this is a long overdue continuation from a post in march, about the therapist as a person. here is another vignette, or really almost a caricature, of the kind of role that a therapist can fall into – with all the positive and not-so-positive consequences.
The Irreproachable Professional
What she does: Is very mindful to adhere to theoretical, ethical and other guidelines given by leaders in the field, associations, etc.; does not share or shares only minimally with the client personal matters and countertransference issues; models and teaches objectivity and rationality
Why she does it: Has a need for the security, status and power that comes with being a professional (because of own insecurities, anxieties, etc.); believes, consciously or unconsciously, that vested authority is needed to effect change in the client; believes she has acquired and now owns knowledge about human attitudes and behaviour
Useful for: Clients who change only or believe they can change only under pressure from or with the help of authority
Dangers: Difficult or impossible to establish a true connection with client; inattentive or pays only lip service to her fallibility
Model: The Priest; The Just Father
Theories: Prescribed by classical psychoanalysis (Singer, p.126); implicit in rational-emotive theory (Corey, p.216); condemned by Rogers (Pietrofesa et al., 1971, p.132); chided by approaches influenced by Eastern Religion (e.g. Dass, 1985, p.21)
Environmental fit: Psychiatry; prisons; some social work milieux (e.g. Brandon, 1976)
When some of the more negative aspects of this role are blotted out (or presented in a more favourable light), it seems to me that The Irreproachable Professional is the official picture of the therapist presented to the public.
The Irreproachable Professional behaves in a politically correct manner, is above sexual, aggressive or otherwise “inappropriate” feelings (or worse, acts) towards clients, is trained to approach everything objectively and rationally, and, above all, is an “expert” on things psychological.
The terms “inappropriate” and “appropriate” are important instruments of The Irreproachable Professional; like erstwhile the priest, The Irreproachable Professional often uses them to designate who goes to heaven (i.e. remains in the fold of “normal” society, moves up the status latter, etc.) or to hell (i.e. is sent to mental hospitals, has their children taken away, etc.).
Just like The Good Parent [discussed in the previous post], The Irreproachable Professional often upholds the status quo, since that is the sociopolitical context in which professional associations, the academic teaching framework and other background structures are found which are necessary for any occupation officially labelled “profession”.
The symbiosis between The Irreproachable Professional and established power explains is another reason why I have used as model the figure of the priest. Guggenbuehl-Craig (p.129) points out the loneliness inherent in having too high of an investment in being The Irreproachable Professional.
When clients attempt to reach beyond the professional mask, the therapist reacts defensively and interprets these attempts as problematic issues residing within the client.
The Irreproachable Professional cannot bear to be called into question. Robertiello & Schoenewolf see essentially the same problem; however, unlike Guggenbuehl-Craig, who thinks that open, honest friendships and intimate and familial relationships constitute such a therapist’s saving grace (p.135, p.149),
Robertiello & Schoenewolf maintain that continuous supervision is the answer: “Doing therapy without extensive or deep analysis [i.e., supervision] is comparable to doing surgery with a dull spoon.” (p.290)
This advice is true also for The Good Parent. Perhaps here we have two opposite yet complementary roles: The Irreproachable Professional would then be the strict, just, aloof father, and The Good Parent the gentle mother, an interminable fountain of unconditional love.
for the rest of this paper, go here.
counselling in vancouver