Autor: Julio Cesar Tafforelli | Publicado: 2010-11-20T22:03:00-08:00

Autenticidade congruência, e da TransparênciaDireitos autorais de tradução Julio Cesar TafforelliEmbora Rogers tinha sempre atribuiu grande importância à autenticidade do terapeuta, não foi até o seu trabalho de 1957 sobre as "condições necessárias e suficientes de que ele mencionou explicitamente como uma condição separada terapêuticos, juntamente com a empatia e aceitação.A partir de 1962, ele até chamou-a de mais fundamental de todas as três atitudes básicas, e continuou fazendo isso na sua tardeobras.Aqui está como Rogers descreve:Genuinidade na terapia significa que o terapeuta é o seu verdadeiro eu, durante seu encontro com seu cliente.Sem fachada, ele tem abertamente os sentimentos e as atitudes que estão fluindo dentro dele no momento.Trata-se de auto-consciência, ou seja, os sentimentos do terapeuta estão disponíveis para ele a sua consciência - e ele é capaz de vivê-los, experimentá-las no relacionamento, e comunicá-los se eles persistirem.O terapeuta encontra seu cliente diretamente, encontrando-o uma pessoa para outra. Ele está sendo ele mesmo, não negando a si mesmo.Como este conceito é passível de equívoco, deixe-me dizer que isso não significa que o terapeuta encargos do seu cliente com uma expressão evidente de todos os seus sentimentos. Também não significa que o terapeuta revela a sua total ao seu cliente.Isso significa, no entanto, que o terapeuta nega a si mesmo nenhum dos sentimentos que ele está passando e que ele está disposto a experiência transparente de todos os sentimentos persistentes que existem no relacionamento e deixá-las ser conhecido ao seu cliente.Significa evitar a tentação de apresentar uma fachada ou se esconder atrás de uma máscara de profissionalismo, ou para assumea atitude confessional profissional.Não é simples para alcançar essa realidade. Ser verdadeiro envolve a difícil tarefa de se familiarizar fluxo withthe de experimentar acontecendo dentro de si mesmo, um fluxo marcada especialmente pela mudança complexa e conyinua...Esta definição implica claramente que a realidade tem duas faces: uma interna e outra externa. O siderefers interior para o grau em que o terapeuta tem acesso consciente, ou é receptivo a todos os aspectos do fluxo hisown de experimentar.Este lado do processo será chamado de "congruência", consistência para quese refere é a unidade da experiência e da consciência total. O lado externo, por outro lado, refere-se à comunicação explícita por parte do terapeuta de sua consciência as percepções, atitudes e sentimentos.Esse aspecto é chamado de "transparência": tornar-se "transparente" para o cliente através da comunicação de impressões e experiências pessoais. Embora essa divisão da realidade em dois componentes pode ser um pouco artificial, nós achamos que se justifica do ponto de vista didático, bem como clinicamente significativas.De fato, um terapeuta pode ser muito congruente ou minimamente transparente, de acordo com seu estilo ou orientação, uma terapeuta transparente pode ser congruente, ou ele pode ser incongruente (algo que ele ou ela faz um terapeuta "perigosas").Em um primeiro ponto, vamos discutir o conceito de congruência, que sempre foi dado o maior peso na definição de Rogers. Em um segundo, então vamos lidar com transparência.1. CongruênciaPor que Rogers vêm tanta importância à congruência do terapeuta, e por que ele sequer chegou a ver isso como a atitude mais básicas fundamentais? Esperamos poder responder a esta pergunta de forma gradual, enquanto ainda explicar o conceito em si.Pessoal PresençaRogers sempre foi contra a idéia do terapeuta como uma "tela em branco". Ele projetou um tipo de "cara-a-face" da terapia, na qual o terapeuta está altamente envolvido com o mundo experiencial do cliente, e no qual, por conseguinte, mostra pouco de si.No entanto, ele não mostra seu envolvimento de uma forma aberta e direta, semescondendo seus verdadeiros sentimentos atrás de uma fachada profissional. Ele tenta ser ele mesmo, sem artificialidade e nebulosidade.Ao adotar tal atitude "natural" espontânea, o terapeuta centrado no cliente certamente não favorece o processo de regressão e da transferência, mas Rogers não ver esse "desvio de processo" como essencial para a mudança de personalidade.Mais do que os psicanalistas, ele acredita no valor terapêutico de um 'real'relação entre cliente e terapeuta, e vi outras, as vantagens mais importantes nele também.Em tal relação de trabalho, o terapeuta serve como modelo: a sua congruência incentiva o cliente a assumir riscos se a fim de tornar-se a si mesmo. Junto com isso, Rogers gradualmente passou a considerar a congruência do terapeuta como um fator crucial no estabelecimento de confiança, e passaram a enfatizar a idéia de aceitação e empatia só se efetiva quando eles são percebidos como verdadeira:Posso ser, de alguma forma, que será percebido pelo outro como digno de confiança, como segura ou consistente em algum sentido profundo? Ambas as pesquisas ea experiência indicam que isto é muito importante, e ao longo dos anos eu encontrei o que eu acredito que são mais profundas e melhores maneiras de responder a estapergunta.Eu costumava me sentir que, se cumpridas todas as condições externas de confiabilidade - manter os compromissos, respeitar o carácter confidencial das entrevistas, etc - e se eu agi de forma consistente o mesmo durante as entrevistas, então esta condição seria cumprida.Mas a experiência levou para casa o fato de que para agir de forma coerente acceptant, por exemplo, se na verdade eu estava me sentindo incomodado ou cético ou algum outro sentimento não acceptant, estava certo no longo prazo a ser percebidos como incompatíveis ou não confiável.Tenho de reconhecer que ser digno de confiança não exige que eu seja rigidamenteconsistente, mas que eu seja confiável real. "Congruente" O termo é uma que tenho usado para descrever a maneira que eu gostaria de ser.Com isto quero dizer que qualquer sentimento ou atitude que eu estou experimentando seria acompanhada por minha consciência de que a atitude. Quando isso for verdade, então eu sou uma pessoa unificado ou integrado naquele momento e, portanto, eu posso ser tudo o que eu estou profundamente. Esta é uma realidade que eu encontrar outros experiência como confiável.Isto também significa que o terapeuta deve dar prioridade à discussão de seus próprios sentimentos quando persiste em  ficar no caminho das outras duas atitudes básicas.Inicialmente, Rogers considera esses momentos de auto-expressão como uma "ajuda em necessidade", como último recurso de um terapeuta em descartar os obstáculos ao seu envolvimento com o mundo experiencial do cliente. Gendlin, por outro lado, enfatiza mais o ganho, para o terapeuta e cliente, resultante de se atrever a apresentar-se como "não perfeito":"Congruência" para o terapeuta significa que ele não precisa aparecer sempre em uma boa luz, sempre a compreensão, sábio ou forte. Acho que, na ocasião, eu posso ser visivelmente estúpidas, ter feito a coisa errada, fez papel de bobo. Posso deixar esses lados de mim ser visível quando têm occurredin a interação.O terapeuta é ser ele mesmo e expressar-se abertamente nos liberta de manyencumbrances e artificialidades, e torna possível para a esquizofrenia (ou qualquer outro cliente) para entrar em contato com outro ser humano tão diretamente quanto possível.A presença pessoal do terapeuta também deve ser aparente de sua metodologia concreta, a partir de intervenções específicas e os procedimentos utilizados para facilitar e aprofundar o discurso do cliente.Importante aqui é que a "técnica" deverá ter por base uma atitude subjacente, que o terapeuta deve estar por trás dele com todo o seu ser, e que seu método de trabalho deve se adequar a sua personalidade.Rogers observou "com horror" em alguns de seus alunos como os sentimentos refletindo tinha deteriorado em imitar, em uma "técnica de madeira", já não realizado por uma atitude interior que emana de uma tentativa de compreender e verificar thisunderstanding (.vista de Rogers sobre a contribuição do terapeuta, portanto, cada vez mais evoluído em direção a uma metateoria, nos quais uma série de atitudes básicas são enfatizadas e em que as receitas e fórmulas concretas de intervenção se desvaneceram-se no fundo. Gendlin escreve sobre esta evolução:Acabaram-se as fórmulas - mesmo que a maioria das características dos modos centrada no cliente de responder, que foi chamado "reflexo do sentimento". Como "empatia", o termo implica, como sempre nos esforçamos para compreender e sentir a sensação do cliente a partir de sua própria estrutura interna de referência, mas agora temos um widerscope de comportamentos diferentes com os quais os terapeutas responder aos clientes.Na verdade, eu acredito que foi em parte a tendência indesejável para a fórmulas estereotipadas e formas de responder que talvez Rogers levou a formular esta condição de "congruência", como essencial.Devido à extrema importância da autenticidade do terapeuta -, mas também talvez porque ele não era um grande crente no poder da técnica em si - Rogers salienta, assim, respeito o estilo pessoal de cada terapeuta.Ele não quer colocá-lo numa camisa de força metodológica que não serviria a sua natureza. Que ele é muito tolerante com isso se torna evidente, por exemplo, em seu comentário sobre os métodos de trabalho, muitas vezes muito divergentes dos terapeutas no estudo esquizofrênica:Talvez o mais profundo dessas lições é a confirmação de, e uma extensão de, o conceito de que a terapia tem a ver com a relação, e tem relativamente pouco a ver com técnicas ou com a teoria e ideologia. A este respeito, eu acredito que minha vista se tornaram mais, e não menos, extremo.Eu acredito que é a realidade do terapeuta no relacionamento que é o elemento mais importante. É quando o terapeuta é natural e espontânea, que ele parece ser mais eficaz.Provavelmente thisis uma "humanidade treinado como um dos nossos terapeutas sugere, mas no momento é a reação natural da pessoa.Assim, os nossos terapeutas acentuadamente diferentes alcançar bons resultados bastante diferentesmaneiras. Por um lado, um impaciente, sem brincadeiras, vamos colocar as cartas-na-abordagem-da-mesa é mosteffective, porque uma tal abordagem é o mais abertamente ser ele mesmo.Por outro lado, pode ser amuch mais suave e mais obviamente abordagem quente, porque esta é a forma como este é terapeuta.Nossa experiência profundamente reforçada e alargada a minha opinião de que a pessoa que está ableopenly de ser ele mesmo naquele momento, como ele está nos níveis mais profundos que ele é capaz de ser é o terapeuta eficaz. Talvez nada mais tem importânciaComo será discutido mais adiante, a este respeito