience of being in weekly counselling sessions and counselling theory this essay will outline the key differences that exist between the counselling relationship and the relationship between friends. I believe these differences can fall into two broad groups; the difference in conversational interactions, and the differences in structure.

An important place to start would be to look at the client (or friend) that has a problem, what their options are, and how they’d go about dealing with said problem. Exploring the differences between advice, guidance and counselling will help establish the ground work from which I will work from.

In this hypothetical situation, I am having problems with a work colleague; the situation is quickly becoming unbearable leaving me constantly anxious. I dread leaving the house in the morning. I’m not sure how to deal with the situation and so seek help from my friend. After going into great detail about my problem, my friend advises me to confront this colleague and have it out with them. I feel uncomfortable with this advice, but decide to act upon it as directed. The situation only seems to get worse, confronting my colleague didn’t quite go as I had planned and only served to make a fool of myself. The advice itself seemed sound, just not something I would have considered as I don’t like confrontation.

Advice from a friend is usually a one-way exchange and persuasive in nature. This is often reached by the giving of a subjective opinion based on a subjective judgment resulting in some kind of recommendation. In the case above, this subjectivity has not taken into consideration my desire to avoid confrontation and as such the advice given was probably not suitable.

The importance of subjectivity verses objectivity is key in any relationship; however this concept is often splintered when applied to a relationship between friends. After attempting to act upon the advice of my friend, I find that the problem I am having only seems to make matters worse. It is at this point, that advice turns into guidance. Similar to the persuasive advising friend, this is also usually a one way exchange based on influencing and instruction. This should not be considered a criticism of the friend or the nature of the guidance, but if we were to now contrast this with the purpose of counselling where by the relationship that exists between the client and counsellor is more of a two way collaborative exchange. The opportunity for the client to explore, understand and resolve problems is more likely to be successful.

Interestingly enough, there is this common misconception that successful counselling is dependent on the ability of the counsellor to make suggestions to solutions which the client feel are their own (Sutton and Stewart, 2008). The experience I have gained through working on a mental health helpline would seem to support this misconception, however “…suggesting solutions are not part of effective counselling” (Sutton and Stewart, 2008). This would go some way in looking at the effectiveness of influence (and manipulation) in any relationship and further demonstrates not only a difference between a counsellor and a friend, but also any self-proclaimed ‘helper’. Before I continue, I would like to make reference to the difficulty I had whilst volunteering on said mental health help line, I believe this was due in part for my misunderstanding of the helping relationship and its limited capacity for change.

Rogers (2003) talked about the importance of the counsellor being able to create a comfortable, non-judgmental environment by demonstrating congruence, empathy, and unconditional positive regard towards their client whilst using a non-directive approach. With this basis for the client/counsellor relationship, likelihood of change is increased. Though with the best of intentions a friend may aim to promote this concept, it cannot be realistically achieved. The advising/guiding friends’ approach could be considered to be directive and judgemental. The nature of the advice and guidance received from a friend coupled with its one-direction nature would result in my finding it difficult to explore, understand and resolve the problems I am having. As the role of the counsellor is not to persuade or influence the client, we can establish the first difference between the counsellor and the friend on a conversational level.

I have found that the relationship experienced with my counsellor presents me with the opportunity to speak freely and openly, by being listened to and understood. Mearns and Thorn (2007) demonstrate that the relationship between the counsellor and client is a unique one. The foundations of which are built around trust and support free from judgment and an emphasis on objectivity. The core qualities that a counsellor must be able to demonstrate toward the client as expressed above can be qualities found in a good friend, however without objectivity issues of practicality become apparent, and as such it will be impossible to establish boundaries.

At this point is seems obvious to say that clients and counsellors are not friends, however this observation allows the counsellor to retain a level of objectivity that a friend will struggle with when approached with personal problems. The friend in question may have a stake in the outcome of the personal problems that a counsellor will not have. Though I feel that the relationship I have with my counsellor is a good one, it should always remain a formal one. If I were to start seeing my counsellor outside of our sessions, this boundary is lost and the relationship compromised. If the boundaries that exist between the client and counsellor relationship become blurred or are lost and take on something which closely resembles a friendship this could possibly have a negative impact on both the success of the counselling, the effectiveness of the counsellor as an objective entity and possibly, my wellbeing. The need for boundaries within the client/counsellor relationship, differ significantly to the comparable unboundaried friendship. This is not to suggest that the relationship between friends doesn’t ascribe to any particular rules (they do), just to a different degree and context which would not be appropriate to the relationship between client and counsellor.

