According to William Isaacs, professor, author, and co-founder of the Center for Organizational Learning at MIT alongside Peter Senge, dialogue is a vehicle for creative problem identification and solving. However, it is different than what is normally conceived as problem solving. The usual modality to tackle problems is discussion. We are used to exposing our points of view, and entering into a dialectic exchange and sometimes debate.
In any of these cases, we are defending our ideas. Resolution or problem solving emerges out of consensus or a decision made by someone high in the hierarchy. In the best case scenario, the compromise is acceptable to all, but in most situations one or more individuals would feel that they lost. Companies with strong decision-making processes would have a way to make the decision “stick” regardless of the opposition. In the 1990s, I worked for a company where accepting and supporting a decision once it was made was a condition for employment.
Dialogue allows for the identification and solution to a problem by “thinking together.” This notion was first introduced by David Bohm, the famed physicist, and extensively documented by Isaacs. Thinking together is the result of the dialogic process. As stated, it starts with the suspension of our underlying assumptions followed by deep inquiry into the assumptions of all the participants. Dialogue allows for the true exploration of the problem. Thinking together arrives as part of what Isaacs calls the generative dialogue. This is the phase of the dialogic process when the participants together reach new insights, co-create, and ultimately solve the problem with a much greater depth than the defensive form of conversation.
As supported by science and personal experience, the speed of change in the world has accelerated greatly. Edgar Schein submits that dialogue can speed up the process of change within an organization. His argument is twofold. First, resistance to change is driven by fragmentation; fragmentation of thought, culture, language and understanding. Second, our customary communication approach of discussion often ends up in suboptimal solutions through compromise or mandate. Dialogue addresses fragmentation by giving all participants access to proprioception (one’s own perception). Thought coherence is its result. Thinking together is the optimal way to solve problems once coherence is achieved.
Isaacs developed a model showing how a conversation evolves from its inception into two major paths, one of dialogue and the other of discussion. He posits that a conversation for a specific purpose reaches a point of deliberation. This is the stage where options are considered. It is also the point where a major decision will be made based on how the conversation flows.
Two paths are available. The first path is the suspension of underlying assumptions, and the second one deals with defense. The path of suspending moves to a dialogic conversation. The path of defense further bifurcates into either a productive defense or an unproductive one. A productive defense will result in a solution through the presentation of facts, a dialectic exchange, and a synthesis of the exposed ideas. A decision will be arrived through consensus or mandate. In the unproductive flow, a discussion will ensue leading to a debate in which points are made and defended without a satisfactory conclusion.
Isaacs speaks about creating the container for dialogue. A container can be described in relation to its “quality of energy, experience, and aliveness.” It is not about the physical attributes of the room necessarily, although they are important. A container includes the physical and the nonphysical. Ultimately, it is how we feel when we are in this container. Do we feel a sense of trust and openness? Dialogue requires that the “field of conversation” be comfortable for this purpose.
Boundaries and sensitivity are essential to dialogue. Boundaries relate to the constituencies in the dialogue. For some groups, participation map be open and people may come and go as they please. For others, participation may be limited to a fixed population. Another area of boundaries relates to the depth of personal questions and statements. Dialogue is not the place for insults. However, participants may want to and may need to make personalized statements. This has to be in agreement with everyone in the group. Bohm stressed the need for great sensitivity when embarking on dialogue. He believed that correcting our thought processes requires support, safety, and above all trust.
The art of thinking together is one of the great tools for our present time. We need dialogue to solve our planetary challenges.
Are you a Saybrook University alumna or faculty member who is interested in submitting a blog post for potential publication on UNBOUND? You may do so by submitting your finished piece or pitch on the right-hand side panel of UNBOUND pages.
Unbound Posts
Grief doesn’t just go away — it’s something you have to work through
We’re used to tragedy. Car accidents, cancer diagnoses, unexplained deaths – they happen every day.
But are we any good at grieving?