para o estilo próprio do terapeuta não é passaporte para o "imprudente experimentar.Atenção para o processo do cliente e na sequência contínua de sua faixa experimental permanecem theultimate orientações para as nossas intervenções.Congruência como conditio sine qua non de aceitação e empatiaDepois de ter examinado a congruência do terapeuta, a partir do ângulo de sua "presença física", que agora querem saber mais sobre o significado essencial do conceito e discutir sua importância para o trabalho terapêutico.Congruência exige, em primeiro lugar, que o terapeuta ser uma pessoa psicologicamente bem desenvolvido e integrado, 'todo', ou seja suficientemente (ou 'curado') e em contato com ele.Isto significa, entre outras coisas ousadas para reconhecer falhas e vulnerabilidades, aceitando as partes positiva e negativa de si mesmo com uma certa leniência, sendo capaz de abertura sem defesa para o que vive em si mesmo e ser capaz de entrar em contato com ele ter uma identidade sólida e um sentimento forte o suficiente de competência, sendo capaz de funcionar eficazmente nos relacionamentos pessoais e íntimos sem a interferência de seu próprio pessoalproblemas.O auto-conhecimento e força do ego também pode ser visto como os dois pilares desta forma de serCongruência é um correlativo de aceitação: não pode haver abertura à experiência do cliente, se Não existe um abertura para a sua própria experiência. E, sem abertura, não pode haver qualquer empatia. Nesse sentido, a congruência é o "limite superior" da capacidade de empatia.Para colocá-lo de forma diferente: o terapeuta não pode trazer o cliente mais longe do que ele próprio é como uma pessoa.IncongruênciaA importância dessa atitude se torna especialmente claro quando se está faltando, ou seja, quando o terapeuta é defensiva e incongruentes.As nossas dificuldades pessoais podem às vezes nos impede de deixar o cliente doexperiência desenvolva completamente, como ele é. questões da vida com a qual não se tenham pronunciado ainda, as necessidades pessoais que jogar junto durante a terapia, vulnerabilidades pessoais e pontos cegos, todos podem nos levar a sentir-se ameaçado e incapaz de seguir com as experiências de serenidade do nosso cliente.Para criar empatia com o mundo experiencial de outra pessoa com valores muito diferentes da nossa, por deixar os sentimentos de impotência e desesperança surgem, ter empatia com intensa alegria, para lidar sem ficar na defensiva indevidas com um cliente de intensos sentimentos negativos ou positivos para nós, tudo isso não é fácil.Por causa da nossa própria experiência de ameaça e de defesa, há o perigo de estarmos tão ocupados mantendo nosso próprio equilíbrio que nós quebramos o aprofundamento do processo de auto-exploratório, o cliente quer mantendo muito à distância ou por perder-se no outro.Rogers diz o seguinte:Posso ser suficientemente forte como pessoa para ser separado dos outros? Posso ser um respeitador resistente dos meus próprios sentimentos, minhas próprias necessidades, bem como a sua? Posso próprios e, se necessário, expressar meus sentimentos como algo que pertence a mim e separado de seus sentimentos?Eu sou forte o suficiente na minha própria separação que não será abatido por sua depressão, assustada pelo medo, nem tragado por sua dependência?É o meu eu interior resistentes o suficiente para perceber que eu não estou destruído por sua raiva,assumida por sua necessidade de dependência, nem escravizados pelo seu amor, mas que eu existo separar-se dele com os sentimentos e os direitos da minha própria?Quando eu posso livremente sentir essa força de ser uma pessoa independente, então eu acho que eu posso me deixar ir muito mais fundo na compreensão e aceitá-lo porque eu não estou com medo de me perder.Tudo isto significa que nós, como terapeutas, precisam de limites ego forte. Uma parte importante de ser um terapeuta é ter a capacidade de ser firme como uma rocha: às vezes temos que tirar as castanhas do fogo outof, lidar com as emoções tempestuosas sem ser engolida, lidar construtivamente com o ódio eo amor sem recorrer ao acting-out , lidar com elogios do cliente e crítica da nossa própria pessoa, e temos de ser ableto tolerar ambivalência.Para compartilhar empaticamente o outro do mundo implica também colocar o nosso próprio mundoparênteses, de momento, e mudança "arriscar" através do contato pessoal com alguém que é diferente de nós mesmos. Aventurando-se no tal "estado sem ego" um é mais fácil quando nos sentimos ser uma pessoa suficientemente separados com uma estrutura bem definida pessoal e núcleo.Finalmente, gostaríamos de apontar para um último aspecto que exige uma certa força do terapeuta: o fato de que o discurso do cliente podem ser enfrentados com o terapeuta, na medida em que aborda questões latentes em si mesmo.Rombauts relaciona esta ser confrontado consigo mesmo para o parentesco que existe entre andtherapist cliente, no sentido de que tanto a quota de uma existência humana ". Ele escreve:Devido a esse parentesco, não é só eu que tem um espelho para o cliente (apesar de eu achar "espelhamento" um termo pobre), mas também o cliente que tem um espelho para mim, mostrando-me o que sou, sinto e experiência.aspectos dormentes de mim, que tenho pouco ou nada percebi em minha própria vida,pode ser abordado e agitaram. Como conseqüência, estou constantemente a ser confrontados com quando me fazendo terapia, e levou a me questionar.Algo acontece, não só para o cliente, mas também para o terapeuta. Somos companheiros de destino, na vida, assim como na terapia.Congruência e empatiaComo vimos, a falta de congruência enfraquece o nosso trabalho terapêutico. Podemos talvez até melhor ilustrar a importância da congruência de um ângulo positivo ou, pelo menos, chamar a atenção para alguns aspectos que nós não discutimos ainda, e que têm muito a ver com a qualidade dos nossos empathicinterventions.Um alto nível de congruência certamente garante um toque pessoal à comunicação de empatia por isso não seriam experimentados pelo cliente como uma aplicação da técnica empolado.Na verdade, o próprio clientfinds confrontados com um terapeuta que é "enraizada" em sua própria experiência, e que é, a partir daí, tentar compreender sua mensagem. O terapeuta não só resume as palavras do cliente, mas põe em "whatstrikes lhe as palavras, o discurso do cliente evoca nele, como ele faz sentir, o que ainda nãocompreender, talvez, mas gostaria de entender, etcMesmo que o terapeuta é, em essência focado mundo experiencial do cliente onthe, o entendimento é sempre uma questão pessoal, no sentido de que suas intervenções são originários de sua própria experiência do que o cliente diz ele.Às vezes (na minha opinião muito excepcionalmente) isso pode resultar em brevemente a terapeuta que citam uma experiência própria, não para falar de si mesmo ou chamar a atenção para si mesmo, mas como uma forma de deixar o cliente sabe que ele tem sidoentendido.Este formulário personalizado de empatia pode talvez ser melhor ilustrado por um casal de fragmentos de uma sessão com "Um homem silencioso jovem, onde Rogers tenta partilhar os sentimentos de desamparo e rejeição vividos por Jim Brown (ver especialmente o T-intervenções com asterisco).Eu só quero fugir e morrem.M-hm, hm-m, hm-m. Não é mesmo que você quer sair daqui com alguma coisa. Você só quer sair daqui e ir embora e morrer em um canto, hm?(Silêncio de 30 segundos)Eu acho que como eu deixar que mergulhe em que eu realmente fazer sentido como, como isso soa profundo sentimento, que você - eu acho que a imagem que me vem à mente é uma espécie de um animal ferido que quer rastrear fora e morrer. Soa como se esse é o tipo da maneira que você sentir que você só quer sair daqui e edesaparecer. Perecer. Não existe.(Silêncio de um minuto)(Quase inaudível) Todos os dias de ontem e durante toda a manhã eu desejei que eu estivesse morto. Eu até rezei ontem à noite que eu poderia morrer.Eu acho que eu pego tudo isso, que - por um par de dias agora você só quis que você poderia estar morto e mesmo que você tenha orado para que - eu acho que - Uma forma isso me impressiona é que viver é como um coisa terrível para você, você apenas deseja que você poderia morrer, e não viver.Eu não sou bom para ninguém, ou eu não sou bom para nada, então qual é o uso de viver?M-hm. Você sente, 'Eu não sou nenhum bom para outra pessoa viva, por isso - por que eu deveria continuar a viver? "(Silêncio de 21 segundos)E eu acho que uma parte do que - aqui eu sou o tipo de adivinhação e você pode me reta, eu acho que uma parte do que é que você sentiu, "Eu tentei ser bom para alguma coisa, tanto quanto ele estava preocupado. Eu realmente tentei.E agora - se eu não sou bom para ele, se ele se sente Eu não sou bom, então isso prova que eu sou apenas um não é bom para ninguém ". É que, uh - em qualquer lugar perto dele?Oh, bem, outras pessoas já me disseram isso também.Yeah. M-hm. Eu vejo. Então, você se sentiria se, se você for pelo que os outros - o que muitos outros já disseram, então, então você não é bom. Não é bom para ninguém.(Silêncio dos 3 minutos, 40 segundos)Eu não sei se isso vai ajudar ou não, mas eu gostaria apenas de dizer que - eu acho que posso understandpretty bem - o que é sentir que você é apenas não é boa para ninguém, porque houve uma época em que - Eu me senti desse jeito em mim E eu sei que ela pode ser realmente difícil.(Comentário: Este é um tipo incomum de resposta para que eu faça Eu simplesmente senti que eu queria compartilhar minha experiência com ele.