A psychodynamic approach to counselling suggests that with objectively the counsellor needs to be able to contain personal feeling toward the client as not to transfer their own subjective views, thoughts and feelings onto the relationship. The emphasis on transference and its importance is characterised by the client’s dissatisfaction with regarding the counsellor in a realistic light (as helper and advisor). The client sees in the counsellor the re-embodiment of some important figure out of their childhood or past, and consequently transfers on to the counsellor feelings and relations which undoubtedly applied to this past relationship. Once recognised, the counsellor is then able to counter-transfer the feelings brought up within themselves, analyse and return them to the client (McLeod, 2009). For this to occur successfully, it is important that the counsellor have a level of self-awareness, being able to separate what is being transferred from the client and what are their own personal thoughts, feelings and desires. If the counsellor were a friend, this process would be challenging if not impossible.

On the surface, this approach would not seem to be wholly consistent with Roger’s (2004) core conditions. This supports the need for firm boundaries to exist between the Counsellor and the Client. The consequence of the ‘advising/guiding’ friend at the expense of the client is so simply because it usually maintains the status quo of the relationship, in that a friend detailing what they would do in a problematic situation can sometimes be counterproductive and isn’t necessarily helpful in revealing insight into the root of a problem. Alternatively, it is vital that with the psychodynamic counsellor, non-directivity and the ability to make suggestions and observations not only develops a level of self-awareness and objectivity within the client, but enables problem solving with helps facilitate change.

Non-directivity can resemble the appearance of a non-conversational style, often the result of one way disclosure from the client to the counsellor. This is again an important condition which is emphasised within both person centred and psychodynamic approaches, but possibly for different reasons. The personal life of the counsellor must be kept out of the sessions. In the example of the client who comes to counselling because they feel depressed and feel their life is without meaning, even with the best of intentions, it will not ultimately be helpful for the counsellor to talk about their own experiences with exactly the same or similar problem. If this situation were to occur then one could then ask who is counselling who? Further, how would the client develop a level of self-awareness from someone else’s subjective experiences? I am considered an expert in my own life and capable of making decisions. Counselling can help clarify these decisions and provide insight. This highlights how a counsellor can be more effective than a friend, as mentioned above, it is far easier for a friend to give advice that may or may not be helpful to a particular experience.

Counselling sessions themselves usually occur at fixed times, at the same venue and usually involves a contractual agreement between the client and the counsellor. This is significantly different from calling up a friend to arrange to meet for a drink or dinner and so on. The need for counselling sessions to be structured this way is not only to help maintain consistency, routine and boundaries, but also to establish a safe and confidential environment. This alludes to the differences between the relationship structure that exists been a counsellor and a friend.

On a more subjective note, the change within myself that has been developing before and during both my counselling sessions and studying has presented an almost paradoxical situation that exists between the relationships I have with my friends. How do the differences above present themselves with someone [me] who wants to be a counsellor?

I have found that the essential counsellor qualities that I am currently developing have allowed the formation of better relationships with friends by employing a deeper level of empathic understanding, adopting a non-judgmental attitude and having a level of genuineness. This presents the possibility to passively learn about who you are as a person, while developing a greater level of self-awareness; a truly fundamental aspect of personal development. However, though it is important to point out that I am not a counsellor, counselling skills can and have been used to strengthen relationships and provide insight. The ethical implications of this are sketchy at best, especially if such ‘skills’ are used inappropriately.

I have chosen not to focus at all on the more directive counselling approaches. I feel that to examine the nature of the counselling relationship that exists in Cognitive behaviour therapy or Rational-emotive behaviour counselling would require another 1,000 words! Suffice to say the directedness of these two approaches does require an even more formal professional relationship, significantly different to any kind of friendship.

