There are certain emergent anthropological dynamics that often seem forgotten in our westernised society. Such might be, at least to me, the innate integrative capacity of the mind-body that emerges when we, as a human species, find ourselves in authentic, respectful, and reciprocal relationships (2 Corinthians 6; Cozolino, 2002; van der Kolk, 2018). Indeed, when psychobiological conditions are apt the inherent self-organising systems of the mind-body begin a process of restoration and growth whereby intuit and intelligent sensibilities begin to integrate what has previously been chaotic or rigid (Matthew 6:25-34; Schore, 2014; Siegel, 2012). Such apt conditions for integrative well-being, specifically within the therapeutic dyad of Self (therapist) and Other (client), could easily be attributed to a diverse range of techniques on the part of the Self. Nevertheless – as much research has indicated (see, for instance, Norcross, 1999), and as was first proposed over a century ago by Carl Rogers (1857) as The Necessary and Sufficient Conditions of Therapeutic Change – it is the capacity of the Self to compassionately connect to the Other from a quality of being, rather than a way of doing, that cultivates the utmost apt conditions for changes. Notably in association with the rudiments of interpersonal neurobiology, such is a quality of being that is intentionally attentive to how the energetic and informational flow within and between the Self and the Other unfolds and affects the ever-emergent interpersonal dynamics – a quality that is intrinsically affected by communication and fundamentally reliant on the use of Self in relationship (Badenoch, 2018; Siegel, 2012). It is this quality that I shall here extend on theoretically.
Specifically, I shall illuminate how the use of Self unfolds as an implicit and explicit conduit of communication through Roger’s Core Conditions and the accompanying phenomena of transference and countertransference. I shall elucidate how such use of Self as a conduit is one that, when cultivated with attention and intention, can facilitate a relationship that honours the innate capacity of the Other to move toward integrated well-being. Conversely, I shall clarify how, when attention and intention stagnate, the use of Self can affect the integrative potential in aversive ways. Whilst these concepts are interwoven and significantly challenging to differentiate, I here highlight these notions through three perceivable dynamics 1) Congruence and the spaciotemporal emergence of safety, 2) Unconditional Positive Regard and the expression of Other’s transference, and 3) Empathy and the Self’s countertransference; each dynamic, as aforementioned, articulating the use of Self in relationship.
Congruence and the Spaciotemporal Emergence of Safety
Embedded in a process of intentions, beliefs, attitudes, and actions (Greenberg & Geller, 2001), and often used synonymously with the term’s realness, genuineness, authenticity, and transparency, congruence is the spaciotemporal phenomenon of differentiation and unification that demonstrates an alignment of thinking, feeling, remembering, and relating (Ephesians 4:14-15; Savite, 2020; Siegel, 2012). Congruence is the capacity for the Self to be intentionally attentive to the flow of Self and Other experience moment-to-moment and over-time, while operating with the unpretentious desire to be a conduit of implicit and explicit communication of this experiencing (Ephesians 4:2-13; Greenberg & Geller, 2001; Satir, 2013). With this in mind it cannot be negated that such an unpretentious desire must acknowledge that the implicit cannot be separated from the explicit, that no matter the façade Self portrays to some extent the implicit unconscious material of the mind unfolds within the therapeutic relationship (Gelso, 2019; Schore, 2014; Siegel, 2010; Rogers, 1957). Moreover, such desire and aligned quality of being requires that the Self has committed to becoming congruent through ongoing growth and development (Gelso, 2019; Kramer, 2013). That is, to know the Self intimately with clarity and conviction, is to be able to watch the Self’s vulnerabilities vigilantly (Clarkson & Nuttall, 2000; Geslo, 2019) in order to engage in differentiated resonance with the Other without becoming over-immersed or identified (Gelso, 2019; Rowan & Jacobs, 2011). Respectively, when the Self engages in differentiated resonance a contained environment emerges and the flow of energy and information within and between the Self and Other is regulated with synchronicity and reciprocity (Badenoch, 2018; Rashid, 2014; Schore, 2014; Siegel, 2010). Importantly, containment begets a sense of safety and thus an allied trust by which the Other feels sure enough to, implicitly or explicitly, communicate the hidden layers of incongruence that perpetuated the need for support (Badenoch, 2018; Genesis 2:18; Greenberg & Geller, 2001; Teyber & Teyber, 2016).