- Para que ele saiba que ele não estava sozinho).profunda empatia sempre significa "ouvir com o terceiro ouvido", em que um contato regressiva com a própria níveis mais profundos sentimentos ea capacidade de imaginar o que um se sentiria em uma situação semelhante são importanteselementos.Rogers descreve como ele desenvolveu gradualmente mais confiança em seu próprio nível mais intuitiva:Confio os sentimentos, as palavras, os impulsos, fantasias, que surgem em mim. Dessa forma, eu estou usando mais thanmy auto-consciente, com base em algumas das capacidades do meu organismo todo.Por exemplo, "De repente, tive a fantasia de que você é uma princesa, e que vocês gostariam que fôssemos seus assuntos."Ou, "Eu sinto que você é o juiz, bem como o acusado, e que você está dizendo para si mesmo com severidade:" Você é culpado em todos os aspectos. "Ou a intuição pode ser um pouco mais complexa. Enquanto um executivo responsável está falando, eu de repente, pode ter a fantasia do menino que ele está carregando dentro de si mesmo - o menino que ele era tímido, insuficiente, com medo - uma criança, ele se esforça para negar, de quem se envergonha . E eu estou desejando que ele iria amar e cuidar deste jovem. Então eu posso voz essa fantasia - não como algo verdadeiro, mas como uma fantasia em mim. Muitas vezes isso traz uma profundidade surpreendente de reação ereflexões profundas.Gendlin, também, descreve como um terapeuta pode imaginar empaticamente, com base no seu próprio fluxo de pensamentos e sentimentos, o que o cliente está passando, ou pode tentar evocar o sentimento de sentir o que o cliente diz:O paciente fala, talvez se muito valor por ter um ouvinte simpático e atencioso, mas nada de relevância terapêutica é dito.Não é apenas falar sobre a comida do hospital, os eventos da semana docomportamento dos outros, um pouco de raiva ou tristeza, nenhuma exploração me tornar a pessoa que expressa os sentimentos e significados sentiu eu digo: "Que lugar para a 'ou' Gee, e eles não me importo o que você pensa ele ', ou' eu acho que nos faz sentir impotentes, não é? " ou, "Rapaz, isso me faria louca", ou "Deve ser triste que ele não se importa mais para você do que isso, 'ou' eu não sei, é claro, mas eu me pergunto, você gostaria que você pudesse ficar louco, eu, mas talvez você não se atreve? ou, "Eu acho que você poderia chorar sobre isso, se você se deixar chorar."Tudo isso serve para mostrar que a congruência e empatia não são opostos. Pelo contrário, a empatia é sempre implicitamente realizado pela congruência do terapeuta: nós sempre entender o outro através de nós mesmos, através de nossoparentesco como seres humanos.Até agora temos discutido a importância da congruência, principalmente no contexto de aceitação e empatia para o mundo experiencial do cliente, desconsiderando a interação aqui e agora.No entanto, a empatia pelo que acontece entre o cliente eo terapeuta, para o tipo de padrão de relacionamento que se cria em sua influência sobre o outro, é um aspecto igualmente importante do processo, e aqui também - talvez sobretudo aqui - a congruência do terapeuta é fundamental.Na verdade, aqui ele funciona como um "barómetro interacional 'para o que acontece no relacionamento. Vamos discutir este aspecto mais tarde, sob o título 'Transparência'.Implicações para a Prática de Formação eamadurecimento pessoal, juntamente com as aptidões clínicas básicas relacionadas a ele, pode assim ser considerada como o principal instrumento do terapeuta na terapia centrada no cliente. Neste sentido, partilhamos a opinião de psicanalistas.Não deve, portanto, uma surpresa que, em nossa formação, é dada especial atenção ao desenvolvimento pessoal dos terapeutas a-ser.Estamos, é claro, não falando aqui de "formação em congruência direta,mas do modo mais lento e indireto de terapia pessoal e supervisão personalizada, em que a pessoa do terapeuta é muito mais focado em como o processo do cliente. Quanto terapia pessoal "didática" vai, eu sou fortemente a favor da participação em terapia de grupo intensivo e de longa duração.De fato, a experiência terapêutica em um grupo oferece, mais do que a terapia individual, a possibilidade de observar o funcionamento do próprio interpessoal, algo que é crucial para o trabalho terapêutico.A terapia individual pode, então, mantêm-se altamente desejável, junto com a terapia de grupo, mas não pode ser essencial para cada estagiário.A vontade de trabalhar em uma de desenvolvimento própria personalidade não deve ser limitada ao período de formação, mas deve ser encarada como uma tarefa de vida ".Portanto, regular de peer-review, quer dentro da própria equipe ou foraisso, parece altamente desejável.Um ambiente suficientemente seguro, no entanto, deve, de modo a permitir a tomada de riscos pessoais e da aceitação de uma posição vulnerável.Num sentido mais amplo, nós, como terapeutas, deve tomar cuidado especial de nós mesmos, e esteja atento aos sinais de sobrecarga, solidão, alienação e deficar preso em problemas pessoais.Quando nossa necessidade é muito grande, podemos não ter energia suficiente para ligar para o nosso cliente com serenidade. O que poderíamos então fazer para evitar tais impasses? "Cuidar" para o próprio relacionamento pessoal, reentrando terapia antes que seja tarde demais, reduzindo o tempo de carga de trabalho e fazer um para serconsigo mesmo ... pode, além de supervisão, já conseguir um ótimo negócio.Excepcionalmente, mudando um encontro com um cliente pode ser indicado. Além disso, ele pode ajudar muito a "preparar" a si mesmo antes de uma entrevista.Rombauts escreve sobre isso:Parece-nos importante que eu parar todas as minhas outras atividades, mesmo que apenas alguns minutos antes, em preparação imediata para o contacto com um cliente. Eu tento o máximo possível para sair do meu próprio mundo, e deixar meus problemas e preocupações desaparecem no fundo. Eu também concentrar-se mentalmente no meu cliente, por exemplo, recordando a nossa última sessão, mas também em termos mais gerais, deixando que ele esteja presente, por assim dizer, com tudo o que ele evoca em mim em termos de memórias e sentimentos. Para usar termos Gendlin, eu ligo para o "sentido sentir 'para o cliente, que vive em mim.Desta forma, vou tentar aumentar a minha receptividade para com o cliente, e remover o máximo possível qualquer falta de abertura que eu possa sentir.No entanto, eu não deveria ter sucedido, os primeiros momentos da sessão são muitas vezes suficientes para criar uma maior abertura, não só para meu cliente, mas também para mim.Existe, assim, uma interação: o estado de abertura fundamental no meu mundo pessoal é o solo em que o contato com o cliente cresce, mas também, esse contato, esse envolvimento terapêutico, altamente melhora a qualidade da abertura no meu mundo pessoal. Tudo isto deixa-nos talvez com a impressão de que o terapeuta deve ser um "super-homem '. Mas este não é o que Rogers e outros, tinha em mente.É realmente assim que alguém que quer se tornar um terapeuta tem que estar preparada para atravessar a vida prestando atenção suficiente para sua própria vida interior e sua maneira de se relacionar com os outros.Ele também tem que ser, em geral, bastante resistente. Isto porém não significa que ele não poderia ter problemas que às vezes pode ser muito aguda. O ponto importante aqui não é para evitar esses problemas, ousar analisá-los, para permanecer aberto aos comentários dos críticos, para aprender a ver como as próprias dificuldades interferir com o próprio trabalho terapêutico, e fazer o que for necessário para remediar a situação. Além disso, é importante conhecer e aceitar com clemência os nossos próprios limites: não temos de ser capazes de trabalhar bem com todos os tipos de clientes.Podemos tentar mudar nossos limites, mas aprender a conhecer e aceitá-los não é uma tarefa sem importânciadurante o treinamento e além.E, para finalizar, gostaria de referir o seguinte: a literatura centrada no cliente contém pouco na maneira das formas concretas que a incongruência pode tomar. Como uma teoria orientada para o processo de terapia, enfatiza principalmente os sinais formal. Podemos ver isso, por exemplo, na definição de Barrett-Lennard de incongruência:Evidências diretas da falta de congruência inclui, por exemplo, a incoerência entre o que o indivíduo diz, eo que ele implica, por expressão, gestos ou tom de voz. Indicações de desconforto, tensão ou ansiedade são consideradas evidências menos diretas mas igualmente importante, a falta de congruência.Elas implicam que o indivíduo não é, no momento, livremente aberto a consciência de alguns aspectos da sua experiência, que ele é desprovido de integração e é, em algum grau, incongruentes.Na literatura psicanalítica, no entanto, uma grande parte é dito sobre a diversidade de conteúdo das "reações contratransferenciais e suas raízes psicogênica, o leitor interessado pode encontrar uma grande quantidade nas seguintes publicações: Glover, 1955; Groen, 1978; Menninger, 1958; Racker, 1957; Winnicott, 1949.2. TransparênciaSeu lugar na evolução da terapia Cliente CentradoNo início deste artigo, descrevi a transparência como a camada exterior de autenticidade: a comunicação explícita por parte do terapeuta de suas próprias experiências. Deve, contudo, ser mencionado que, mesmo sem o uso de tais explícito de "auto-revelações, o terapeuta centrado no cliente é bastante transparente para o seu cliente, e que a distinção que fizemos entre congruência e transparência não deve ser entendido em termos absolutos.Nosso cliente fica a conhecer-nos através de tudo o que fazemos e não fazemos, seja verbal ou não verbal.Especialmente na terapia centrada no cliente, onde a relação de trabalho é fortemente coloridas por personalinvolvement com o cliente com base na própria experiência do momento, o cliente é susceptível de dar a conhecer quem é o terapeuta como uma pessoa. Podemos, portanto, nunca funcionar como uma tela branca.Cada terapeuta ligeiramente evoca sentimentos diferentes em seus clientes, e esta talvez seja um elemento importante no sucesso ou fracasso de uma terapia, um elemento que ultrapassa os métodos e intervenções concretas: o cliente a cumprir um terapeuta cuja personalidade e maneira de estar-no- o mundo, permitindo-lhe mover-se, precisamente no nível onde está seu problema?Nós temos, mas pouco controle sobre esse aspecto da terapia e pesquisas sobre o tema dos rendimentos tratamento recomendações, mas pouca informação útil sobre este tópico.Quanto às intervenções de auto-expressão do terapeuta no sentido estrito da palavra, é notável a forma como eles relutantemente foram introduzidas e aceitas na evolução da terapia centrada no cliente. Isto não devenos surpreender.Na verdade, ele pertence à identidade nuclear da terapia centrada no cliente que o terapeuta segue seu cliente dentro do quadro do próprio cliente de referência. No entanto, entre 1955 e 1962 este princípio tornou-se mais flexível.A terapia centrada no cliente evoluiu de "não-diretiva" a "experiência", e este thetherapist autorizado a trazer algo de seu próprio quadro de referência, enquanto ele voltava a faixa experimental do cliente. Esta foi, portanto, o contexto em que as intervenções da auto-expressão tornou-seaceite.Assim, lidamos aqui com intervenções onde o terapeuta começa a partir de seu próprio quadro de referência, como é também o caso de interpretações, confrontos e propostas para a utilização de técnicas específicas, por exemplo. Gradualmente, a expressão de sentimentos pessoais tornaram-se não se restringe a ser uma "ajuda em necessidade", ou seja, usado em casos onde o terapeuta não podia mais aceitar genuinamente e ter empatia, mas tornou-se pensado como tendo potencial positivo para o aprofundamento do processo terapêutico. Quais as experiências terapeuta em contato com seu cliente é agora considerado como material importante e potencialmente útil para o cliente em sua exploração de si mesmo e seus padrões de relacionamento (para uma análise aprofundada da evolução Rogers a este respeito, ver Van Balen, 1990). Rogers e atributos, de uma forma mais geral, uma função de modelagem para a transparência do terapeuta também.Não é fácil para um cliente, ou para qualquer ser humano, a confiar o mais profundamente envolvida sentimentos para outra pessoa. Aqui estão alguns pensamentos.  