Discussions like this one get bogged down by the failure to consider how
we can go about considering claims and counter-claims in a reasonably
objective fashion.
I began my professional life as a neo-Reichian therapist who routinely gave
clients hugs. I am now a communicative (psychoanalytic) psychotherapist
with very strong views on not touching clients. I've therefore been on
both sides of the hugging divide, and can't reasonably be accused of
rejecting hugging because I am squeamish.
Why do I hold my present position? It is because I believe the therapy
should be conducted in accord with clients UNCONSCIOUS supervision. I
believe that clients unconsciously tell their therapists that the do not
want to be hugged, that hugs come from therapists needs for merger and
sexual grantification , etc.
This believe of mine is testable. It can be tested by means of the first
few stories patients tell after being hugged. I predict that these stories
will more often than not contain themes of abuse, perversity merger and
control because this is the unconscious significance of therapist hugs for
clients.
This is a TESTABLE proposition. Perhaps other contributers to the debate
could consider how their opinions might be empirically tested (so far the
only contributor who has approached this has been Bob Young). In saying how
my opinions might be tested, I am putting myself on the line. I am
admitting that I may be wrong and that if the evidence does not stack up
the way I anticvipate, that I will admit that I am mistaken. To read more
about my testing procedure and its rational see my chapter in Feltham, C.
(ed) CONTROVERSIES IN PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELLING. London:Sage, 1999.
Comments?
Cheers
David
http://sites.netscape.net/davidsmithdavids/homepage
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|