In an article in Natural News, Dr. Larry Malerba explores the correlation between unresolved grief and chronic illnesses. Entitled, Could Grief Be Causing Your Chronic Illness, Dr. Malerba looks at grief from a psychophysiological perspective exploring the grieving process as a normative human experience that has ravaging maladaptive physical and psychological effects if cut short. While complex, the grieving process over a tragic event or death is found to be most successful with individuals who possess a strong degree of psychological maturity, solid support systems, a sense of spirituality, and congruent emotional and cultural perspectives toward the grieving process. Conversely, Dr. Malerba asserts than unfinished or unprocessed grief has ravaging effects—often leading to a variety of chronic physical illnesses; namely: depression, anxiety, gastrointestinal issues, migraines—to name a few.
Essentially, unresolved anguish results in the “somaticization of emotional grief” and the experts at The Grief Recovery Institute have solutions to its perilous side effects.
Referred to as the action program for moving beyond loss, experts John James and Russell Friedman run an entire institution devoted to the process of grief—for all sorts of loss, pain and tragedy. In their work, grief is seen as a normative process; wherein forgiveness is seen as a central component towards the cessation of resentment for the person or thing responsible for the incident and accurate identification and emotional expression of the tremendous loss suffered by the person in grief. Power and healing are seen as resulting from the emotional grieving process in those suffering; not in the blame of those responsible.
In their work with individuals, groups and professional trainings, James and Friedman hold that the process of grief is different for each person; therefore stage theories do not serve in the facilitation of healing. For the grieving person or family, the “public” display of emotion is always different, with each person having a different “emotional value system.” Friedman and James focus their theory and work on completing the relationship or “unfinished business” with the person that has passed or the event that occurred. Contrary to public opinion, they assert that completing a relationship or a circumstance is possible with someone who is living or dead or a situation that is still occurring or no longer possible.
Both professionals hold that painful memories, avoidance of persons or situations related to the death or event are unsuccessful and result in a cycle of deep unresolved grief. Therefore, the grieving process involves catharsis and anguish where a “re-experiencing” of the loss occurs where unfulfilled dreams, hopes, and aspirations are worked through. This process is viewed through an empowering lens as it gives the grieving individual a way to complete the life or circumstance cut short by death or loss; where life-giving memories can exist alongside grief and deep pain.
In all the services and professionals trainings that James, Friedman and the institute conduct, they focus on “debunking” popular myths about grief. Namely, the old adages that suggest time heals wounds and that a person can “get over” a death or painful experience. James and Friedman object to the maxims saying it is grief work; a re-experiencing, a completion of the unfinished emotional experiences that heals wounds.
“To spare oneself from grief at all costs can be achieved only at the price of total detachment, which excludes the ability to experience happiness, the great Erich Fromm once said reminding all of the importance of working through grief; which is all to often a process of deeply entrenched pain.
Fromm’s words remind us of the necessity of the grieving process when tragedy strikes—our very physical and psychological health depends on it.
— Liz Schreiber
Original photo by Raja Patnaik, post-processed and uploaded by Alessio Damato
What does ‘humanistic’ mean?
Humanistic thought holds that people are active agents in a process of constantly engaging their humanity, instead of passive mechanisms or parts upon which doctors, workplaces, and systems act.
Humanistic thought holds that people cannot be reduced to components, but instead are whole beings, with intrinsic dignity, whose subjective experiences must be valued.
To really understand people, you can’t look at an MRI image. You can’t look at a test score. You can’t refuse to talk about anything except “behavior.” Deep down, we all know that.
To really understand people, you have to grapple with emotions; with love, with desire, with anger, with fear. You have to deal with aspirations: with hope, with ambition, with self-actualization.
To really understand people, you have to look at the systems they participate in, the cultures they come from, and the way their internal worlds connect with the collective structures around them.
What is the humanistic movement?
Throughout the history of ideas, many movements have refused to do this because the human experience is rich and troublesome, messy and complex. They have sought to use methods that offer yes-or-no answers, and in so doing tried to reduce people to charts and binary functions. People are economic actors, or the sum of their political decisions, their faith community, or the neurotransmitters running through their brains – and nothing more.
