Gretchen Pyves (in revised Teacher Training Manual)
I include a section on this topic because I have experienced some
fundamental misunderstandings around what co-counselling is, due more
to ignorance and assumptions by those who have not experienced co-counselling
and who equate it with the more understood word 'counselling'. The following
points will I hope clarify the differences and enable co-counsellors to
present these differences and in so doing put a clear and legitimate seal on
co-counselling.
[nb. I shall use the word 'therapy' to cover both the notion of
conventionally understood counselling and therapy. This will enable me to
use the words counsellor/counselling when I am referring to co-counselling
practices.]
(This section does not set out to differentiate Therapy and Counselling and
I fully appreciate that the use of the word Therapy to cover these two
practices may not be appropriate for some.)
There is a clear set of ground rules laid down that underpin all
co-counselling sessions which create a real psychological safety for both
the client and counsellor role to operate within. Co-counsellors can choose
any number of other co-counsellors to work with. There is also no monetary
payment for the sessions, equal time being the currency used.
No similar set of Ground Rules are discussed in therapy settings as a
general rule. This is not to be confused with the contracts agreed by the
client and therapist prior to commencement of therapy regarding what the
client wants out of the therapy, the practical business arrangements,
initial number of sessions etc. Individual therapists will also vary in the
rules they set out for their clients and clearly some may coincide with
those we have in co-counselling. Therapists will not on professional
grounds agree to see a client who is already being seen by another
therapist. Permission from a Psychiatrist has also to be given if the
client wishes to have therapy whilst under the psychiatrist's care. There
is in addition always a fee paid by the client to the therapist.
There are two roles taught in co-counselling: the client role which is the
main purpose of the training and the very specific set out role of the
counsellor.
The purpose of the Fundamentals training is to teach the client how to work
with the counsellor's interactions at every point. The techniques are quite
simple and as a result are not mystifying but theoretically well
understood. Because the client has learnt and experienced these as a client
then they can use all the same techniques to the client when they are in
the counsellor role.
This according to John Rowan (1980), is the crucial point. He also makes
the point that what is mystified in most other forms of therapy and may
take years to discover is "that it is the client who has to do all the
work". Co-counselling makes this clear from the beginning of the training.
Another real difference that is pointed out by John Heron is that
co-counselling is to do with an in-depth contract to do cathartic work.
This requires appropriate preparation and training as client. John Heron
also stresses that there needs to be a contract agreed by the client that
they wish to work in this way with conscious awareness and under-standing.
They need to be making a choice to do it and not just have it done to them.
According to John Heron (1990), we do not have any training in our culture
which teaches skills leading to emotional competence. (I would go further
and say that it is not even recognised in our culture that this type of
education is necessary). Co-counselling does set out to emotionally educate
people who are then trained to work on their distress and suffering and
take full charge of it. This also liberates them from distorting their
efforts to help others from a position of distress or to use a common
phrase "to stop laying one's trip on others".
The 'training' for the counsellor role on the Fundamentals course is quite
specific with a range of clearly set out styles of interventions and these
being learnt first and foremost through being the client and experiencing
the effect of these interventions for oneself. 'You are only as good a
counsellor as you are a client' is the operative maxim. The role
relationship is quite formal according to Rowan (1980). "The counsellor is
not to pass comments or give advice, or sympathise or share experience, but
to listen and offer the learned interventions which assist the client to go
beyond their resistant blocks and into the discharge of deep pain". The
notion that one human being is prepared to give another time in a
non-judgemental and accepting way is the underlying theme of the counsellor
role. Forty hours in my opinion is more than sufficient to learn this in
the practice of co-counselling. It is the role of the client which needs
longer! Efficiency in either of these roles really only comes after the
course and then only after a great deal of practice.
In a therapeutic relationship the person or client is very much in the
hands of the therapist and not so much in control of their own level and
depth. There is also an in-built assumption by the client that they are
going to an expert or professional person. The consequences of this can
give rise to an unequal 'power' relationship, with the client submitting at
some level or to some degree to this 'higher' authority. There is as a
result of these factors much more scope for malpractice in such a
relationship. In addition the therapist is 'making sense of the clients'
work and interpreting this according to their own particular 'model' i.e.
Gestalt, TA, Pyschosynthesis etc. Therapists do not train their clients
either in theory or in practical ways to work in this manner. This in my
view is one of the reasons why some clients are in therapy for so long.
Therapy training starts from the position of learning the therapist's role
and may or may not require any competence in being a client. Therapists
undergo up to three of more years training leaning a great deal of theory
about human beings and their neuroses and as a result differ quite widely
depending on their training model. I have experienced quite a partisan
attitude adopted by therapists to their own style/model of training. The
client on the other hand, is very much in the dark on this and consequently
is in a relationship where the therapist is determining the 'Modus
Operandum'.