To be succinct, congruence is a spaciotemporal phenomenon that reflects the Self’s internal alignment thus the capacity to intentionally and attentively use Self with Other in a differentiated and unified manner. And, while congruence reflects cultivation of Self that occurs outside of the therapeutic hour, within the therapeutic hour congruence can be seen as the capacity of the Self to be present, attuned, and to resonate with the Other while communicating an aligned implicit and explicit sense of Self (Rogers, 1957; Siegel, 2012).
Unconditional Positive Regard and the Expression of the Other’s Transference
If congruence is a spaciotemporal phenomenon unfolding through the capacity of the Self to demonstrate an alignment of thinking-feeling-remembering-relating, unconditional positive regard (UPR) is the implicit emergence of Self’s unwavering compassion that accentuates Self as an implicit and explicit conduit of communication. UPR unfolds through the Self’s capacity to receive and accept the Other moment-to-moment, regardless of the Other’s intentions, beliefs, attitudes, actions, their level of incongruence, defences, and regardless of their overt or covert expressions toward the Self (1 Corinthians 13; 2 Corinthians 4; Gillon, 2007; Rogers, 1957; Savite, 2020). This is a Self stance that holds a heartfelt warmth toward the Other that is based within the Self’s core values of humanity – the Self acknowledges that the Other responds primarily to an implicitly felt congruent sense of safety and as such has developed an honest and authentic belief in the beauty and awe of human nature and experience – not matter what it is (Badenoch, 2018; Colossians 3:12-17 Quillman, 2012; Rogers, 1957; Schore, 2014). Such Self core values hold in sincere esteem that the Other has intrinsic worth, inherently knows thyself, and has the autonomous capacity to move toward integrated well-being (Badenoch, 2018; 1 Corinthians 10:13; Cozolino, 2002; Genesis 1:26-27; Gillion, 2007; Rogers, 1957; Siegel, 2012). Correspondingly, it is the intentional attention to moment-to-moment UPR that, alongside the spatiotemporal congruence of the Self, cultivates a perpetuating sense of comfort and connection for the Other – there is an openness to outcome that activates social engagement and the beginnings of the Other’s capacity for self-regard, and thus facilitative growth (Badenoch, 2018; Frankel et al., 2012, Gillion, 2007; Isaiah 41:10; James 1:1-18; Porges, 2018; Siegel, 2010).
With this in mind it cannot be negated that the Other comes incongruently aligned – there is a level of vulnerability within the Other that brings forward a narrative of ambivalent conditional regard (Frankel et al., 2012). Indeed, many a narrative offered by the Other is done so with hopes of acceptance, but paradoxically with an anticipation of condition that leaves each transient interpersonal interaction open to expressions of transference (Frankel et al., 2012; Gelso, 2019; Gillion, 2007; Teyber & Teyber, 2016). Indeed, it is with UPR that the Self can maintain an open curiosity in the face of the Others implicitly guided interactions, even if they are distorted patterns of relating and emotional responding that have been transferred from the past into the present (Clarkson, 2003; Cozolino, 2002; Gelso, 2019; Schore, 2014). To clarify, the implicit communications of the Self’s UPR impacts the expression of the Other’s anticipations, expectations, and perceptions of the Self – particularly surrounding unresolved conflicts within significant interpersonal interactions (Clarkson, 2003; Gelso, 2019; Rowan & Jacobs, 2002). It is this expression – be it inappropriate, intense or non-existent, ambivalent, capricious, or persistent – that requires the utmost UPR of the Self in order to see the Other as one who has innately developed a mode of protection and self-preservation (Clarkson, 2003; Gelso, 2019; Rowan & Jacobs, 2002). Moreover, it is imperative to note that as the clarity of context decreases and as incongruence in the Other or in the Self increases, even with the utmost UPR and the implicit holding of intrinsic worth, the Self is susceptible to inadvertently counter the Other’s transference (Clarkson & Nuttall, 2000; Schore, 2014). This countertransference then affects the capacity of the Other to engage in differentiated resonance that holds UPR, thus affecting the overall integrative potential of the therapeutic relationship.
To be succinct, UPR is the moment-to-moment implicit communications within the Self toward the Other that values and accepts the Other within their incongruence, which in turn impacts the expression of Other transference and the Self’s counter-response. And, while UPR is primarily an implicit mode of communication that stems from the Self’s stance on humanity, within the therapeutic hour UPR becomes visible through instances of the Others comfort and sense of connection – gentleness, warmth, and above all overt acceptance.