The humanistic perspective emerged out of a movement to approach people as they truly are, and to try to understand them on their own terms. It asks the big questions – what is the human spirit? What binds us together? What does it mean to be alive? – because these are the questions that many people are trying to answer.
What does it mean to be a humanistic university?
A humanistic university not only encourages students to ask those questions, in a meaningful way that is relevant to their lives and work, but teaches that way; treating its students as unique individuals with unique talents, passions, and life’s work, rather than as cookie-cutter “customers” to be loaded up with pre-fab knowledge and sent along. A humanistic university empowers students to make choices that are relevant and meaningful, and teaches them how to take their lives and careers to the next level. A humanistic university believes that education and service go hand in hand, and that results can best be measured by the way they improve the lives of real people. It focuses on qualitative research as much as quantitative, on human potential as much as profit, and on spirit as much as mind.
Saybrook is one of the world’s leading centers for scholarship in the humanistic tradition. The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, one of the movement’s leading publication, has always been edited by a Saybrook faculty member.
Today, Saybrook University’s mission, vision, and programs remain grounded in a belief in human potential and the conviction that all human beings are capable of personal growth and achieving higher states of consciousness.
Are Good Communication Skills the Foundation of Psychological Success?
The Importance of Communication in Psychology
In conversation, as in life, little things mean a lot.
The importance of communication in psychology is clear: How you speak can make or break your success. In fact, there is an entire field of science devoted to improving face-to-face communication, and it suggests that flawed communication is a major source of stress in relationships.
In Is Your Communication Style Affecting Your Relationship for Better or for Worse?, Dr. Sherrie Bourg Carter suggests that conversational styles and patterns in relationships are a major source of clandestine stress. Dr. Bourg Carter contends that many relationships and communications involve parties who are essentially speaking “a different language” depending on their level of directness, assertiveness, and compassion.
Dr. Bourg Carter is among many psychologists who suggest the importance of effective face-to-face communication for relationships and interpersonal fulfillment. It’s long been suggested that communication depends on the “skill sets” or “talk habits” in one’s conversational repertoire.
6 Tips For More Successful Communication
In The Talk Book: The Intimate Science of Communicating in Close Relationships, author Gerald Goodman, Ph.D., explores the skill sets needed for improved communication, transformed relationships, and fulfilled interpersonal relations. Dr. Goodman writes that adopting or changing the following six talking habits can transform many facets of your life.
Disclosures
Disclosure is at the heart of good relationships and can transform communications. Disclosures support greater intimacy when done properly. Facilitating disclosure in conversations and relationships involves a process of gradually increasing the degree of risk over time, decreasing restrictive control and increasing trust and vulnerability. Put simply, don’t say too much too soon.
Reflections
Reflection is a lesser-known communication skill. It’s simple and fairly natural. It involves no pragmatism but simply requires extending an empathic ear and heart. It’s accomplished by reiterating the speaker’s essential feelings and thoughts back to them. It’s irreplaceable and effective.
Interpretations
Interpretation is what many of us do in conversations—too soon, too quick, and too ineffective. When effective, interpretation brings new meaning. When unsuccessful, interpretations can be insulting assumptions. Avoid conversational interpretations that “interpret” the self-image or personhood of another. Instead, stick to proverbs or generalized sayings; they are the most innocent and safe interpretations
Advisements
Easy to overuse and abuse, advice must be carefully woven into conversations—always with respect for the self-determination of the “other” in the conversation. When used correctly, advice can be a respectful suggestion that honors the autonomy of the other person.
Questions
Questions are the building blocks of all conversations. They allow both people in a relationship to get to know or keep up with one another. When questioning someone you’re in a relationship with, check your motives. Make sure you are trying to gather information; and not covertly giving advice, interpreting, or disclosing things about yourself too soon.
Silences
Silence is by far the easiest—and least used— communication tool.. Also referred to as “conversational allowing,” silence paves the way for good communication, putting pauses between listening and talking for us to regulate our powerful thinking and feeling mechanisms. In short, increasing your awareness and use of silence in your conversations and relationships can make a real difference. You won’t be dissatisfied!