ReferênciasNew York:Imprensa.(Eds.),New York: Wiley.cit.al. cit.cit.cit.New York: Guilford.74.OuvirLer foneticamenteDicionárioTraduza qualquer siteBBC News-Reino UnidoOneIndia-hindiGotujmy.pl-polonêsPhiladelphia Inquirer-Estados UnidosMarmiton.org-FrançaZeit Online-AlemanhaKomika Magasin-suecoArte Toreo-EspanhaNord-Cinema-FrançaVogue-FrançaLos Angeles Times-Estados UnidosSpiegel Online-AlemanhaFazer mais com o Google TradutorEstabeleça sua empresa globalmente. Anuncie em vários idiomas usando o Google Global Market Finder.Traduza agora. Traduza textos direto da sua página inicial do iGoogle.Alcance um público internacional.Adicione legendas traduzidas aos seus vídeos do YouTube.Gostaria que seus fãs da Noruega pudessem ler seu blog?Instale o Google Translate Element e facilite a tradução.Google Tradutor para:PesquisasVídeosE-mailTelefoneBate-papoNegóciosSobre o Google TradutorDesativar tradução instantâneaPrivacidadeAjuda©2010Ferramentas para empresasGoogle Translator ToolkitSobre o Google TradutorBlogPrivacidadeAjuda►africâneralbanêsalemãoárabearmênioazerbaijanobascobielo-russobúlgarocatalãochinês (simplificado) chinês (tradicional)coreanocrioulo haitianocroatadinamarquêseslovacoeslovenoespanholestonianofinlandêsfrancês galegogalêsgeorgianogregohebraicohindiholandêshúngaroindonésioinglêsirlandês islandêsitalianojaponêslatimletãolituanomacedônicomalaiomaltêsnorueguêspersa polonêsportuguêsromenorussosérviosuaílesuecotagalotailandêstchecoturco ucranianourduvietnamitayiddish Authenticity, Congruence and TransparencyAlthough Rogers had always attached great importance to the therapist's authenticity , it was not until his 1957 paper about the 'necessary and sufficient conditions' that he mentioned it explicitly as a separate therapeutic condition, along with empathy and acceptance. From 1962 on, he even called it the most fundamental of all three basic attitudes, and continued doing this in his laterworks. Here is how Rogers describes it:Genuineness in therapy means that the therapist is his actual self during his encounter with his client. Without facade, he openly has the feelings and attitudes that are flowing in him at the moment. This involves self-awareness; that is, the therapist's feelings are available to him to his awareness - and he is able to live them, to experience them in the relationship, and to communicate them if they persist. The therapist encounters his client directly, meeting him person to person. He is being himself, not denying himself.Since this concept is liable to misunderstanding, let me state that it does not mean that the therapist burdens his client with overt expression of all his feelings. Nor does it mean that the therapist discloses his total self to his client. It does mean, however, that the therapist denies to himself none of the feelings he is experiencing and that he is willing to experience transparently any persistent feelings that exist in the relationship and to let these be known to his client. It means avoiding the temptation to present a facade or hide behind a mask of professionalism, or to assumea confessional-professional attitude.It is not simple to achieve such reality. Being real involves the difficult task of being acquainted withthe flow of experiencing going on within oneself, a flow marked especially by complexity andcontinuous change ... This definition implies clearly that genuineness has two sides: an inner one and an outer one. The inner siderefers to the degree to which the therapist has conscious access to, or is receptive to, all aspects of hisown flow of experiencing. This side of the process will be called 'congruence'; the consistency to which itrefers is the unity of total experience and awareness. The outer side, on the other hand, refers to the explicit communication by the therapist of his conscious perceptions, attitudes and feelings. This aspect is called 'transparency': becoming 'transparent' to the client through communication of personal impressions and experiences. Although this splitting up of genuineness into two components may be slightly artificial, we find it justified from a didactic point of view as well as clinically meaningful. Indeed, a congruent therapist may be very or minimally transparent, according to his style or orientation; a transparent therapist may be congruent, or he may be incongruent (something which makes him or her a 'dangerous' therapist). In a first point, we will discuss the concept of congruence, which has always been given the most weight in Rogers' definition. In a second one, we will then deal with transparency.1. CongruenceWhy did Rogers come to attach so much importance to the therapist's congruence, and why did he even come to see it as the most fundamental basic attitude? We hope to answer this question gradually, while further explaining the concept itself.Personal PresenceRogers was always opposed to the idea of the therapist as a 'white screen'. He designed a 'face-to-face' type of therapy, in which the therapist is highly involved with the client's experiential world, and in which he, consequently, shows little of himself. Yet he does show his involvement in an open and direct way, withouthiding his real feelings behind a professional facade. He tries to be himself without artificiality and haziness.By adopting such a 'natural', spontaneous attitude, the client-centred therapist certainly does not favour the process of regression and transference; but Rogers did not see this 'detour-process' as essential to personality change. More than the psychoanalysts, he believed in the therapeutic value of a 'real'relationship between client and therapist, and saw other, more important advantages in it as well. In such a working relationship, the therapist serves as a model: his congruence encourages the client to take risks himself in order to become himself. Along with this, Rogers gradually came to consider the therapist's congruence as a crucial factor in establishing trust, and came to emphasise the idea of acceptance and empathy only being effective when they are perceived as genuine:Can I be in some way which will be perceived by the other person as trustworthy, as dependable or consistent in some deep sense? Both research and experience indicate that this is very important,and over the years I have found what I believe are deeper and better ways of answering thisquestion. I used to feel that if I fulfilled all the outer conditions of trustworthiness - keeping appointments, respecting the confidential nature of the interviews, etc. - and if I acted consistently the same during the interviews, then this condition would be fulfilled.But experience drove home the fact that to act consistently acceptant, for example, if in fact I was feeling annoyed or sceptical or some other non-acceptant feeling, was certain in the long run to be perceived as inconsistent or untrustworthy. I have come to recognise that being trustworthy does not demand that I be rigidlyconsistent but that I be dependably real. The term 'congruent' is one I have used to describe the way I would like to be. By this I mean that whatever feeling or attitude I am experiencing would bematched by my awareness of that attitude. When this is true, then I am a unified or integrated person in that moment, and hence I can be whatever I deeply am. This is a reality which I find others experience as dependable. This also means that the therapist should give priority to discussing his own feelings whenever theypersistently stand in the way of the other two basic attitudes. Initially, Rogers considered such moments of self-expression as a 'help in need', as a therapist's last resort in discarding obstacles to his involvement with the client's experiential world. Gendlin, on the other hand, emphasises more the gain, for therapist and client, resulting from daring to present oneself as 'not perfect':'Congruence' for the therapist means that he need not always appear in a good light, always understanding, wise, or strong. I find that, on occasion, I can be quite visibly stupid, have done the wrong thing, made a fool of myself. I can let these sides of me be visible when they have occurredin the interaction. The therapist's being himself and expressing himself openly frees us of manyencumbrances and artificialities, and makes it possible for the schizophrenic (or any client) to come in touch with another human being as directly as possible. The personal presence of the therapist should also be apparent from his concrete methodology, from the specific interventions and procedures used to facilitate and deepen the client's discourse. Important here is that the 'technique' should rest on an underlying attitude, that the therapist should stand behind it with his whole being , and that his work method should suit his personality. Rogers noticed 'with horror' in some of his pupils how reflecting feelings had deteriorated into aping, into a 'wooden technique',no longer carried by an inner attitude which emanates from an attempt to understand and check thisunderstanding (. Rogers' view on the therapist's contribution thus increasingly evolved towards a metatheory, in which a number of basic attitudes are emphasised and in which concrete recipes and formulas of intervention have faded into the background. Gendlin writes about this evolution:Gone are formulas - even that most characteristic of client-centred modes of responding, which was called 'reflection of feeling'. As the term 'empathy' implies, we strive as always to understand and sense the client's feeling from his own inward frame of reference, but now we have a widerscope of different behaviours with which therapists respond to clients. In fact, I believe that it was in part the undesirable tendency toward formulas and stereotyped ways of responding which perhaps led Rogers to formulate this condition of 'congruence' as essential.Because of the prime importance of the therapist's authenticity - but also perhaps because he was no great believer in the power of technique per se - Rogers thus emphasises respect for each therapist's personal style. He does not want to put him in a methodological strait-jacket which would not suit his nature. That he is very broad-minded about this becomes obvious, for instance in his comment about the often widely diverging working methods of the therapists