It’s interesting that Don’s last two posts have concerned the concept of judgement. He received a letter from a teacher who, he felt, impugned his professionalism, the quality which, I suspect, is of the greatest importance to him personally. This happened to me recently with a parent, and I know how much it hurts. Even when you have colleagues, friends and the main part of your own intellect telling you that the person was wrong, there’s still that Scottish Calvinism genetically implanted in the furthest reaches of your psyche whispering that you could have done better, and therefore in some respects the critic was right. It hurts a lot. The matter of unconditional positive regard is tricky because there are many perceptions involved – it’s not a one-way or absolute thing. I may think I am showing genuine UPR for someone, but the person may not perceive this. Or this person may have learned how to manipulate others through emotional withdrawal, and by saying “the teacher doesn’t like me” hopes to get his or her own way. Or the person may have learned early on that if someone disagrees with you it means you Fear of rejection is deeply rooted and people take different routes to preserve themselves from it. Could it be that for some, showing UPR is actually a
I think that to ensure that this isn’t the case, non-judgemental UPR needs to be accompanied by the 2 other
But in a classroom, it’s not just a 2-way process. It's not the relatively secure client-therapist context. The expectation of the 30 or so others in the room is that a discernable negative consequence will follow such behaviour. I realise that in the real world, not the ideal one, the negative consequence most children expect is the observable withdrawal of positive attention, and/or affection. Most children (and adults) in the room will expect that if Jimmy lifts his feet to another child that the teacher should swiftly establish control and reinforce the hierarchy that gives them security. How is this achieved while at the same time showing congruence, UPR, and empathy for Jimmy? Apart from explicitly separating personal response from behavioural, ("You have done a thing that has hurt someone. He is crying and I don't like that. But I still like you." just doesn't seem a realistic response does it?) I don’t have an answer, and I think I don’t succeed as often as I’d like.
Finally, some children, like Jimmy, have backgrounds I would not wish on my worst enemy. Despite this knowledge, I know that a parent like Jimmy's who doubted my professionalism might be right – I Yet I know that they are perpetuating a cycle they have not begun themselves but are in the middle of, and which may deny them the insight to know it. With congruence and empathy, blame is not possible, but steps forward may be.
5 comments:
Very interesting post and links, Dorothy. Thanks.
I think the use of these Rogerian concepts is interesting but taken a little out of context, if you don't mind me saying so. Rogers really proposed the use of these 'big three' as a part of a specific process of client-centred therapy, with he therapist adopting this approach in order to achieve a resolution to a client's particular issues. Carl Rogers also felt that his approach could not be universal -that it was not appropriate for some situations. With that in mind, is it appropriate for people like Don Ledingham to fix on parts of this process (which Rogers saw as linked qualities for the therapeutic environment) and try to make them a panacea for all the ills of society and specifically,educational environments? Just as Rogers realised that his approach was not suitable for some situations, surely we must also recognise this as well.
Jaye
Thanks Alan.
Jaye, I don't read Don's post like that, and I think I acknowledged in my post that the classroom situation is somewhat different from the client centred, therapeutic one.
Do you think perhaps there are still aspects, approaches or perhaps mind sets inspired by Rogers' proposals that are transferable to the school context?
Hi there
My take on this is that Roger's humanistic approach to the development of the self-concept was that we all develop by conscious awareness and have the potential to initiate change in our lives. Client-centred therapy builds on this potential in helping people build on self-awareness if they have issues with this part of the self. Whilst an aproach in the classroom built on this may have its uses, Rogers himself admitted that it didn't always work unless the individual concerned had developed what he called psychological maturity. He saw unconditional regard as one of three qualities necessary for the therapist working in this area. The other two (being congruence and empathy) must work hand in hand with unconditional regard.
My view is that it is dangerous to 'cherry-pick' one aspect of a psychological theory without considering how it fits in with the whole. Unconditional regard is a means to an end, and a part of a process, not an isolated principle of behaviour. To use this approach in a classroom for me is fraught with difficulty, as it infers a warmth and respect for a child no matter what he/she does or thinks.
For this to work, a teacher would need to explore each and every issue with congruence and empathy over a long period of time. We just don't have the time to become therapists to out pupils in this way(although as a teacher of Psychology I might like to do so). Its easy for people in positions such as Don to latch onto this 'cherry-picking' from developmental psychology when it suits their current perspectives but its a dangerous game to play because the theories and approaches of the Pyschologists concerned involve interlocking principles and not just stand-alone soundbites. This is what I feel characterises Don's post on this issue.
I hope I've managed to explain my point of view on this. I think we have to be wary of adopting roles which are not ours to own, especially in the classroom. In this case, positive regard needs to be seen in the context Rogers intended, and it's difficult to achieve congruence with one child with issues when you have the rest of the class who might also expect the same. This is impossible and it's why Rogers didn't advocate group therapy.
Jaye
Thanks Jaye. I found your comment very useful. I can see that for you terms such as unconditional positive regard have very specific meaning, within the Rogerian context. Perhaps my understanding is more of a layman's and I am therefore using the terms less precisely, to characterise a non-judgemental, respectful approach. Perhaps Don may be doing this too.
No doubt it is my non-specialist role which leaves me puzzling over your assertion that "Unconditional regard is a means to an end" making it sound like a purposefully constructed clinical procedure rather than a way of describing and approach I find can make a difference to the relationship between pupil and teacher.
I suppose I do try to be genuine with all of my pupils. As you say, it is difficult, and I often feel I fail so perhaps you are right and it is actually impossible. Nevertheless, I do feel I have to try!
Post a Comment