As discussed throughout this paper the differences between the counsellor and the friend in terms of relationship structure, from boundaries to theory, are very much apparent. In terms of the conversational interactions, though some theoretical approaches differ in this aspect, there are also clear distinctions between client/counsellor/friend relationships.

It would seem very clear that the divergent differences between the counsellor and the friend are not simply a matter of par for the course, but indicate the greater function of the counsellor in enabling change of some kind. This change can only be facilitated by the use of objectivity, insight and stable basis for the relationship to exist. The counselling relationship is a unique one, it subscribes to different rules and different purposes. It has a level of structure that enables professional consistency and stability; this is rarely the case within a friendship. However this is not a criticism of the nature of a friendship, just that the relationship structure between friends ascribe to different rules and purposes.

The very nature of the counselling relationship is a contractual one and as such and above all else is bound by an ethical framework. Without which, the counselling process and indeed the relationship its self cannot work. That in itself highlights the main difference between the counsellor and a friend.

References

Sutton, Jan and Stewart, William (2008). Learning to Counsel: Develop the Skills, Insight and Knowledge to Counsel Others. How To Books Ltd; 3rd edition (29 Aug 2008).

Rogers, Carl (2003). Client Centred Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications and Theory. Constable; New Ed edition (31 July 2003)

Mearns, Dave and Thorne, Brian (2007). Person-Centred Counselling in Action (Counselling in Action series). Sage Publications Ltd; Third Edition (21 May 2007).

Rogers, Carl (2003). On Becoming a Person. Constable; New Ed edition (1 Mar 2004).

McLeod (2009). The Counsellor’s Workbook: Developing a Personal Approach. Open University Press; 2 edition (1 Nov 2009).

2,047

FROM: The desk of Mr. Johnson
RE: Gargantuan Member

Dear Miss Stone,

What you did took really balls; we could really use balls of steal up here on 3rd floor. The last person that filled that position ballsed it up, and suffice to say, my balls were really hole punched that weekend. As an added incentive, here, take my ball-point pen and cross the t’s and dot the i’s, once we put it through legal I’m sure there will be no problem. We are working to a deadline here people, we need to hit the balls eye first time, and really nail em to the wall.

Go get em tiger.

Johnson

 
Former disgraced founder and CEO of Importo Corp. Jonathan J. Johnson has been missing ever since the corporation’s collapse several years ago. It has been rumoured that the former CEO has fled the country and is currently heading up the marketing department of a small dictatorship 400miles off the coast of Tristan da Cunha.

FROM: The desk of Mr. Johnson
RE: Mergers and Acquisitions

To Whom It May Concern, vis-à-vis the head project manager, it has come to my attention that the proverbial has really hit the fan; I don’t need to tell you my balls are on the line here. I have a ton of paper work and it keeps stacking up, my input output tells me that when the numbers are crunched and it’s all gone through legal, my balls have really been stapled to the wall, and my boss is a real ball buster.

It goes without saying that we need a really shake up here guys, the ball is really and truly in your court, lets get the ball rolling by RSVPing the 101 on the pink acquisition form, really take the balls by the horn people.

Good luck team, I’m not willing to take this one in the balls laying down here. Don’t let the side down. I want the paper work on my desk by the 9.

Johnson

Former disgraced founder and CEO of Importo Corp. Jonathan J. Johnson has been missing ever since the corporation’s collapse several years ago. It has been rumoured that the former CEO has fled the country and is currently heading up the marketing department of a small dictatorship 400miles off the coast of Tristan da Cunha.

I wanted to respond to Mr. David Cameron earlier, but I was so busy, I simply did not have the time. Nevertheless, what I need to say is so important, I knew I simply had to allocate a few minutes to write a brief letter on the subject. Before I get moving here, let me point out that Mr. Cameron makes a lot of exaggerated claims. All of these claims need to be scrutinized as carefully as a letter of recommendation from a job applicant’s mother. Consider, for example, Mr. Cameron’s claim that the average working-class person can’t see through his chicanery. The fact of the matter is that we can’t let pushy flakes ram his strictures down our throats. Well, that’s a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I’m afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: Some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with raving mythomaniacs on a regular basis at work or in school. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to destroy all tradition, all morality, and the entire democratic system.