in the schizophrenic study:Perhaps the deepest of these learnings is a confirmation of, and an extension of, the concept that therapy has to do with the relationship, and has relatively little to do with techniques or with theory and ideology. In this respect I believe my views have become more, rather than less, extreme. I believe it is the realness of the therapist in the relationship which is the most important element. It is when the therapist is natural and spontaneous that he seems to be most effective. Probably thisis a 'trained humanness' as one of our therapists suggests, but in the moment it is the natural reaction of this person. Thus our sharply different therapists achieve good results in quite differentways. For one, an impatient, no-nonsense, let's put-the-cards-on-the-table approach is mosteffective, because in such an approach he is most openly being himself. For another it may be amuch more gentle and more obviously warm approach, because this is the way this therapist is.Our experience has deeply reinforced and extended my own view that the person who is ableopenly to be himself at that moment, as he is at the deepest levels he is able to be is the effective therapist. Perhaps nothing else is of any importance As will be discussed further on, this respect for the therapist's own style is no passport to 'reckless experimenting'. Attention to the client's process and continuous following of his experiential track remain theultimate guidelines for our interventions.Congruence As Conditio Sine Qua Non of Acceptance and EmpathyAfter having examined the therapist's congruence from the angle of his 'personal presence', we now wish to inquire about the core meaning of the concept and discuss its importance for therapeutic work.Congruence requires, first of all, that the therapist be a psychologically well-developed and integrated individual, i.e. sufficiently 'whole' (or 'healed') and in touch with himself. This means amongst other things daring to acknowledge flaws and vulnerabilities, accepting the positive and negative parts of oneself with a certain leniency, being capable of openness without defensiveness to what lives in oneself and being able to get in touch with it having a solid identity and a strong enough sense of competence, being able to function efficaciously in personal and intimate relationships without interference from one's own personalproblems. Self-knowledge and ego-strength can perhaps be seen as the two cornerstones of this way of being Congruence is a correlative of acceptance: there can be no openness to the client's experience if there isno openness to one's own experience. And without openness there can be no empathy either. In this sense, congruence is the 'upper limit' of the capacity for empathy . To put it differently: the therapist can never bring the client further than where he is himself as a person.IncongruenceThe importance of this attitude becomes especially clear when it is lacking, i.e. when the therapist is defensive and incongruent. Our personal difficulties may sometimes prevent us from letting the client'sexperience emerge fully, as it is. Life issues with which we have not dealt yet, personal needs which play along during therapy, personal vulnerabilities and blind spots, all may cause us to feel threatened and unable to follow with serenity certain experiences of our client . To empathise with the experiential world of another person with values vastly different from our own, to let feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness emerge, to empathise with intense happiness, to deal without undue defensiveness with a client's intense negative or positive feelings towards us, all this is not easy. Because of our own experience of threat and defensiveness, there is a danger of us being so busy maintaining our own equilibrium that we break the deepening of the client's self-exploratory process either by keeping too much distance or by losing ourselves in the other. Rogers puts it as follows:Can I be strong enough as a person to be separate from the other? Can I be a sturdy respecter of my own feelings, my own needs, as well as his? Can I own and, if need be, express my own feelings as something belonging to me and separate from his feelings? Am I strong enough in my own separateness that I will not be downcast by his depression, frightened by his fear, nor engulfed by his dependency? Is my inner self hardy enough to realise that I am not destroyed by his anger,taken over by his need for dependence, nor enslaved by his love, but that I exist separate from him with feelings and rights of my own? When I can freely feel this strength of being a separate person, then I find that I can let myself go much more deeply in understanding and accepting him because I am not fearful of losing myself. All this means that we, as therapists, need strong ego boundaries. An important part of being a therapist is to have the capacity to be steady as a rock : we sometimes have to pull the chestnuts outof the fire, deal with stormy emotions without being engulfed, deal constructively with hate and love without resorting to acting-out, deal with the client's praise and criticism of our own person; and we have to be ableto tolerate ambivalence. To share empathically the other's world also implies putting our own world inparentheses, for the time being, and 'risking' personal change through contact with someone who is different from ourselves. Venturing in such an 'egoless state'  is easiest when we feel ourselves to be a sufficiently separate person with a well-defined personal structure and nucleus. Finally, we wish to point to a last aspect which demands a certain strength from the therapist: the fact that the client's discourse can be confronting to the therapist in so far as it addresses dormant issues in himself.Rombauts relates this being confronted with oneself to the kinship which exists between client andtherapist, in the sense that both 'share a human existence'. He writes:Because of this kinship, it is not only me who holds up a mirror to the client (although I find 'mirroring' a poor term), but also the client who holds up a mirror to me, showing me what I am, feel and experience. Dormant aspects of myself, which I have barely or not at all realised in my own life,can be touched upon and stirred up. As a consequence, I am constantly being confronted with myself when doing therapy, and led to question myself. Something happens, not only to the client but also to the therapist. We are companions-in-fate, in life as well as in therapy. Congruence and EmpathyAs we have seen, a lack of congruence undermines our therapeutic work. We can perhaps even better illustrate the importance of congruence from a positive angle or, at any rate, draw attention to a few aspects which we have not discussed yet, and which have a lot to do with the quality of our empathicinterventions. A high level of congruence certainly guarantees a personal flavour to the communication of empathy so it would not be experienced by the client as a stilted application of technique. Indeed, the clientfinds himself faced with a therapist who is 'rooted' in his own experience, and who is, from there, trying to understand his message. The therapist not only summarises the client's words, but puts into words 'whatstrikes him', what the client's discourse evokes in him, how it makes him feel', what he does not yetunderstand perhaps, but would like to understand, etc. Even though the therapist is in essence focused onthe client's experiential world, the understanding is always a personal one, in the sense that his interventions originate in his own experience of what the client tells him. Occasionally (in my opinion very exceptionally) this can result in the therapist briefly mentioning an experience of his own, not in order to talk about himself or draw attention to himself, but as a way of letting the client know that he has beenunderstood. This personalised form of empathy can perhaps best be illustrated by a couple of fragments from a session with 'A silent young man', where Rogers tries to share the feelings of hopelessness and rejection experienced by Jim Brown (see especially the T-interventions with an asterisk).I just want to run away and die.M-hm, m-hm, m-hm. It isn't even that you want to get away from here to something. You just want to leave here and go away and die in a corner, hm?(Silence of 30 seconds)I guess as I let that soak in I really do sense how, how deep that feeling sounds, that you - I guess the image that comes to my mind is sort of a, a wounded animal that wants to crawl away and die. It sounds as though that's kind of the way you feel that you just want to get away from here and andvanish. Perish. Not exist.(Silence of 1 minute)(almost inaudibly) All day yesterday and all morning I wished I were dead. I even prayed last night that I could die.I think I caught all of that, that - for a couple of days now you've just wished you could be dead and you've even prayed for that - I guess that - One way this strikes me is that to live is such an awful thing to you, you just wish you could die, and not live.I ain't no good to nobody, or I ain't no good for nothin', so what's the use of living?M-hm. You feel, 'I'm not any good to another living person, so - why should I go on living?'(Silence of 21 seconds)And I guess a part of that - here I'm kind of guessing and you can set me straight, I guess a part of that is that you felt, 'I tried to be good for something as far as he was concerned. I really tried. And now - if I'm no good to him, if he feels I'm no good, then that proves I'm just no good to anybody.' Is that, uh - anywhere near it?Oh, well, other people have told me that too.Yeah. M-hm. I see. So you feel if, if you go by what others - what several others have said, then, then you are no good. No good to anybody.