Wednesday 28 January 2015

Counselling and the Work - what's the difference?

What's the difference between counselling and the Work? Sometimes people interested in psychology confuse the two, but although they have some things in common they are really quite different. First, the common factors: both help people to become aware of the various influences in their psyche which prevent them from living life to the full. Both help people to change. But they work on different levels.

Counselling - and many Work teachers like me are also qualified and practicing counsellors - works best with clients who have specific problems they want to understand and overcome, and who are willing to put in the "homework" necessary to achieve this. The presenting problem may be quite easy to understand and to deal with, or it may be necessary for client and counsellor together to delve more deeply into childhood memories, current dreams, and so on. Like the Work, counselling can involve the intellect, the emotions and the moving centre, sometimes called the "effective centre", because using it actually helps us to get things done. Whichever method is used, and however long or short the therapy, once the problems are addressed the client and counsellor part company.

I've had counselling and found it helpful. Once I'd become sober, it was useful in helping me to see the origins of my alcoholic drinking, and later in dealing with my disability in practical ways. And different types of counselling are suited to clients with a wide range of problems. The most popular method amongst counselling students, and perhaps the safest in terms of reassuring the client, is the Rogerian approach, where the therapist shows "unconditional positive regard" to the client, experiences empathy with him or her, and offers the client an authentic response. Following these "core conditions" enables the counsellor to create a safe space where the client can share freely with the therapist, and look at their problems in depth. Rogers thought the client always knew best, and that deep down he or she was aware of what they needed to do in order to be healed.

But this approach doesn't work with everyone. In helping clients with drug or alcohol problems it doesn't work at all. The client in these circumstances definitely doesn't know best, and needs directions and advice more than empathy, because their very lives are at stake. Other situations are greatly helped by the therapist's own input and suggestions, because he or she sees aspects of the client's thinking or behaviour that the client has overlooked. Obviously, establishing a good rapport is vitally important, and studies have shown that it's the counsellor's personality - in Work terms, his or her level of Being - that has the most effect on the client, regardless of which method is followed.

Long-term therapy along Jungian or psychosynthetic lines is probably the closest that counselling comes to the Work, as it offers a more thoroughgoing transformation.

The line of Work I follow is the Nicoll approach. Maurice Nicoll was a Jungian psychoanalyst who studied with both Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, and who in his role as therapist also worked with clients who knew nothing about, and would not have been interested in, the Work. 

The Work itself begins where counselling ends - in the realm of the holistic, spiritual quest. Followed under the guidance of an authorized teacher, it can lead to very deep self-knowledge and understanding, and eventually to complete psychological transformation.

Counselling helps clients to live their lives in a more functional, fulfilling way. The Work helps us to transform our lives and ourselves. Many people find counselling helpful; far fewer are willing to undertake the lifelong effort of the Work. 

For a fuller account of the differences and similarities, I'd suggest reading the essays by Charles Tart and Robin Skynner in "Gurdjieff - Essays and Reflections on the Man and his Teaching", ed. Jacob Needleman and George Baker. Both authors have written books on the uses of therapy, and in their essays they relate counselling to the Work, and point out the differences and similarities.






2 comments:

  1. Thank you for responding to my earlier comment.

    I went through counseling for years after I was separated from alcohol. I have worked in the field of addictions for years now and recently acquired my CAP in the state of Florida.

    I am reading Nicoll's book, Psychological Commentaries..., and have found it to be the most helpful for me in terms of explaining the Work.

    While I postponed steps eight and nine in AA for years, I immediately was drawn to step eleven. The meditation I have done on my own has allowed me to grasp the fact that there is a passive and an active part of me which need to switch roles, and I can definitely see many different "I"s in my False personality. I hope I continue to strive against the negativity that has become ingrained in me.

    I'm not sure of what point I am trying to make here, just responding to the blog. I can see how important it must be to begin to change myself before I can truly help someone else, and I do not take lightly the scope of the Work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you, Patrick. I think we've had very similar backgrounds, and I'm glad you're reading my blog'. I hope you find it useful. Yes, we need to make our Essence active, and the Personality and False Personality passive, but it takes years of self-observation to sort out the different I's and to realize which are useful and which are not. Negativity is a problem for many people, and the negative I's may come from either the negative part of Emotional Centre or from worrying, anxious I's that are part of the Intellectual Centre, as I see it. Making them passive is vital for our spiritual progress, but as a recovering alcoholic with many worrying I's I can vouch for how difficult that is! Counselling helped me very much here, and then I could begin to work on them under the guidance of my Work teacher.

    ReplyDelete