Read Online The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy by Irvin D. Yalom, Molyn Leszcz - Free Book Online Page B
Book: The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy by Irvin D. Yalom, Molyn Leszcz
Read Free Book Online
Authors: Irvin D. Yalom, Molyn Leszcz
Ads: Link
engender in others, or if the feelings aroused are desired, yet inhibit growth (as in the case of Leonard), then therein lies a crucial part of the client’s problem. Of course there are many complications inherent in this thesis. Some critics might say that a strong emotional response is often due to pathology not of the subject but of the respondent. If, for example, a self-confident, assertive man evokes strong feelings of fear, intense envy, or bitter resentment in another man, we can hardly conclude that the response is reflective of the former’s pathology. There is a distinct advantage in the therapy group format: because the group contains multiple observers, it is easier to differentiate idiosyncratic and highly subjective responses from more objective ones.
The emotional response of any single member is not sufficient; therapists need confirmatory evidence. They look for repetitive patterns over time and for multiple responses—that is, the reactions of several other members (referred to as consensual validation) to the individual. Ultimately therapists rely on the most valuable evidence of all: their own emotional responses. Therapists must be able to attend to their own reactions to the client, an essential skill in all relational models. If, as Kiesler states, we are “hooked” by the interpersonal behavior of a member, our own reactions are our best interpersonal information about the client’s impact on others. 47
Therapeutic value follows, however, only if we are able to get “unhooked”—that is, to resist engaging in the usual behavior the client elicits from others, which only reinforces the usual interpersonal cycles. This process of retaining or regaining our objectivity provides us with meaningful feedback about the interpersonal transaction. From this perspective, the thoughts, fantasies, and actual behavior elicited in the therapist by each group member should be treated as gold. Our reactions are invaluable data, not failings. It is impossible not to get hooked by our clients, except by staying so far removed from the client’s experience that we are untouched by it—an impersonal distance that reduces our therapeutic effectiveness.
A critic might ask, “How can we be certain that therapists’ reactions are ‘objective’?” Co-therapy provides one answer to that question. Co-therapists are exposed together to the same clinical situation. Comparing their reactions permits a clearer discrimination between their own subjective responses and objective assessments of the interactions. Furthermore, group therapists may have a calm and privileged vantage point, since, unlike individual therapists, they witness countless compelling maladaptive interpersonal dramas unfold without themselves being at the center of all these interactions.
Still, therapists do have their blind spots, their own areas of interpersonal conflict and distortion. How can we be certain these are not clouding their observations in the course of group therapy? I will address this issue fully in later chapters on training and on the therapist’s tasks and techniques, but for now note only that this argument is a powerful reason for therapists to know themselves as fully as possible. Thus it is incumbent upon the neophyte group therapist to embark on a lifelong journey of self-exploration, a journey that includes both individual and group therapy.
None of this is meant to imply that therapists should not take seriously the responses and feedback of all clients, including those who are highly disturbed. Even the most exaggerated, irrational responses contain a core of reality. Furthermore, the disturbed client may be a valuable, accurate source of feedback at other times: no individual is highly conflicted in every area. And, of course, an idiosyncratic response may contain much information about the respondent.
This final point constitutes a basic axiom for the group therapist. Not infrequently, members of a group
The emotional response of any single member is not sufficient; therapists need confirmatory evidence. They look for repetitive patterns over time and for multiple responses—that is, the reactions of several other members (referred to as consensual validation) to the individual. Ultimately therapists rely on the most valuable evidence of all: their own emotional responses. Therapists must be able to attend to their own reactions to the client, an essential skill in all relational models. If, as Kiesler states, we are “hooked” by the interpersonal behavior of a member, our own reactions are our best interpersonal information about the client’s impact on others. 47
Therapeutic value follows, however, only if we are able to get “unhooked”—that is, to resist engaging in the usual behavior the client elicits from others, which only reinforces the usual interpersonal cycles. This process of retaining or regaining our objectivity provides us with meaningful feedback about the interpersonal transaction. From this perspective, the thoughts, fantasies, and actual behavior elicited in the therapist by each group member should be treated as gold. Our reactions are invaluable data, not failings. It is impossible not to get hooked by our clients, except by staying so far removed from the client’s experience that we are untouched by it—an impersonal distance that reduces our therapeutic effectiveness.
A critic might ask, “How can we be certain that therapists’ reactions are ‘objective’?” Co-therapy provides one answer to that question. Co-therapists are exposed together to the same clinical situation. Comparing their reactions permits a clearer discrimination between their own subjective responses and objective assessments of the interactions. Furthermore, group therapists may have a calm and privileged vantage point, since, unlike individual therapists, they witness countless compelling maladaptive interpersonal dramas unfold without themselves being at the center of all these interactions.
Still, therapists do have their blind spots, their own areas of interpersonal conflict and distortion. How can we be certain these are not clouding their observations in the course of group therapy? I will address this issue fully in later chapters on training and on the therapist’s tasks and techniques, but for now note only that this argument is a powerful reason for therapists to know themselves as fully as possible. Thus it is incumbent upon the neophyte group therapist to embark on a lifelong journey of self-exploration, a journey that includes both individual and group therapy.
None of this is meant to imply that therapists should not take seriously the responses and feedback of all clients, including those who are highly disturbed. Even the most exaggerated, irrational responses contain a core of reality. Furthermore, the disturbed client may be a valuable, accurate source of feedback at other times: no individual is highly conflicted in every area. And, of course, an idiosyncratic response may contain much information about the respondent.
This final point constitutes a basic axiom for the group therapist. Not infrequently, members of a group
Similar Books