Okay, then, let’s move onto the really good part of this letter, the part in which I get to tell you that you might have heard the story that Mr. Cameron once agreed to help us suggest the kind of politics and policies that are needed to restore good sense to this important debate. No one has located the document in which Mr. Cameron said that. No one has identified when or where Mr. Cameron said that. That’s because he never said it. As you might have suspected, Mr. Cameron says that our country’s security, prestige, and financial interests are best served by war and the ever-present threat of war. You know, I don’t think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life.

When I’m through with Mr. Cameron he’ll think twice before attempting to fracture family unity. Although it requires risk, commitment, and follow-through to compile readers’ remarks and suggestions and use them to direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon us by Mr. Cameron, Mr. Cameron uses the word “ultraphotomicrograph” without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. People who are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. The objection may still be raised that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem. At first glance this sounds almost believable yet the following must be borne in mind: By refusing to act, by refusing to invite all the people who have been harmed by Mr. Cameron to continue to express and assert their concerns in a constructive and productive fashion, we are giving Mr. Cameron the power to numb the public to the communism and injustice in mainstream politics. When he made his puppy-dog flacks wag their little tails by promising to let them drag everything that is truly great into the gutter, I realized for the first time that Mr. Cameron has separate, oftentimes antipodal, interests from ours. For instance, he’s intererested in rallying for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity. In contrast, my interests—and perhaps yours as well—include telling people that we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Mr. Cameron. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that Mr. Cameron coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his sophistries sound like they’re actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary. I have one final message for you before ending this letter: Unforgiving cameralism is now and has long been a mainstay of Mr. David Cameron’s invectives.

If we imagine three states of time; the past, the present and the future, pardon the pun but at all times we would exist in the present, technically speaking it is not possible to exist in the past or the future, aside from these next very confusing sentences. If I were able to exist in the present which was yesterday, then, that yesterday [which we will call Thursday] would be my present, and the today [Friday] would be my future and as such would not exist (yet). The sheer fact that I have gone back in time means that by my presence in the past which is now my present means that on Friday, I would not have gone back in time to Thursday, because Friday does not yet exist and as such is not pre determined. To put it even more simply, I cannot exist in more than one point in space or time. Or, I cannot exist on Friday (tomorrow) if the day is Thursday (yesterday/today) and vice versa.

Where I am today is my present, regardless. That being said, if it were possible to travel back and time and alter my future (or my former present), then any events that I change, would create a new future meaning that the future that I left no longer exists (in fact it never existed) and I would have no knowledge of it at all.

So, if I were to process this my original question is automatically with out merit and in fact whether time travel into the past was ethical or not is null and void.

“On the cultural level, narcissism can be seen in a loss of human values-in a lack of concern for the environment, for the quality of life, for one’s fellow human beings. A society that sacrifices the natural environment for profit and power betrays its ins insensitivity to human needs. The proliferation of material things becomes the measure of progress in living, and man is pitted against woman, worker against employer, individual against community. When wealth occupies a higher position than wisdom, when notoriety is admired more than dignity, when success is more important than self-respect, the culture itself overvalues “image” and must be regarded as narcissistic.” – Lowen

This metaphysical analogy is fraught with problems, mechanical, philosophically and psychologically. The basic premise; although insightful, is flawed. It presupposes an impossible question which by its very design creates a level of hopelessness and futility about the situation which offers little room for optimism or a reconcilable solution.

Which way is the wrong way? Moving in any direction has no real moral imperative; what is wrong on a British road, may not apply to the State of New York (also consider that in this premise there are ’roundabouts’ in the United States). However impossible the question, there is always an answer and always a way. Such an answer may not be favourable to our egos and in its defence, limits the possible options by not considering them options at all.

If this analogy is a simplified object from reality, then reconsider the parameters. Is it reasonable to suggest that there is ‘no way off the roundabout’? If there is no way off a roundabout, then it’s not a roundabout.