Benevolent Empathy and the Self’s Countertransference
If congruence is a spaciotemporal phenomenon unfolding through the capacity of the Self to demonstrate an alignment of thinking-feeling-remembering-relating, and UPR is an implicit emergence of unwavering compassion, then benevolent empathy can be seen as an explicit emergence of differentiated resonant understanding that is received and perceived as such by the Other, once again accentuating Self as an implicit and explicit conduit of communication. Significantly, benevolent empathy can be conceptualised as the active process of the Self conveying an understanding of the Other’s experience in a manner by which the Other feels felt (Gelso, 2019; Philippians 4:4-9; Proverbs 16:24; Quillman, 2012; Rogers, 1957; Savite, 2020; Siegel, 2010). This is the ability of the Self to see into the Other’s world, to cognitively and affectively resonate with the conscious and non-conscious aspects of the Others experience, to fathom deeper meaning, and to linguistically express as much in a manner by which the Other perceives the reflection with UPR (Badenoch, 2018; Book, 1988; Colossians 3:12-17; Ephesians 4:25-32; Gillon, 2007; Rogers, 1957; Teyber & Teyber, 2016). This is not overt or covert sympathy, approval, agreeance, or collusion, rather this is a deepening of the Other’s experiencing that paradoxically offers validation and acceptance: a conjecture that motions UPR and the mutual curious exploration of the meaning for the Other (Frankel et al., 2012; Gelso, 2019; Gillon, 2007; Psalm 141:13; Teyber & Teyber, 2016). Notably, whilst benevolent empathy requires the Self to be a resonant participant within the interpersonal interaction, there must remain within the Self a strong stance of the observer – the Self must remain differentiated and distil the meaning from that which the Other has offered (Colossians 4:5-6; Gelso, 2019; James 3; Proverbs 2; Rogers, 1957; Rowan & Jacobs, 2011; Teyber & Teyber, 2016). Moreover, whilst this level of communication requires of the Self to pay attention to inner experience in aid of understanding the Other’s implicit needs, so too it requires the Self to pay utmost attention to linguistically offered responses and the potentiality for said responses to emerge from over-immersion or identification (Clarkson & Nuttall, 2000; Gelso, 2019; Quillman, 2012; Satir, 2013; Schore, 2014). More specifically, the Self must astutely remain aware of the risk of countertransference and the inner reactions that stem from Self’s unprocessed past as well as the habitual ways in which the Self articulates such inner experiencing (Clarkson & Nuttall, 2000; Gelso, 2019). Indeed, for as numerous the means by which countertransference can be used in benefit of benevolent empathy (for example, somatic/embodied here-and-now self-disclosure – see Quillman, 2012; Rowan & Jacobs, 2011), is as numerous the means by which countertransference has the potentiality to be misinterpreted and used by Self (even with good intention) in a manner that does not serve the Other therapeutically (Baldwin, 2013;Gelso, 2019). Thus, it simply cannot be negated that the countertransference that stems from the Self’s interpersonal vulnerabilities is a distorted form of Self experiencing (Clarkson & Nuttall, 2000; Gelso, 2019); and, unless contained by the insightful, integral, astutely aware Self and offered back to the Other as a sensitive and intelligent conjecture of empathy, countertransference will be destructive and not in service of benevolent empathy, UPR, nor in the service of congruent expression (Clarkson & Nuttall, 2000; Gelso, 2019; Proverbs 15; Rowan & Jacobs, 2011).
To be succinct, benevolent empathy is the moment-to-moment explicit communications of the Self to the Other in which the Other receives and perceives the Self’s UPR and congruence. This explicit expression evermore influenced by the Self’s inner experience and the Self’s awakened vulnerabilities. And, while without Self-awareness such awakenings can indeed be destructive within the therapeutic hour, with Self-awareness and processing outside of the therapeutic hour awakenings can facilitate the explicit and linguistically eloquent communication of the Self’s congruent UPR that receives and accepts the other moment to moment.
