Jeff,
You wrote, "I've often had the experience of having a client sincerely in
conscious agreement with a particular interpretative offering from me yet
not be able to follow through on the implications of this new
perspective."
Yes, I experience that in myself all the time. I ought to eat healthier,
but I don't. I should exercise more, but I don't.
You said, "I've often had the experience of having a client sincerely in
conscious agreement with a particular interpretative offering from me yet
not be able to follow through on the implications of this new perspective.
What often seems to help at this point is to frame the situation as one
part of the client wanting to change while another part is resisting
change, _and_ to help the client empathize with that part of his/her self
that is resisting change. In a very important way, the 'resisting' part
of the self is already effectively split off and experienced as 'outside'
the self, and by acknowledging the client's ambivalence toward change the
therapist fosters a higher level perspective (one that takes in both the
desire to change and the resistance to it)."
Yes, the "resisting" part is experienced as outside the self. I think
that's one of the consequences of using the word "resistance." It puts
distance between me and the part (whether it's a part of a client or a
part of me). Or perhaps I put distance between myself and the part first,
and that's what allows me to take an external view of it so that I can see
it as "resisting." Either way, where there's resistance, there's
separation.
This is the central reason I don't like to use the word. It adds distance
between me the part, person, system, or organization I'm trying to work
with.
You wrote, "As I read over what I've written, I'm struck by a couple of
things: first, I'm getting pretty technical - my apologies to those who
aren't so interested in this level of detail. Second, that the situation
I described is one kind of situation in the change process. If you try to
interpret a client's _conscious_ stance as resistance you'll lose the
working alliance because of the 'external' frame you've imposed."
I agree. I experience the same problem, for the same reason, when I
interpret a client's *UN*conscious stance as resistance. As you point
out, the client's split-off parts have the power to prevent change, even
if the client consciously wants the change. For that reason, I as a
helper need to build and maintain an alliance with the split-off parts.
When I think of those unconscious parts as "resisting," I lose that
alliance.
You said, "Third, the term resistance isn't necessarily negative - think
of the resistance movements in WWII."
Good point. As people learn to see resistance as almost always
*positive*, I'll be happy to start using the word again.
Dale
--Dale Emery <72704.1550@CompuServe.COM>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>