Link to Archive of Weekly Issues Relational Theory

Dear Habermas Logo and Link to Site Index A Justice Site

Relational Therapies
Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Soka University Japan, Transcend Art and Peace
Created: November 22, 2001
Latest Update: November 22, 2001
E-Mail Icon Faculty:
jeannecurran@habermas.org
Olivier at tapcourse@yahoo.com
takata@uwp.edu

Thinking About Relational Theories

Journal entry by Kerry Partika Copyright: Jeanne Curran, Susan R. Takata, and Kerrry Partika and Individual Authors: November 2001.
"Fair Use" encouraged.

This essay is based on Kerry Patrika's comments on There Are Only Three Kinds of Psychotherapy by Paul Genova, M.D. Psychiatric Times. November 2001, Vol. XVIII, Issue 11. backup

On Thrusday, November 22, 2001, Kerry Partika wrote:

Jeanne, First of all, I just wanted to mention that I picked the article, There are only three kinds of psychotherapy, because I am a psych major and thought that it would be beneficial for me to read. however, it was kind of startling because the article tends to contradict a lot of things that I have learned in my college psych courses. I guess that is why it is important to make sure that you read many different things from many different sources.

jeanne's comments:
Yep!

Anyway, in response to the accompanying discussion topics...

  1. Compare Dr. Genova's concept of relationship therapy to teaching.

    According to Freire, an educator should not act as an authority figure in teaching. rather he states that the teacher and the student should work together. this is evident in that Freire argues that education should be informal or conversational. this means that the teacher should not act superior to the student, but rather the two should be on the same level.

    Freire's ideas on informal education are quite similar to Dr. Genova's ideas on relationship therapy. Relationship therapy entails the therapist and the client working together, focusing on the interaction rather than on the therapist as an authority figure in the relationship. thus, Freire and Genova both discuss the idea of the supposed authority figure assuming a non-authoritative role in order to attain a better relationship with the individual that they're working with.

    jeanne's comments:
    You said that very well, Kerry.

    This idea is quite important in teaching. Personally I find that a teacher who is less friendly with the students is much more difficult to approach. therefore, if I have a question, I usually feel uncomfortable asking the teacher out of fear. however, a teacher who in a sense throws her power out the window for the time being, is much more effective. this teacher is more friendly, approachable, and thus a better educator, [in the relational sense]. I feel that it is much easier to learn from someone whom I feel is on the same level as I am than someone whom I feel is superior to me.

    jeanne's comments:
    Someone who likes the authority of hierarchy, and/or someone who is unused to any other approach might feel differently though. The teacher who assumes great authority may seem to have more power in the world of everyday reality and therefor have more power to help the student towards his/her occupational goals. This is one of Duncan Kennedy's arguments in the Politics of Law, edited by David Kairys.

  2. Nearly three-fourths of the way down the file, Dr. Genova says:
    "Relational therapy remains to be described, and it is as important not to idealize it as it is not to devalue the other two forms. It does not fit all or even most patients' needs, and its irresponsible application can be not only "contraindicated," but cruel. However, it is the only form of therapy whose power narrative allows both doctor and patient to be subjects engaged in an unpredictable process, rather than an Expert and the object of their technique. . . ."

    In what ways could this approach be "contraindicated" or "cruel" in either therapy or teaching?

    At first I had a hard time thinking of these concepts as being cruel. I could understand their being cruel if the therapist or educator was taking advantage of the situation and introducing false or unclear ideas. it did take me a while though to see the other side of this argument. I did finally see how these concepts can be considered cruel though. I realized it when I thought about my first day in your class. because I had been so used to the education system's way of teaching, I was completely caught off guard by your system of running the class. in fact, it took me a couple of weeks to finally convince myself that I would be okay without scantron tests and research papers. therefore, your way of teaching and not holding anyone's hand was cruel to me for a few weeks. this is because I was so accustomed to the dominant means of education. this can be explained by structural violence. thus, individuals who are so accustomed to being told what to do by an authority figure, would find Freire's and Genova's ideas as cruel just as I found your ways to be cruel originally.

    jeanne's comments:
    That's a very important concept, Kerry that the results can be structurally violent, even when I am trying to avoid structural violence. This approach to theory is called reflexivity, turning back to look aat our own motivations, and struggling not to deny the effects we didn't want.

  3. Dr. Genova says that relational therapy "does not fit all or even most patients' needs. . ." Does that apply also to relational teaching?

    "Relational therapy remains to be described, and it is as important not to idealize it needs...", I think that he is talking about those people who just think that it doesn't fit their needs.

    jeanne's comments:
    Be very careful, Kerry, with phrases like they "just think that it doesn't fit . . ." This gets awfully close to the "false consciousness" idea that we know better than "they" do what's good for them. That borders on refusing to listen in good faith. Catharine MacKinnon has done an excellent analysis of this phenomenon in her demand that we accept what women say as "valid" for what they are experiencing without demanding that they "prove" the validity of their perception "objectively" in the positivistic world of male hierarchical authority.

    This is also what Freire refers to in "circles of certainty." That when one presumes to "know" what others need and/or want, one ceases to be teacher in the relational sense of the word. One becomes just another authority figure with one's own agenda.

    this question relates to the previous question. this idea being expressed by Genova does cross over into relational teaching. in therapy, individuals need to learn to function without having their hand held. if they cannot do this, how will the be able to survive outside of therapy? the same goes for teaching. if a teacher constantly holds a student's hand, how will the student survive when they get out of school? I guess that they'll probably end up in therapy then so that they can get their hand held again, right? I think that the only reason that Genova says that relational therapy is not for most is because these people have become so accustomed to having someone think for them. this relates to Freire's ideas of informal education as a way of abandoning the dominant ways of education in which the student is being thought for and being told what to do.

    jeanne's comments:
    Yes, Kerry, I think some of this has to do with our having accustomed people to "obeying" rather than "thinking." But I am also concerned that we are all different, not just in basic traits, but also over time in our need for support and direction. I don't want us to think of this as "thinking" is good; "obeying" is bad. I feel that Fellman's paradigm shift, with an emphasis on a balance between the two is what we need.

    If all your classes were operated like mine, you'd learn critical thinking, and I hope you'd learn how to access the data from a knowledge base, but sometimes, you'd need to just lay back and investigate and learn, without the pressure of "thinking." You need to just soak some things up by osmosis, art, music, literature. Sure, they are the food for thought. But there should also be time to smell the roses. The trouble is that we tend to dichotomize and categorize everything, when sometimes I think we ought to just enjoy living a little more.

    It was Paul Verlaine who said "Il faut de la moderation avant toute chose." (Above all else, moderation.) There really are some people who will always be more comfortable following, and some who will insist upon leading. And we switch places lots of times throughout our lives.