<-- A Safe Space
--> Introduction to Metapsychology

Assistance Without Evaluation

Only the individual himself can be aware or conscious for himself; no one else can be aware of something for him. Likewise, no one else can intend things for an individual; he must intend things for himself, and he must act for himself. If someone else acts for him, he is not acting, and neither the scope of his activity nor his ability has been increased. This doesn't mean, of course, that one shouldn't ever do anything for another person or explain anything to them or show them anything. It is often a very good thing to help people in these ways. However, in a context where the intention is to increase conceptual, perceptual, or instrumental ability, the individual must be allowed to do what he can, understand what he can, and perceive what he can. You can't improve a person's skill with the violin without letting him play the violin, for instance. If you play the violin for him, he will never learn to play it. In fact, when someone else acts for the individual, both his scope and his ability will at least not be enhanced and may be diminished. Likewise, if he relies on others' perceptions instead of perceiving for himself, his own scope of perception and ability to perceive may be diminished.

So some forms of well-meaning attempts to help may, paradoxically, achieve the opposite of what they are intended to achieve. The overprotective mother may end up making life more dangerous for the child, because she does not give the child the opportunity to spot danger for himself. The overzealous psychoanalyst who is very free with his interpretations may wind up with an analysand whose view of his own mental contents may be clouded or distorted, because instead of seeing what is there, he is trying to see what the analyst says or suggests should be there. If an individual has a preconceived notion of what he is looking for, he is likely to find it, whether it is really there or not. In so doing, he may miss what is really there. Thus it is said that Freudian patients have Freudian dreams and Jungian patients have Jungian dreams. It would be more ideal for an individual to perceive and interpret his own dreams.

A therapist who expresses disagreement -- verbally or non-verbally -- with what a client is saying or who says that the client is wrong about something he is perceiving or understanding, tends to cause him to distrust his ability to perceive or understand. In this way, the therapist inadvertently makes the client dependent upon others to do his perceiving and understanding for him.

Similarly, a therapist who gives a great deal of advice about how the viewer should run his life, while apparently being helpful, may actually be making the viewer dependent on him for taking action in life, and his capacity for decision and action may thereby be reduced.

The basic principle is that you must not do anything that actually interferes with the exercise of ability on the part of the client.

It is a cardinal rule of Metapsychological practice, therefore, that the practitioner or facilitator must not:

1. Tell the viewer what he is looking for or what he is to find.
2. Tell the viewer how to run his life.
3. Tell the viewer that he is wrong.
4. Tell the viewer that he is right.

Thus, while "counsellor" might seem an appropriate label for a practitioner of Metapsychology, it is actually inaccurate. "Facilitator" is a better term, because a Metapsychologist merely facilitates the process of personal exploration that the viewer is engaged in.

But how can one use special knowledge to help another person without evaluating? Some forms of psychotherapy attempt a very permissive approach, such as that used in Client-Centered Therapy or certain free-associational therapies. Such therapies tend to be quite long and of uncertain outcome. The problem is that if the viewer were able to arrive at the answers to his own problems without guidance, he would not need therapy. It can. of course, be quite helpful just to be available to an individual as a good listener. If a person is able to feel safe enough to talk about his problems, he can make progress on resolving them, and this is an important feature of the helping relationship. But merely listening well and creating a safe space, while a necessary condition for helping someone, is not a sufficient condition for effective help, because talking to a safe, good listener does not, in itself, produce rapid enough improvement. On the other hand, if one does more than just listen, there is always the danger that what one says will be taken as an evaluation, and thus be counter-productive.

The correct approach is simply not to make any declarative statements about the person's experience. If I ask you to pass the salt or if I say "Tell me what happened today." (both imperatives), I am not making any statements about how you ought to live your life, nor about how you should look at something or what you should see. Likewise, if I ask questions, such as "What happened at the office?", that does not tell you what the answer is or what I think it should be. This strategy is not infallible, because some imperative statements might tell the individual how to run his life ("Learn to be more aggressive towards your Boss."), while other questions might be leading questions ("Don't you think your dislike of your father could be based on your Oedipus Complex?"). In each of these cases, however, there is an implied declarative statement embedded in the question or command ("You are not aggressive enough towards your Boss.", and "Your dislike of your father is based on your Oedipus Complex.").

The non-evaluative approach requires considerable judgment. If the facilitator says, "Tell me about your relationship with your father," the viewer may take this to mean that the facilitator thinks that he is having trouble getting along with his father. This is a tricky point, and it appears that one cannot altogether eliminate evaluation and still take any action as an facilitator. However, one can and should minimize evaluation. One way is to follow a pattern in one's actions such that the viewer can see how these actions grow out of or result from the viewer's own thoughts and statements. For instance, one could ask, "What would you like to have handled?" Suppose the viewer said, "I want to handle my anxiety." Then the facilitator might say, "Can you recall a time when you were anxious?", and the viewer can go to work.

The point is that, as an facilitator, one can have a variety of tools or methods for helping the viewer to explore and expand his experience. The use of these tools and techniques does not necessarily constitute an evaluation for the viewer. Some people believe that for a therapist or a counsellor to use any sort of technique or method at all dehumanizes the viewer. This would only be the case if the technique were used on the viewer as if the viewer were some kind of mechanism. If the viewer uses the technique with the facilitator, then he is not being manipulated by the facilitator; rather, the facilitator is helping the viewer use the technique to understand and control his experience.
 

Frank A. Gerbode, M.D.
Director