These simple tips will help you achieve deeper, more successful, and more fulfilling communication.
“When I have been listened to and when I have been heard, I am able to re-perceive my world in a new way and to go on,” said humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers.
— Liz Schreiber
Our Humanistic and Clinical Psychology department offers multiple programs for those wishing to explore how psychology and communication intersect. Learn more about the various humanistic psychology programs offeredor request more information via the form below. You can also apply now through our application portal.
Empathy is going the way of the land-line: one more thing the young are giving up
Are college students today less likely to feel sympathy for people less fortunate than them than college students were 30 years ago?
We’d better have a talk about empathy, before it’s too late.
A meta-analyses study published in the August 2010 issue of Personality and Social Psychology Review looked at research empathy dating from 1979-2009, including over 13,000 college students. The researchers were looking at the personality quality referred to as dispositional empathy – which is what students display when they say that they care about the homeless man who sleeps in the park near campus.
Konrath and colleagues found that students were less likely to agree with statements such as “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me” and “I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective.” That last statement is critical to empathy.
The research indicates that a particular type of empathy has been lost. There has been a steady decline in the ability to imagine another person’s point of view and to sympathize with them.
This is more than just a moral issue – though it certainly is that. Having these aspects of empathy in oneself has been shown to encourage positive behavior and deters us from harming others. The less empathy we have, the more casual violence is likely to result.
This isn’t a supposition: a study conducted in 2008 found that parents who were lacking in perspective taking and empathic concern were more likely to abuse their children. In the article “Preventing Violence and Trauma in the Next Generation” author Gail Ryan argues that a lack of empathy can lead to increased interpersonal violence.
Further, In a 2011 TED Talk Penn State sociology professor Sam Richards explained that having these empathetic skills helps us to understand what motivates others, and come to win-win solutions to problems. Is it an accident that our political climate has become more polarized and our rhetoric more violent as our ability to empathize has declined?
Empathy among individuals is key to a society finding solutions that are not based on anger, ignorance, or apathy.
Empathy is a real world skill that can be taught, encouraged and nurtured not just in the next generation. A study published by Sharon Nickols and Robert Nielsen in the 2011 issue of the Journal of Poverty demonstrates that putting college students through a poverty simulation they were able to better empathize and understand the lived experience of being poor. The long-term effect of this study is still unknown, but we can only hope that knowing the lived experience of poverty may prompt these students to be less judgmental and more compassionate towards those that are struggling to make ends meet.
They are teaching empathy in our medical schools and law schools. Roots of Empathy, a psychosocial educational program based in Canada, starts teaching empathy at the most critical years of life, childhood.
What they have learned and how they will (and have) applied this empathy is yet to be seen. But considering the cost of the lack of empathy, not teaching it is not an option.
— Makenna Berry
Being perfectly human means accepting human imperfections
“The thing that is really hard, and really amazing, is giving up on being perfect and beginning the work of becoming yourself,” states Anna Quindlen, best selling author and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.
It’s ok to make mistakes. Stop striving for perfection.
Easier said than done, I know. We have a strange relationship with the need to be perfect. In society, children are told its ok to make mistakes. But not adults. As soon as we join the “real world,” mistakes stop being okay.
Well, new literature suggests that mistakes ARE ok – even for adults. In fact, they can help facilitate growth and it might just well be the foundation of psychological health.
In a landmark publication, Alina Tugend furthers the theory and research about human error. Released last month, Tugend’s book Better by Mistake: The Unexpected Benefits of Being Wrong, suggests that embracing screw-ups can not only make us happier, but healthier and smarter.
Tugend heralds the good news that human beings, no matter the degree or frequency of mistakes they’ve made, are not themselves mistakes. With that understanding, she takes the reader into deep waters looking at the medical advances that have resulted from mistakes, the fear that American society has attached to mess-ups, and the all encompassing shame that results from falling from the throne of perfection.