(Silence of 3 minutes, 40 seconds)I don't know whether this will help or not, but I would just like to say that - I think I can understandpretty well - what it's like to feel that you're just no damn good to anybody, because there was a time when - I felt that way about myself And I know it can be really rough. (Comment: This is a most unusual kind of response for me to make. I simply felt that I wanted to share my experience with him- to let him know he was not alone.) Deep empathy always means 'listening with the third ear', in which a regressive contact with one's own deeper feeling levels and the ability to imagine what one would feel in a similar situation are importantelements. Rogers  describes how he gradually developed more confidence in his own deeper intuitive levels:I trust the feelings, words, impulses, fantasies, that emerge in me. In this way I am using more thanmy conscious self, drawing on some of the capacities of my whole organism. For example, 'I suddenly had the fantasy that you are a princess, and that you would love it if we were all your subjects.' Or, 'I sense that you are the judge as well as the accused, and that you are saying sternly to yourself, "You are guilty on every count."'Or the intuition may be a bit more complex. While a responsible business executive is speaking, I may suddenly have the fantasy of the small boy he is carrying around within himself - the small boy that he was, shy, inadequate, fearful - a child he endeavours to deny, of whom he is ashamed. And I am wishing that he would love and cherish this youngster. So I may voice this fantasy - not as something true, but as a fantasy in me. Often this brings a surprising depth of reaction andprofound insights. Gendlin, too , describes how a therapist may empathically guess, on the basis of his own stream of thoughts and feelings, what the client is going through, or can try to evoke the felt sense of what the client says:The patient talks, perhaps gets much value from having a friendly caring listener, but nothing of therapeutic relevance is said. There is only talk about hospital food, the events of the week thebehaviour of others, a little anger or sadness, no exploration I become the one who expresses the feelings and felt meanings I say, 'What a spot to be in' or, 'Gee, and they don't even care what you think about it,' or 'I guess that leaves you feeling helpless, does it?' or, 'Boy, that would make me mad,' or, 'It must be sad that he doesn't care more for you than that,' or, 'I don't know, of course, but I wonder, do you wish you could get mad, I but maybe you don't dare?' or, 'I guess you could cry about that, I if you let yourself cry.' All this goes to show that congruence and empathy are not opposites. On the contrary, empathy is always implicitly carried by the therapist's congruence: we always understand the other via ourselves, through ourkinship as fellow human beings . So far we have discussed the importance of congruence mainly in the context of acceptance and empathy for the client's experiential world, disregarding the interaction here-and-now. However, empathy for what happens between client and therapist, for the kind of relationship pattern which they create in their influence on each other, is an equally important aspect of the process, and here too - maybe especially here - the therapist's congruence is crucial. Indeed, here it functions as an 'interactional barometer' for what happens in the relationship. We will discuss this aspect later, under the heading 'Transparency'.Implications for Training and Professional PracticePersonal maturity, together with the basic clinical aptitudes related to it, can thus be considered as the therapist's main instrument in client-centred therapy. In this respect, we share the view of psycho-analysts.It should thus not come as a surprise that, in our training, special attention is paid to the personal development of the therapists to-be. We are, of course, not talking here about 'direct training in congruence,but about the slower and indirect ways of personal therapy and personalised supervision, in which the person of the therapist is as much focused on as the client's process. As far as personal 'didactic' therapy goes, I myself am strongly in favour of participation in intensive long-term group therapy. Indeed, therapeutic experience in a group offers, more than individual therapy, the possibility of observing one's own interpersonal functioning, something which is crucial for therapeutic work . Individual therapy may then remain highly desirable, along with group therapy, but it may not be essential for every trainee.The willingness to work on one's own personality development should not be limited to the training period, but should be viewed as a life task'. Therefore, regular peer-review, either within one's own team or outsideit, seems highly desirable. A sufficiently safe atmosphere is however a must, in order to allow the taking of personal risks and the acceptance of a vulnerable position. In a broader sense, we, as therapists, should take special care of ourselves, and watch out for signs of overburdening, loneliness, alienation, and ofgetting stuck in personal problems. When our need is too big, we may not have enough energy left to turn towards our client with serenity. What could we then do to avoid such impasses? 'Caring' for one's own personal relationships, re-entering therapy before it is too late, cutting one's workload and making time to bewith oneself ... may, besides supervision, already achieve a great deal. Exceptionally, changing an appointment with a client may be indicated. Besides this, it may help a great deal to 'prepare' oneself before an interview. Rombauts writes about this:It seems important that I stop all my other activities, even if only a few minutes before, in immediate preparation for the contact with a client. I try as much as possible to step out of my own world, and let my worries and concerns fade into the background. I also concentrate mentally on my client, for example by recalling our last session, but also more generally by letting him be present, as it were, with everything he evokes in me in terms of memories and feelings. To use Gendlin's terms, I turn towards the 'felt sense' for the client, which lives in me.In this way, I try to increase my receptivity towards the client, and remove as much as possible any lack of openness I may feel. However, should I not have succeeded, the first few moments of the session are often enough to create more openness, not only towards my client but also towards myself. There exists thus an interaction: the state of fundamental openness in my personal world is the soil on which the contact with the client grows; but also, this contact, this therapeutic involvement, highly enhances the quality of the openness in my personal world. All this leaves us perhaps with the impression that the therapist should be a 'superman'. But this is not what Rogers and others had in mind. It is indeed so that someone who wants to become a therapist has to be prepared to go through life paying sufficient attention to his own inner life and his way of relating to others.He also has to be, generally speaking, quite sturdy. This however does not mean that he could not have problems which may at times be quite acute. The important point here is not to avoid these problems, to dare scrutinise them, to remain open to critical feedback, to learn to see how one's difficulties interfere with one's therapeutic work, and to do what is needed to remedy the situation. It is furthermore important to get to know and accept with leniency our own limits: we do not have to be able to work well with all types of clients. We may try to change our limits, but learning to know and accept them is not an unimportant taskduring training and beyond.And, to conclude, I want to mention this: client-centred literature contains little in the way of the concrete forms which incongruence can take. As a process-oriented theory of therapy, it emphasises mainly the formal signals. We can see this, for example, in Barrett-Lennard's definition of incongruence:Direct evidence of lack of congruence includes, for example, inconsistency between what the individual says, and what he implies by expression, gestures, or tone of voice. Indications of discomfort, tension, or anxiety are considered to be less direct but equally important evidence of lack of congruence. They imply that the individual is not, at the time, freely open to awareness of some aspects of his experience, that he is lacking in integration and is, in some degree, incongruent. In the psychoanalytic literature, however, a great deal is said about the diversity in content of 'countertransference reactions' and their psychogenic roots; the interested reader may find a great deal in the following publications: Glover, 1955; Groen, 1978; Menninger, 1958; Racker, 1957; Winnicott, 1949.2. TransparencyIts Place In The Evolution Of Client-Centred TherapyAt the beginning of this paper, I have described transparency as the outer layer of authenticity: the explicit communication by the therapist of his own experiences. It should however be mentioned that even without the use of such explicit 'self-revelations', the client-centred therapist is fairly transparent to his client, and that the distinction we made between congruence and transparency should not be understood in absolute terms. Our client gets to know us through everything we do and don't do, be it verbal or non verbal.Especially in client-centred therapy, where the working relationship is heavily coloured by personalinvolvement with the client on the basis of one's own experience of the moment, the client is likely to get to know who the therapist is, as a person. We can thus never function as a white screen. Each therapist evokes slightly different feelings in his clients, and this is perhaps an important element in the success or failure of a therapy, an element which surpasses concrete methods and interventions: does the client meet a therapist whose personality and way of being-in-the-world allow him to move, precisely at the level where his own problem lies? We have but little control over this aspect of therapy, and research on the topic of treatment recommendations yields but little useful information on this topic.As to the therapist's self-expressive interventions in the narrow sense of the word, it is remarkable how reluctantly they were introduced and accepted in the evolution of client-centred therapy. This should notsurprise us. Indeed, it belongs to the nuclear identity of client-centred therapy that the therapist follow his client within the client's own frame of reference. However, between 1955 and 1962 this principle became more flexible. Client-centred therapy evolved from 'non-directive' to 'experiential', and this allowed thetherapist to bring in something from his own frame of reference, as long as he kept returning to the client's experiential track . This was thus the context in which self-expressive interventions becameaccepted. Thus, we deal here with interventions where the therapist starts from his own frame of reference, as is also the case in interpretations, confrontations and proposals for the use of particular techniques, for instance. Gradually, the expression of personal feelings became no longer restricted to being a 'help in need', i.e. used in cases where the therapist could no longer genuinely accept and empathise, but it became thought of as having