Conclusion
There is a quality of being that – when it is intentionally attentive to how the energetic and informational flow within and between the Self and the Other unfolds and affects ever-emergent interpersonal dynamics – holds the capacity to facilitate a relationship that honours the innate capacity of the Other to move toward integrated well-being. As has been highlighted throughout, such a quality involves the use of Self as an implicit and explicit conduit of communication, specifically that which unfolds through congruence, unconditional positive regard, and empathy as they relate to the phenomena of transference and countertransference. Significantly, such an intentionally attentive quality of being, whilst eloquent by notion, is appreciatively more complex to attain in practice. Finally, I cannot negate that in expressing how the use of Self unfolds as an implicit and explicit conduit of communication through Roger’s Core Conditions and the accompanying phenomena of transference and countertransference, I have come to appreciate the depths of Carl Roger’s humanistic approach and the immersion of such throughout the many philosophical and neurobiological approaches I have been drawn to, and have written about for some time now. This is a quality of being that, as can be deduced from my many ongoing articles on the therapeutic relationship, I incorporate appreciatively within my unfolding practice framework. To end in the words of someone I now sincerely admire: “life is about being and becoming… What you are to be, you are becoming” (Rogers, n.d.) – perhaps I am and always have been becoming whom God intended me to be.
References
Badenoch, B. (2018). The heart of trauma: Healing the embodied brain in the context of relationships. W. W. Norton.
Baldwin, M. (2013). Introduction. In The use of self in therapy (3rd ed., pp. 1-3). Routledge.
Book, H. E. (1988). Empathy: Misconceptions and misuses in psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145(4), 420-424.
Clarkson, P. (2003). The Therapeutic Relationship (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Clarkson, P., & Nuttall, J. (2000). Working with countertransference. Psychodynamic Counselling, 6(3), 359-379.
Cozolino, L. (2002). The neuroscience of psychotherapy: Building and rebuilding the human brain (Norton series on interpersonal neurobiology). W. W. Norton & Company.
Frankel, M., Rachlin, H., & Yip-Bannicq, M. (2012). How nondirective therapy directs: The power of empathy in the context of unconditional positive regard. Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies, 11(3), 205-214.
Gelso, C. J. (2019). The therapeutic relationship in psychotherapy practice: An integrative perspective. Routledge.
Gillon, E. (2007). Person-centred counselling psychology: An introduction. SAGE.
Greenberg, L., & Geller, S. M. (2001). Congruence and Therapeutic Presence. In G. Wyatt (Ed.), Rogers’ therapeutic conditions: Evolution, theory and practice. Volume 1 Congruence (pp. 148-166). PCCS Books.
Kramer, C. (2013). Revealing our selves. In M. Baldwin (Ed.), The use of self in therapy (3rd ed., pp. 36-63). Routledge.
Norcross, J. (1999). The therapeutic relationship. In B. L. Duncan, A. Hubble, & S. Miller (Eds.), The heart & soul of change: Delivering what works in therapy (1st ed., pp. 113-141). American Psychological Association.
Porges, S. W. (2018). Polyvagal Therory: A primer. In S. W. Porges & D. Dana (Eds.), Clinical applications of the Polyvagal theory: The emergence of polyvagal-informed therapies (pp. 50-72). W. W. Norton & Company.
Quillman, T. (2012). Neuroscience and therapist self-disclosure: Deepening right brain to right brain communication between therapist and patient. Clinical Social Work Journal, 40(1), 1-9.
Rashid, J. (2014). Jesus: The self-differentiated leader. Contents and Containers. https://www.jonnyrashid.com/jesus-the-self-differentiated-leader/
Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95-103.
Rowan, J., & Jacobs, M. (2002). The Therapist’s use of self. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Satir, V. (2013). The therapist story. In M. Baldwin (Ed.), The use of self in therapy (3rd ed., pp. 19-25). Routledge.
Savite, S. (2020). The Neurobiology of Carl Rogers’ Person Centered Approach: A Comprehensive Review and Theoretical Proposal [Doctoral dissertation]. https://www.proquest.com/openview/60e1d6ca5ced94644aa5af4b470af452/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Schore, A. N. (2014). The right brain is dominant in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 51(3), 388-397.
Siegel, D. J. (2010). The mindful therapist: A clinician’s guide to Mindsight and neural integration. W. W. Norton & Company.
Siegel, D. J. (2012). Pocket guide to interpersonal neurobiology: An integrative handbook of the mind (Norton series on interpersonal neurobiology). W. W. Norton & Company.
Teyber, E., & Teyber, F. (2016). Interpersonal process in therapy: An integrative model. Cengage Learning.
van der Kolk, B. (2018). Safety and reciprocity: Polyvagal theory as a framework for understanding and treating developmental trauma. In S. W. Porges & D. Dana (Eds.), Clinical applications of the Polyvagal theory: The emergence of polyvagal-informed therapies (pp. 27-33). W. W. Norton & Company.