The reader is encouraged to divorce the thought patterns that link mistakes with character flaws, intimidation, dishonor, failure, punitive measures or other biased maladaptive beliefs about one’s intrinsic nature, goodness, and value. In the place of the maladaptive belief systems, Tugend contends that mistakes should be seen as opportunities for growth, discovery, understanding and powerful tools for learning. And when the shame, embarrassment, and fear detach from mistakes the experiences connected with them become livable, growth facilitating, and psychologically beneficial.
Tugend’s work adds to the body of work produced by humanistic psychologists that attribute the same inherently good attributes to humanity; it’s a tradition that holds that people have intrinsic value, intentionality, the capacity to make meaning, and self-determining and self-actualizing tendencies – regardless of diagnosis, intellect or other man-made constructs.
Capturing the essence of humanity and “mistakes,” humanistic psychology founder Abraham Maslow once said, “I have learned the novice can often see things that the expert overlooks. All that is necessary is not to be afraid of making mistakes, or of appearing naive.
Hopefully such wisdom will eventually erase the taboo of mistakes. The shame dissipated. The fear washed away.
— Liz Schreiber
Your inner child still lives – Your outer child still acts out.
While many think childhood ends at eighteen, new research shows it is still very alive at any age—and is a contributing factor in your everyday life.
Author Leon Seltzer explores the evolution of self and personality in Self-Sabotage and Your “Outer Child” speaking to an “outer-child” in adult personalities that is characterized by impulsivity, carelessness and limitlessness. The Outer Child, Seltzer points out, acts impulsively out of a need for instant gratification from tension, anxiety and other negative feelings. Its motto: at all costs – avoid pain, pursue pleasure.
Sounds good – but there’s an inherent problem in instant gratification.
Turns out, it makes us feel worse about ourselves. Sure, we feel better in the moment, our tension relieved (or at least ameliorated). But eventually we feel worse about ourselves because we’ve sacrificed our values, wishes, or ethics to the moment. It’s self indulgence at its most unhealthy level, and for it we sacrifice our deepest need, self-nurturance.
We have all been guilty of it at one time or another. Our Outer Child is present in those actions that give us an external “fix” – late night junk food, getting surgically attached to a slot machine, spending money at the mall we don’t have – the list is at once generic and deeply personal.
The more we chase our tails around with self-indulgent behaviors, the more we miss the mark of what we really need. Our inner selves are really looking for unconditional love, self-affirmation and other inner self-nurturing attitudes.
In her revolutionary book, Taming Your Outer Child: A Revolutionary Program to Overcome Self-Defeating Patterns, Susan Johnson tackles this increasing important issue in society – self-indulgence at the expense of self-nurturance.
Johnson’s work suggests that the inner child, outer child and adult self are all still at work, regardless of your age.
Anderson defines the inner child, outer child and adult self as different constructs forming the foundations of personality (much in the way Freud did with the Id, Ego, and Super-Ego); and ultimately choice. From the perspective of emotion and action, Johnson defines the constructs as:
Inner Child: It’s the feeling, needing, and wanting part of you.
Outer Child: Looks for the easy way out, quick fixes and immediate gratification.
Adult Self: It’s your inner nurturer and your outer parent. Better yet, it accomplishes goals.
Johnson’s groundbreaking work suggests a program to work directly with all three personality components to help resolve internal conflicts that affect the decision making processes of the psyche – resulting in self-defeating behaviors in place of self-nurturing.
Tranquilize your inner child. Tame your flippant outer child. And fortify your adult self.
It’s all about healing those deep seated wounds without diving into the muck of the past. Through the use of self-help tools including support groups (if available), visualization, inventories, and daily exercises to address your outer child, and its lack of integration with your adult self and inner child.
Looking specifically at issues of abandonment, loss, emotional stress, relationship distress, depression and defense mechanisms, Johnson encourages her clients, book readers, and support group attendees to fill our surveys to heighten awareness of “outer child” behaviors. Awareness of our impulsive behavior, our unmet nurturing needs, and the slippery slope of instant gratification are the underpinnings of the insights and tools Johnson suggests using every day to heighten awareness and reflection to avoid engaging in self-defeating behaviors.