positive potential for deepening the therapeutic process. What the therapist experiences in contact with his client is now considered as important material and potentially useful for the client in his exploration of himself and his relationship patterns (for a thorough analysis of Rogers' evolution in this regard, see Van Balen, 1990). And Rogers attributes, in a more general way, a modelling function to the transparency of the therapist as well.It is not easy for a client, or for any human being, to entrust his most deeply shrouded feelings to another person. It is even more difficult for a disturbed person to share his deepest and most troubling feelings with a therapist. The genuineness of the therapist is one of the elements in the relationship that make the risk of sharing easier and less fraught with dangers.Three factors seem to have played a role in this evolution. First of all there was the study with schizophrenics which Rogers and his colleagues carried out between 1958 and 1964. With this very withdrawn group of patients, the 'classical' type of intervention - reflection of feelings - fell short: there was often very little to reflect. In their attempts at establishing contact, the client-centred therapists learned to use an alternative source of help, their own here-and-now feelings:When the client offers no self-expression, the therapist's momentary experiencing is not empty. At every moment there occur a great many feelings and events in the therapist. Most of these concern the client and the present moment. The therapist need not wait passively till the client expressessomething intimate or therapeutically relevant. Instead, he can draw on his own momentary experiencing and find there an ever-present reservoir from which he can draw, and with which he can initiate, deepen, and carry on therapeutic interaction even with an unmotivated, silent, or externalised person. There was, moreover, the contact with a number of existential therapists, such as Rollo May and Carl Whitaker, who criticised them for effacing themselves too much in the therapeutic relationship for standing too much behind the client as an alter ego and too little as a real other person with an own personal identity.Thus Whitaker gave the following comments on a number of excerpts from client-centred therapies with schizophrenics:It is as though the two were existing in some kind of common microcosm or isolation chamber or like twins in utero. These interviews are intensely personal for both of these individuals but only the patient's life is under discussion. This is so distinct that one sometimes feels there is only one self present and that self is the patient. It is as though the therapist makes himself artificially miniature.Sometimes this is so dramatic that I almost feel he disappears. This is in specific contrast to ourtype of therapy in which both persons are present in a rather specific sense and the therapeutic process involves the overt interaction of the two individuals and the use of the experience of each of them for the patient's growth. This 'willingness to be known' which had gradually found its way into their individual therapy praxis, emerged even more forcefully (perhaps at times too forcefully) in the 'encountermovement' of the sixties and seventies Group dynamics, with its emphasis on 'feedback in the here-and-now', was certainly not foreign to this. All these influences have made client- centred therapy into a more interactional one, with the therapist not only functioning as an alter ego, but also as an independent pole of interaction, who expresses, at times, to the client his own feeling about the situation. On account of this transparency, the process becomes more a dialogue an I-Thou encounter.In such an authentic mutual encounter, there may be moments in which the therapist almost relinquishes his professional role and encounters the client in a very personal and profoundly human way. According to Yalom, such 'critical incidents' often become turning-points in therapy. He believes that they are seldommentioned in the psychiatric literature out of shame, or out of fear of censorship; they are also seldomdiscussed with trainees because they do not fit the 'doctrine' or because one is afraid of exaggerations.Here are a couple of Yalom's many examples A therapist met with a patient who during the course of therapy developed signs suggesting cancer.While she was awaiting the results of medical laboratory tests (which subsequently proved negative) he held her in his arms like a child while she sobbed and in her terror experienced a brief psychotic state.For several sessions a patient had been abusing a therapist by attacking him personally and byquestioning his professional skills. Finally the therapist exploded: 'I began pounding the desk withmy fist and shouted, Dammit - look, why don't you just quit the verbal diarrhoea and let's get down tothe business of trying to understand yourself, and stop beating on me? Whatever faults I have, and Ido have a lot of them, have nothing to do with your problems. I'm a human being too, and today hasbeen a bad day.'Transference and TransparencyWorking through of the transference is not thought of as a nuclear process, as the 'pure gold', in client-centred therapy. The therapeutic relationship is not structured in such a way as to maximise regression. We rather follow an orthopedagogic model, in which growth is stimulated right from the start, and the real relationship aspects are emphasised. John Shlien even goes as far as to say that transference is 'a fiction, invented and maintained by therapists, in order to protect themselves from the consequences of their own behaviour' . But, with the reviewers of his paper and with such authors as Pfeiffer and Van Balen , we have to say - in my opinion - 'Yes, John, there is a transference.' Or as Gendlin has it:If the client is a troubled person, he cannot possibly fail to rouse difficulties in another person who relates closely with him. He cannot possibly have his troubles all by himself while interacting closely with the therapist. Necessarily, the therapist will experience his own version of the difficulties, twists, and hang-ups which the interaction must have. And only if these do occur can the interaction move beyond them and be therapeutic for the client. In client-centred therapy too, the client repeats his past in his relationship with the therapist. But the way it is dealt with is partly different from the psychoanalytic orientation. Firstly, there is the belief that certain transference reactions - which can be viewed as security measures on the part of the client - will graduallymelt away without explicit working through under the beneficial effect of a good working alliance. Secondly,client-centred therapy does not provide a priority in principle to working with a problem in the here-and-now relationship with the therapist. The criterion for further exploration is, according to Rice, the vividness with which a certain type of problem is experienced, and not where this experience is located on the triangle here-elsewhere-in the past:In a real sense, any member of a class is as worthwhile exploring as any other. Neither the past nor the present has priority, but rather the vividness with which an experience can be recounted by theclient. After all, the more vividly an experience is recounted, the more likely it is to be anexperience that is emotionally important to the client. More adequate processing of any oneexperience should lead to more adaptive responses in a whole range of specific situations. In Rice's view, therefore, the working through of transference reactions in the here-and-now of the therapeutic relationship is not a 'must' but a possibility, a sub-process along with other ones I personally feel that it is nevertheless an important sub-process which comes into prominence especially in the longer therapies. What is then the role of the therapist's transparency when transference reactions are worked through in client-centred therapy). Here are some thoughts.The emphasis is not on working to achieve insight, which consists of recognising and genetically understanding how the client distorts the therapist and relates to him in a structure-bound way, but on the corrective emotional experience:It isn't enough that the patient repeats with the therapist his maladjusted feelings and ways of setting up interpersonal situations. After all, the patient is said to repeat these with everyone in his life, and not only with the therapist. Thus, the sheer repeating, even when it is a concrete reliving, doesn't yet resolve anything. Somehow, with the therapist, the patient doesn't only repeat; he getsbeyond the repeating. He doesn't only relive; he lives further, if he resolves problems experientially.(Gendlin, 1968, p.222.)This living further' sometimes requires more than neutral benevolencIt requires the therapist not to present himself as a white screen but - apart from, and in addition to, his empathic interventions - to deal in a transparent way, at the right moment, with what lives in the interaction between8 of 12the two of them, and hereby to express his version of the interaction. Thus, the therapist may question the client's image of him by putting his own experience next to it. He may give the client feedback about his way of dealing with him and about the feelings he evokes in him. Where needed he makes his own limits explicitly known: indeed the client can 'discuss' anything; he cannot just do anything. In order to perform this interactional work properly, a therapist should pay special attention to what happens between him and his client, to the relationship aspect of the communication; and he should keep in touch with what the client 'does to him'. In Yalom's words, the here-and-now feelings are to the experienced therapist 'of as much use as a microscope is to the microbiologist' (1975, p.149). We also find this view in the humanistic branch of the Freudian analytic school where the 'countertransference' is not seen as a 'crack in the mirror', but as an aid in the analytic work (Corveleyn, 1989; Wachtel, 1987). Obviously we could find here a link with the interactional approach, as proposed by Kiesler (1982) as well as by van Kessel and van der Linden (1991).Suggestions For PracticeWhat can a therapist reveal and what not? And at what moment can this best be done? Rogers dismisses this question - perhaps wisely - with the very general answer, '... when appropriate' (1962, p.417). Wachtel  too, a psychoanalyst, writes in the same vein: 'I wish there were hard and fast rules about when exactly such self-revelations are helpful. Unfortunately, there are