There is a questioning by therapists about the legitimacy of a course which
allows the practice of 'counselling' after only 40 hours or so. This is to
miss the real point of co-counselling training in that it is to do with
learning how to be a client not a therapist.
Two kinds of on-going support are afterwards available to co-counsellors:
- in individual two-way contracts
- in workshops that are available locally, nationally and internationally.
Unlike many other short training experiential workshops which deal with an
aspect of human development and then comes to an end, co-counselling
training is the beginning of a continuing supportive relationship with
others who are doing the same. There is no doubt in my mind that the
knowledge about human psychology and the very specific ground rules and
the emotional experience learned on a co-counselling training gives those
attending an increasingly distress-free way of being with others in every
day interactions and of becoming accepting of others. The skills of:
Attention Switching, Validation and Goal Setting have applications beyond
the co-counselling contract and can be a valuable aid to living in the real
world, in an assertive and clear way.
On-going support is usually obtained only by regular Therapy with one person.
Another misunderstood area is to do with the notion of Professionalism.
Co-counselling is seen, more by virtue of its training, or rather lack of
training, to be non-professional. John Heron puts forward the view that an
excess of professionalism can have two results.
- The professional role is used both defensively and oppressively.
- The professionals claim an excessive degree of expertise and
will delegate none of it to the laity - whom they officially claim to
protect. De-professionalism also means de-mystification of the Therapist
role and thus an acknowledgement that many of its basic human skills can be
acquired by many people in relatively short training programmes.
These points made by John Heron are also supported by the notion in
Humanistic Psychology that deep down, people are OK; they are possessed of
a creative and flexible human intelligence. When they are hurt (physically
or emotionally) this intelligence stops functioning and feelings of
distress takes place. Since the answer to all our problems lies within us,
then learning how to access and identify our problems and find our own
solutions seems a logical way. This is the whole essence of co-counselling
training and as a result it is a very safe practice. Within co-counselling
the counsellor (role) can never take a co-counselling client into areas
they are not yet ready to look at nor to a depth they are not able to handle
because the clients' training teaches them how to retain full responsibility
for the session. Our psyche is after all ours, and our responsibility alone.
Finally a word about the techniques taught on a Fundamentals course. They
are all drawn from a variety of Analytical and Humanistic Philosophy.
Co-counselling is therefore a mixed bag from a variety of sources. This
amalgamation of techniques is its only claim to uniqueness. Co-counselling
therefore 'fits' with most other Therapies with its culture. It is a very
useful stepping off ground for those wishing to enter this field of
Professionalism!
In drawing attention to the above points the reader may be forgiven for
assuming that I hold a preference for co-counselling over therapy. This is
not so. Therapy certainly does have its place and it is different to
co-counselling. My purpose has not been to say which is better but to show
these differences. Co-counselling is for those who are able to manage their
lives already but who wish to enhance their way of being in the world with
themselves and others. It is for us 'normal neurotics'! Those who are not
able to manage their lives by the conventionally accepted yardsticks,
paradoxically have to put themselves in the hands of others in order to get
help for themselves! Therapy is still seen very much as a 'sick' person's
resort, and there is some truth in this. However by virtue of the influence
from America where Therapists have done a good job in selling themselves it
is becoming more acceptable and even fashionable for 'normal' people to a
'have a therapist'. I certainly believe that this is a healthy trend. More
healthy would be an overall recognition of co-counselling or other self
help methods and that emotional literacy is a necessity!
A final word here about some prejudice I have experienced in that some
therapists have asked their clients not to either go on Co-counselling
workshops or practice co-counselling while in therapy with them.
This encapsulates the misunderstanding.
Co-counselling is a different way of working. They are both forms of
therapy but one does not in my view negate the other. It is like a tennis
coach saying to a client 'you mustn't ski'. Both are forms of sport but
they are not the same and the one need not interfere with the other, nor
does one take preference over another.
Each one of us has the right to choose for ourselves whatever method(s) are
most beneficial for us. Co-counselling or one way therapy are both
legitimate and each has its own values, and each has its own limitations.
Heron J. "Helping the Client"
Sage Publications (1990) pp12-14 & pp57-58.
Rowan J. "Ordinary Ecstasy"
Routledge & Keegan & Paul (1980)
pp46-49 & pp57-59.
[Gretchen Pyves]
[ Practice ]
[Home|Contents]
CCI (UK) Webmanagers and disclaimer
Updated: 3 Dec 96