In addition to surveys, and exercises, Johnson encourages the use of visualizations to engage all three parts of the personality to integration. Here is a glimpse of one:
Imagine a child, one who’s been abandoned and is living on the streets in a distant foreign city. (Imagine this child is of the same gender as you are) This child is cold, hungry, wounded and scared. Her fondest wish is for someone to care for her and protect her from harm…
Picture yourself coming upon this poor abandon child as you are on a trip. You sense something familiar about this child. This child becomes an important and meaningful commitment in your life….
This child is you—your own inner child—and she’s counting on you.
Johnson is a skillful clinician and offers practical steps toward stopping self-defeating behavioral patterns—and awakening to the self you have always dreamed of.
Carl Jung once observed, “Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.” His words ring truer today than ever before: in a world that values external indulgence with people that cry out for inner self-nurturance.
— Liz Schreiber
The best treatments for Borderline Personality Disorder are deeply personal
It’s a diagnosis that ravages two percent of the general population and twenty percent of patients in psychiatric inpatient facilities. Characterized by frantic efforts to avoid abandonment, intense patterns of idealization and devaluation of interpersonal relationships, high levels of impulsivity in spending, sexuality, or eating– all with deleterious effects—and this is only the beginning.
Welcome to the world of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD).
The fragile realm of BPD is rapidly changing in treatment and diagnosis. Changes to the upcoming Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) are heralding the most prominent adjustments to psychiatric diagnosis in some thirty years. Personality disorders are taking the biggest hit – half of personality disorders in the current manual getting the “boot.” All these changes and more are preliminary and awaiting field trial.
While diagnosis is an important part of the mix of modern medical and mental healthcare, it does little to directly help treatment and recovery. For those effected by BPD – it’s ravaging. For those that treat it – taxing.
But advances in treatment have occurred: you just won’t find them in the DSM. Research-based humanistic person centered treatment methods provide a beacon of hope for those with BPD.
Research published in the Journal of Humanistic Psychology provides hope and help. Adam Quinn, a social worker and clinician whose work covers the gamut of trauma survivors, veterans, and seriously mentally ill clients tackles the treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder with the Person Centered Treatment Model (PCT).
Quinn tackles the diagnosis and treatment of BPD with rigor, practicality and eloquence. Examining the array of conventional approaches, Quinn highlights the empirical evidence for person centered treatment for individuals diagnosed with or possessing characteristics of Borderline Personality Disorder.
It’s Carl Rogers’ technique, twenty first century style.
The following six process mechanisms, resulting from Person Centered facilitative mechanisms demonstrate the effectiveness of such therapy:
Increased Accurate Awareness: Through the therapist’s facilitative embodiment of congruence, unconditional positive regard, and empathic understanding, a BPD client moves from a state of idealized interpretations of their environment to reality based interpretations; thus a lessening of interpersonal abandonment issues.
Internal Locus of Control: As the therapeutic alliance continues to authenticate and express congruence, a BPD client gradually moves from the external locus of control that causes many issues, to an internal locus of control.
Assimilate Previously Threatening Experience: In the process of gaining an internal locus of control, the interpretation of external experiences changes and assimilates into the realistic realm of expectations. As an increase in accurate awareness of inner and external realities occurs, the positive regard of the therapist becomes part of the “selfhood” of the client; thus promoting inherent elf-actualizing and self-growth tendencies.
Defensiveness to Acceptance: Based on the facilitative qualities present in the therapeutic relationship, the client gradually moves from their classic defensive state to a state of self-acceptance. The borderline tendencies of the client begin to substantially lessen as the internal locus of control recognizes its value as a person through the experience of the therapist’s genuinely expressed non-possessive unconditional positive regard. Issues of suicidality are common in this phase for the client as they test their “worthiness” in the face of the clinicians continued positive regard.
