From what I understand of what was said here, this suggests that the client or patient’s progress in therapy may now be evaluated based on what they think someone else thinks is best for them. By this thinking, the client or patient is effectively deprived of their individual sovereignty and implicitly coerced into conforming to the “treatment” others in positions of authority (e.g., employers, judges, parents) wish to compel them into. This paints a dystopian portrait of what therapy might become in the future, from the perspective of any serious client-centered or humanistic therapist. Clients are increasingly being referred or compelled to enter into therapy by others, and so this problem is only going to grow with time. It also reflects how authoritarian priorities can hijack the emotional needs of clients in therapy, rendering the client’s own judgments of their internal state obsolete. It can create a powerful psychological distance, or separation, between ‘therapist’ and client. Any defense of this based on anosognosia, or the client’s supposed lack of insight, presents a dangerous and slippery slope (though I acknowledge the problem of insight is a genuine one).
Thank you for this tip Scott!
From what I understand of what was said here, this suggests that the client or patient’s progress in therapy may now be evaluated based on what they think someone else thinks is best for them. By this thinking, the client or patient is effectively deprived of their individual sovereignty and implicitly coerced into conforming to the “treatment” others in positions of authority (e.g., employers, judges, parents) wish to compel them into. This paints a dystopian portrait of what therapy might become in the future, from the perspective of any serious client-centered or humanistic therapist. Clients are increasingly being referred or compelled to enter into therapy by others, and so this problem is only going to grow with time. It also reflects how authoritarian priorities can hijack the emotional needs of clients in therapy, rendering the client’s own judgments of their internal state obsolete. It can create a powerful psychological distance, or separation, between ‘therapist’ and client. Any defense of this based on anosognosia, or the client’s supposed lack of insight, presents a dangerous and slippery slope (though I acknowledge the problem of insight is a genuine one).