{"title":"重新审视“激进纯粹主义者”Barbara Temaner Brodley与Gendlin过程模型的关系","authors":"R. Crisp","doi":"10.1080/14779757.2020.1796772","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Four aspects of Barbara Temaner Brodley’s practice of ‘classical’ client-centered therapy (CCT) are appraised in ways to suggest a rapprochement with the process-guiding experiential therapies that she opposed. First, I discuss her affinity with, and alienation from, these therapies particularly in relation to her conceptions of the ‘empathic understanding response process’ and ‘presence.’ Second, her therapeutic work is analyzed utilizing Gendlin’s process model, particularly in terms of Gendlin’s ‘interaction first’ principle and his process conception of embodied time. Third, I discuss her scientific attitude in relation to her extensive empirical analysis of Rogers’ verbalized empathic responses that informed her distinctive CCT perspective and opposition to Gendlin. Finally, I focus upon the paradox of Brodley’s self-disclosure and therapist-frame responses when she responded to a client’s questions or requests for advice. I conclude that Brodley worked effectively with her clients at a deeper relational level than her theoretical exposition suggests.","PeriodicalId":44274,"journal":{"name":"Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies","volume":"19 1","pages":"48 - 63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Re-visioning the ‘radical purist’ Barbara Temaner Brodley in relation to Gendlin’s process model\",\"authors\":\"R. Crisp\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14779757.2020.1796772\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Four aspects of Barbara Temaner Brodley’s practice of ‘classical’ client-centered therapy (CCT) are appraised in ways to suggest a rapprochement with the process-guiding experiential therapies that she opposed. First, I discuss her affinity with, and alienation from, these therapies particularly in relation to her conceptions of the ‘empathic understanding response process’ and ‘presence.’ Second, her therapeutic work is analyzed utilizing Gendlin’s process model, particularly in terms of Gendlin’s ‘interaction first’ principle and his process conception of embodied time. Third, I discuss her scientific attitude in relation to her extensive empirical analysis of Rogers’ verbalized empathic responses that informed her distinctive CCT perspective and opposition to Gendlin. Finally, I focus upon the paradox of Brodley’s self-disclosure and therapist-frame responses when she responded to a client’s questions or requests for advice. I conclude that Brodley worked effectively with her clients at a deeper relational level than her theoretical exposition suggests.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44274,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"48 - 63\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14779757.2020.1796772\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14779757.2020.1796772","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
Barbara Temaner Brodley的“经典”以客户为中心的治疗(CCT)实践的四个方面进行了评估,以建议与她所反对的过程导向体验疗法的和解。首先,我讨论了她对这些疗法的亲近感和疏离感,特别是与她的“共情理解反应过程”和“在场”的概念有关。其次,利用Gendlin的过程模型,特别是根据Gendlin的“互动第一”原则和他的体现时间的过程概念,分析了她的治疗工作。第三,我讨论了她的科学态度,与她对罗杰斯语言化共情反应的广泛实证分析有关,这些分析表明了她独特的有条件条件下治疗的观点和对詹德林的反对。最后,我将重点放在布罗德利在回答客户的问题或咨询请求时的自我表露和治疗师框架反应之间的矛盾。我的结论是,布罗德利与她的客户在更深层次的关系上的合作比她的理论阐述所表明的更有效。
Re-visioning the ‘radical purist’ Barbara Temaner Brodley in relation to Gendlin’s process model
ABSTRACT Four aspects of Barbara Temaner Brodley’s practice of ‘classical’ client-centered therapy (CCT) are appraised in ways to suggest a rapprochement with the process-guiding experiential therapies that she opposed. First, I discuss her affinity with, and alienation from, these therapies particularly in relation to her conceptions of the ‘empathic understanding response process’ and ‘presence.’ Second, her therapeutic work is analyzed utilizing Gendlin’s process model, particularly in terms of Gendlin’s ‘interaction first’ principle and his process conception of embodied time. Third, I discuss her scientific attitude in relation to her extensive empirical analysis of Rogers’ verbalized empathic responses that informed her distinctive CCT perspective and opposition to Gendlin. Finally, I focus upon the paradox of Brodley’s self-disclosure and therapist-frame responses when she responded to a client’s questions or requests for advice. I conclude that Brodley worked effectively with her clients at a deeper relational level than her theoretical exposition suggests.