Increased Acceptance of Others: Through the testing and subsequent internalization of the therapeutic acceptance, the client begins to more fully accept themselves and in turn begins to accept others; without the previous fear of abandonment, and the elements of devaluation and idealization. Self-harm behaviors lessen as interpersonal unstable relationships decrease. The self-actualizing tendency further promotes congruency between self and experience; thus the client begins choosing healthier relationships.
Reliance on Self Evaluation: In this phase, internal evaluation of experience becomes paramount as increased reliance is placed on the client’s internal locus of control. Through the genuine person centered therapeutic relationship, the client moves toward an inner locus of control; where reactivity and affective instability cease to exist and self-evaluation predominates.
With Quinn’s research as a foundation, great work and hope remains to recognize the endless possibilities with treating borderline personality disorder with the person centered therapy model. As Carl Rogers once said, “This is the person-centered scenario of the future. We may choose it, but whether we choose it or not, it appears that to some degree it is inexorably moving to change our culture…”
— Liz Schreiber
Studies suggest it is possible to rehabilitate sex offenders – by acknowledging their humanity
It’s been a big week for sex abuse scandals: the Archdiocese of Philadelphia has suspended 21 priests – the largest mass suspension in church history – as a result of accusations involving inappropriate contact with minors.
Meanwhile victims groups have begun to say publicly that the Catholic Church should monitor accused priests the way the police track convicted sex offenders … and create special housing for them.
Sexual violence is never permissible, yet lost in the discussion of these horrifying crimes is the question of rehabilitation. For the most part, the public assumption is that once a sex offender always a sex offender: rehabilitation is not possible.
It’s an understandable assumption – rehabilitation requires taking an offender seriously as a person: how can we do this with sex offenders, especially child abusers? How can we reach out to them to address their humanity, and human needs?
But there are horrifying consequences if this assumption is wrong. If sex offenders can be rehabilitated, then failure to do so not only is cruel to the offender, it puts more people at risk precisely because sex offenders remain untreated.
In fact, it is humanistic and existential therapy that has proven most effective in rehabilitating adult sex offenders – and it achieves this success precisely by relating to offenders as human beings.
In preliminary research (PDF) humanistic and existential psychology, utilized in the group therapy context, has proven successful in rehabilitating sex offenders.
Adult sex offenders were studied in the context of an atmosphere focused on safety, empathy, relation. Facilitators and clinicians of the groups utilized existential psychologist, Irvin Yalom’s group therapy process, and principles of Rogerian therapy; while concomitantly condemning the criminal acts of sexual abuse perpetrated by the group members. Group therapy with the offenders consistently focused on genuineness, empathy, and unconditional positive regard for all group participants; not the abhorrent sexual conduct itself.
“Many approaches to sex offender group treatment stress confrontation as a primary therapeutic tool and focus on breaking through denial,” say researchers Sheri Bauman & T. Gregory Kopp. “We believe that such approaches result in pseudocompliance by clients. However, clients are more likely to explore underlying dynamics that contributed to their offense, such as low-self-esteem and shame, when they feel safe. They are more likely to improve social skills and decrease isolation when they feel understood, accepted, and supported.”
Bauman and Kopp’s study is timely; as it comes in the furry over a raging debate regarding sexual and identity disorders in the American Psychiatric Association’s upcoming publication, DSM-5. In the DSM-5, the Paraphilias Subworkgroup has proposed including a diagnosis known as Paraphilic Coercive Disorder. The inclusion of such a disorder would allow many states to justify indefinite civil commitment for sexual crimes.
Accordingly, to qualify for Paraphilic Coercive Disorder, a person would need to meet the following criteria:
- Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, and intense sexual arousal from sexual coercion, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors. [23]
- The person has clinically significant distress or impairment in important areas of functioning, or has sought sexual stimulation from forcing sex on three or more nonconsenting persons on separate occasions. [24]
- The diagnosis of Paraphilic Coercive Disorder is not made if the patient meets criteria for a diagnosis of Sexual Sadism Disorder.[25]
Including such a disorder into the upcoming DSM-5—is senseless. If the most effective rehabilitation programs involve acknowledging the people behind these awful crimes, slapping another label on them will further alienate them from humanity; and in turn we will increase recidivism rates. Offenders need rehabilitation not another diagnosis: “sex offender” is already as big a label as we have.
