Having started my humanistic counselling journey from a philosophical viewpoint (as per my course), and prior to that as a social psychology student, I nonetheless initially struggled to reconcile my previous studies rooted in quantitative analysis (dominated by p-values, statistically-significant differences, effect sizes, and the like) with humanistic philosophy鈥檚 emphasis on the qualitative (with hermeneutics, phenomenology, and themes being more prevalent). Indeed, I鈥檓 thankful my instructors gave me some warning (or at least, some information) regarding this challenge, to assist me in pondering a different way of learning and working in a therapeutic setting.
Post my PGDip, one of the ideas that intrigued me is William R. Miller and Stephen Rollnick鈥檚 (MI). I initially learned of this from colleagues specialising on supporting those looking to change harmful and addictive-type behaviour. While this push towards change sounds counter to humanistic philosophy鈥檚 鈥榣et someone be their best self鈥� mentality, I feel it supports the fundamentals, such as the Paradoxical Theory of Change. MI allows a therapist and client to reflect on the latter鈥檚 purpose and drive for making a change (or not), via a model contemplating the what鈥檚, when鈥檚, why鈥檚, and how鈥檚 of a certain behaviour or thought.
Decisional balancing, for instance, asks the client to scrutinise the pluses and minuses of changing or not changing (ie. maintaining) a behaviour; if a client is exploring weight loss, a therapist might also help them ponder the reasons why they want to go to the gym (鈥淚 might lose weight quicker鈥�, 鈥淚 might feel more accomplished鈥�, 鈥淚 would have more energy鈥�) and what is stopping them from doing so (鈥渂ut I already walk a lot鈥�, 鈥渢he gym is costly鈥�, 鈥淚 have some equipment at home anyway鈥�). The key is that this is still the individual鈥檚 own examination, answers and ultimately, their decision: it鈥檚 still very much focused on the unique history, experiences and perception of the client, as is core to humanistic therapy. Seeing words like model or behaviour change may send shivers to many budding humanistic therapists as they did to me originally, but as reviewed, MI involves a therapist being in a working relationship with a client as they discover, identify and honestly question what their own goals may be, what motivates them, what stops them and what is realistic about what they can and can鈥檛 (or want to or not want to) do.
Personally, I found MI to be a bridge between my previous learning involving process-driven results, to being in an individual therapeutic relationship with a person. While I appreciate having my roots in humanistic philosophy, I was comforted to find a connection between this foundation and the also-familiar ground of the more process-based offering of MI.
Coincidentally, and akin to a parallel process, I feel this linking of my own academic journeys has indeed helped me to discover my own self more as a therapist, and hoping that in doing so, I can better be with others to help them with their own discovery.