Lastly, if the real intention in the question is of deeper significance, an oversimplification of a problem creates nothing much moral paradoxes which serve no purpose other than to ‘keep you on the roundabout’.

Ailurophile-A cat-lover.
Assemblage-A gathering.
Becoming-Attractive.
Beleaguer-To exhaust with attacks.
Brood-To think alone.
Bucolic-In a lovely rural setting.
Bungalow-A small, cozy cottage.
Chatoyant-Like a cat’s eye.
Comely-Attractive.
Conflate-To blend together.
Cynosure-A-focal point of admiration.
Dalliance-A brief love affair.
Demesne-Dominion, territory.
Demure-Shy and reserved.
Denouement-The resolution of a mystery.
Desuetude-Disuse.
Desultory-Slow, sluggish.
Diaphanous-Filmy.
Dissemble-Deceive.
Dulcet-Sweet, sugary.
Ebullience-Bubbling enthusiasm.
Effervescent-Bubbly.
Efflorescence-Flowering, blooming.
Elision-Dropping a sound or syllable in a word.
Elixir-A good potion.
Eloquence-Beauty and persuasion in speech.
Embrocation-Rubbing on a lotion.
Emollient-A softener.
Ephemeral-Short-lived.
Epiphany-A sudden revelation.
Erstwhile-At one time, for a time.
Ethereal-Gaseous, invisible but detectable.
Evanescent-Vanishing quickly, lasting a very short time.
Evocative-Suggestive.
Fetching-Pretty.
Felicity-Pleasantness.
Forbearance-Withholding response to provocation.
Fugacious-Fleeting.
Furtive-Shifty, sneaky.
Gambol-To skip or leap about joyfully.
Glamour-Beauty.
Gossamer-The finest piece of thread, a spider’s silk.
Halcyon-Happy, sunny, care-free.
Harbinger-Messenger with news of the future.
Imbrication-Overlapping and forming a regular pattern.
Imbroglio-An altercation or complicated situation.
Imbue-To infuse, instill.
Incipient-Beginning, in an early stage.
Ineffable-Unutterable, inexpressible.
Ingénue-A naïve young woman.
Inglenook-A cozy nook by the hearth.
Insouciance-Blithe nonchalance.
Inure-To become jaded.
Labyrinthine-Twisting and turning.
Lagniappe-A special kind of gift.
Lagoon-A small gulf or inlet.
Languor-Listlessness, inactivity.
Lassitude-Weariness, listlessness.
Leisure-Free time.
Lilt-To move musically or lively.
Lissome-Slender and graceful.
Lithe-Slender and flexible.
Love-Deep affection.
Mellifluous-Sweet sounding.
Moiety-One of two equal parts.
Mondegreen-A slip of the ear.
Murmurous-Murmuring.
Nemesis-An unconquerable archenemy.
Offing-The sea between the horizon and the offshore.
Onomatopoeia-A word that sounds like its meaning.
Opulent-Lush, luxuriant.
Palimpsest-A manuscript written over earlier ones.
Panacea-A solution for all problems
Panoply-A complete set.
Pastiche-An art work combining materials from various sources.
Penumbra-A half-shadow.
Petrichor-The smell of earth after rain.
Plethora-A large quantity.
Propinquity-An inclination.
Pyrrhic-Successful with heavy losses.
Quintessential-Most essential.
Ratatouille-A spicy French stew.
Ravel-To knit or unknit.
Redolent-Fragrant.
Riparian-By the bank of a stream.
Ripple-A very small wave.
Scintilla-A spark or very small thing.
Sempiternal-Eternal.
Seraglio-Rich, luxurious oriental palace or harem.
Serendipity-Finding something nice while looking for something else.
Summery-Light, delicate or warm and sunny.
Sumptuous-Lush, luxurious.
Surreptitious-Secretive, sneaky.
Susquehanna-A river in Pennsylvania.
Susurrous-Whispering, hissing.
Talisman-A good luck charm.
Tintinnabulation-Tinkling.
Umbrella-Protection from sun or rain.
Untoward-Unseemly, inappropriate.
Vestigial-In trace amounts.
Wafture-Waving.
Wherewithal-The means.
Woebegone-Sorrowful, downcast.