Sexual violence cannot be tolerated – and neither can the lack of rehabilitation efforts. While the acts of sexual offenders are unquestionably repugnant, therapy must focus on bringing human-like qualities back into the offender’s life to prevent recidivism.
In the long run, it’s the best way to keep everyone safe.
— Liz Schreiber
The American Psychological Association’s new guidelines are a step forward for gay rights
Last month, the American Psychological Association (APA) approved the release of the publication, Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients. It’s an essential publication, for psychologists and laymen a like, in order to empathically relate and ethically care for all people with equality—and according to their needs.
The guidelines were written with an emphasis on what was declared by the APA’s 1975 resolution stating, “Homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities.” Since that time, the APA has been a staunch supporter of the “mentally healthy” aspects of same-sex attraction. In sum, the guidelines speak to the rationale and application of twenty one specific guiding principles for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients.
Chances are you or someone in your family is in a committed same-sex relationship. And–likely, they want equality and proper care. The recent census reports 1.2 million gay couples living together in the United States; roughly between 3-5 percent of the total population reporting an LGBTQQI orientation. (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning and Intersex)
It recent years, academia, professional organizations and social service agencies have caught on. Rightfully so: Discrimination based on ethnicity or gender is a no-no — sexual orientation is no different. Psychology, specifically psychotherapeutic practice, has made huge growth. These new guidelines are part of that progress.
Highlights include:
Guideline 1: Psychologists strive to understand the effects of stigma (i.e., prejudice, discrimination, and violence) and its various contextual manifestations in the lives of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people
- Because of the mainly heterosexual society in the United States, great stigma exists; research has proven this can lead to mental health issues for homosexual persons.
- Therapists are encouraged to provide a safe therapeutic environment and have an in-depth understanding of societal stigmatization; otherwise refer the patient.
Guideline 3: Psychologists understand that same-sex attractions, feelings, and behavior are normal variants of human sexuality and that efforts to change sexual orientation have not been shown to be effective or safe.
- In the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, through empirical data and analysis, author Douglas Haldeman states, “Psychologists are obliged to use methods that have some empirically demonstrable efficacy, and there is a paucity of such evidence relative to [sexual] conversion therapy. Moreover, there is a need to understand fully the potentially damaging effects of a failed conversion treatment.
- Through Haldeman’s research and writing and that of other distinguished clinicians, sexual conversion therapy has proven ineffective, unethical, and psychological damaging.
Guideline 4: Psychologists are encouraged to recognize how their attitudes and knowledge about lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues may be relevant to assessment and treatment and seek consultation or make appropriate referrals when indicated.
- As in any therapeutic agreement, if the clinician is not skilled in a particular area or has a personal bias which interferes, they are ethically, legally, and professionally obliged to refer to a competent practitioner.
Guideline 4: Psychologists are encouraged to recognize how their attitudes and knowledge about lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues may be relevant to assessment and treatment and seek consultation or make appropriate referrals when indicated.
- As in any therapeutic agreement, if the clinician is not skilled in a particular area or has a personal bias which interferes, they are ethically, legally, and professionally obliged to refer to a competent practitioner.
Guideline 12: Psychologists are encouraged to consider the influences of religion and spirituality in the lives of lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.
- A comprehensive resource for advocacy in religion and spirituality for the LGBT population can be found here under Appendix B: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/guidelines
Guideline 16: Psychologists strive to understand the impact of HIV/AIDS on the lives of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals and communities.
- An in-depth medical and psychological understanding of these diseases is implicated for work with this population. Helpful resources include: https://www.aids.org/ and www.thebody.com
Writer Winifred Gallagher stated, “It’s hard to imagine anything more difficult to study than human sexuality, on every level from the technical to the political.” This is absolutely true, but the APA’s understanding of ethical and effective care is a step towards to furthering psychological care for all people—regardless of sexual orientation.