none... (1987, p.183). We are thus thrown back on our general clinical feeling and our common sense. This does not mean, however, that there are no guidelines. Indeed, there is the basic criterion which always goes back to the following question: does our self-revelation serve the client's growth process (Yalom, 1980, p.414)? Can our client use and integrate this information? In other words, we are talking here about a transparency with responsibility, and this includes right away the presence of important restrictions. As therapists, we have to withhold what does not help the client, and this is a lot. Yalom illustrates this basic principle with a touching story about two famous healers, taken from a book by Hermann Hesse.Joseph, one of the healers, severely afflicted with feelings of worthlessness and self-doubt, sets off on a long journey to seek help from his rival, Dion. At an oasis Joseph describes his plight to a stranger, who turns out to be Dion; whereupon Joseph accepts Dijon's invitation to go home with him in the role of patient and servant. In time Joseph regains his former serenity, zest, and effectance and becomes the friend and colleague of his master. Only after many years have passed and Dion lies on his deathbed does he reveal to Joseph that when the latter encountered him at the oasis, he, Dion, had reached a similar impasse in his life and was en route to request Joseph's assistance. (Yalom 1975, p.215.)From this focus on the client's growth process it follows that the therapist will only exceptionally mention facts from his personal life. But 'exceptionally' does not mean 'never'. A therapist can thus, as said earlier, reveal something about himself as a way of showing empathy. Also, when a personal event in his life comes to weigh heavily on his therapeutic work (such as the death of an important person), it may be better to mention it. And what if the client asks us for our personal philosophy of life, our lifestyle or our values? Obviously, we should be very careful here and explore, with the client, the precise meaning of his question.In most cases the client is not really interested in the therapist, but such questions may be situated within the search for a solution to a personal problem, or within a specific relational context. Our attention should thusgo in that direction. Client-centred therapists generally refrain from giving 'personal testimony', in my opinionn for good reason: indeed, the client has to find his own way. But one thing does not always exclude another.We should not forget that clients often obtain indirect clues as to 'how we live our lives' and that we can never totally escape a modelling role. This is not wrong in itself, at least not if we can bring the client to becoming independent from it. If we succeed in this, the client gradually comes to see his therapist as 'a fellow pilgrim' , with whom and against whom he can clarify his own choices. This happens mostly towards the end of therapy, i.e. in the existential phase in which the client has reached the point where he can choose freely.As will be clear from what I said before, self-revelation has seldom anything to do with the therapist's personal past or present life. But what can the therapist then reveal? The answer is obvious: his feelings towards the client in the here-and-now, towards what happens in the session between both of them. Here too, the therapist remains sober. Only 'persisting' feelings count, and besides, the therapist has to ask himself if the moment is appropriate. There is thus a problem of 'timing': is there a chance for the client to be sufficiently receptive to my feedback about how I experience the interaction, or should other therapeutic tasks take precedence? Sometimes the relationship has not yet acquired enough security and solidity, and this should be worked on first. In moments of great vulnerability, empathic closeness is perhaps all that isneeded.Sometimes, the client may first need a chance to fully express his feelings towards the symbolic figure ofthe therapist, without immediately being 'stopped' by a confrontation with the 'reality' of how the therapist experiences it himself ... But occasionally, the therapist's experience of the interaction may be the most fruitful approach to deepening the process.Besides the question of what can be said and when, we also should address the one about how to communicate our own experiences in the most constructive way. Here are some suggestions from the client-centred literature. All illustrate how important it is that the therapist's self-expressive interventions be supported by the basic attitudes. The close bond with congruence is obvious: the feeling for what happens in the relationship, the interactional barometer, thus should function properly! This presupposes a close contact with one's own flow of experiencing and the meanings which it may contain, sufficient awareness of what may be one's personal contribution to the difficulties arising in the relationship, and when needed, sufficient openness to facing the issue in question (so it would not become a battle about who is right), being capable of communicating one's experience in a process-compatible way, i.e. in all its complexity and changingness. As an example of the latter, Rogers describes how a therapist can communicate 'boredom':But my feeling exists in the context of a complex and changing flow, which also needs to be communicated. I would like to share with him my distress at feeling bored and my discomfort in expressing it. As I do, I find that my boredom arises from my sense of remoteness from him and that I would like to be in closer touch with him; and even as I try to express these feelings they change. I am certainly not bored as I await with eagerness, and perhaps a bit of apprehension, forhis response. I also feel a new sensitivity to him now that I have shared this feeling which has been a barrier between us. I am far more able to hear the surprise, or perhaps the hurt, in his voice ashe now finds himself speaking more genuinely because I have dared to be real with him. Along with this, there is the link with unconditional positive regard. Self expressive confrontations are most effective when embedded in, and communicated out of, deep involvement with the person of the client.Consequently, it is important for the therapist not to let negative feelings accumulate for too long, so as to remain sufficiently open to the client. He further has to let it be known clearly that his feelings have to do with a specific behaviour of the client's, and not with the client as a person. Therefore, the therapist's feedback should be as explicit and concrete as possible: how the feeling took shape and what precisely in the client's way of interacting has brought it on. Perhaps most importantly, the therapist should remain focused on the positive life-tendencies behind the client's disturbing behaviour and behind his own negative feelings, and communicate these as well. Thus, in our earlier example, Rogers communicates the inside, the reason for his boredom, which is his desire for more contact with the client. When we give a client feedback about a behaviour which irritates us, we try to get in touch with the needs and positive intentions behind it, and include these in our discussion. Gendlin gives the following example of this pertaining tosetting limits:For example, I might not let a patient touch me or grab me. I will stop the patient, but in the samewords and gesture I will try to respond positively to the positive desire for closeness or physicalrelations. I will make personal touch with my hand as I hold the patient away from me, contact thepatient's eyes, and declare that I think the physical reaching out is positive and I welcome it, eventhough I cannot allow it. (I know at such times that I may be partly creating this positive aspect.Perhaps this reaching is more hostile, right now, than warm. But there is warmth and health in anyone's sexual or physical need, and I can recognise that as such.) Finally, we should always take care in maintaining the process sufficiently client-centred and making it a'self-revelation without imposition'. This can best be done by letting the influencing occur as openly as possible. Two 'rules of communication' should be remembered here. The first one, to use Rogers' words, is 'owning' or giving I-messages instead of you-messages: the therapist indicates clearly that he is the source of the experience and tries above all to communicate what he himself feels, rather than making evaluative statements about the client.  He will, for example, not say 'How intrusive of you' but 'When you called me for the second time this week, I felt put under pressure and as if taken possession of ... The second rule ofncommunication is, in Gendlin's words, 'always checking' or 'openness to what comes next': after eachintervention - and especially after one which originated in our own frame of reference - tuning in anew to the client's experiential track and continuing from there. All these suggestions should make it clear that constructive self-revelation is far removed from acting-out. It is rather a form of 'disciplined spontaneity' which, along and together with empathy, constitutes a second line from which the client can evolve towards a 'further living' inside and outside of therapy, towards new and more satisfactory ways of dealing with himself and others. Mistakes may, of course, occur if self-revelation is used rather carelessly, but to leave out this important reservoir of relationship information could be equally detrimental: an omission which could lead to substantial reduction in quality of the therapeutic process.ReferencesBarrett-Lennard, G. T. (1962), 'Dimensions of therapist response as causal factors in therapeutic change', Psychological Monographs, 76 (43, Whole No.562).Bolten, M. P. (1990), 'Opleidingstherapie en de plaats van groepen', Tijdschrift voor Psychothera pie, 16, 60- 68.Boukydis, K. N. (1979), 'Caring and Confronting', Voices. The Art and Science of Psychotherapy, 15, 31-34.Bozarth, J. D. (1984), 'Beyond reflection: Emergent modes of empathy', in R. F. Levant and J. M. Shuen (eds.), Client-Centered Therapy and the Person-Centered Approach: new directions in theory, research and practice (pp.59-5). New York: Praeger.Buber, M., and Rogers, C. R. (1957), 'Dialogue between Martin Buber and Carl Rogers', in H. Kirschenbaum and V. L. Anderson (1989), Carl Rogers: Dialogues (pp.41-63). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Carkhuff, R. R., and Berenson, B. G. (1977), 'In search of an honest experience: confrontation in counseling and life', in R. R. Carkhuff and B. G. Berenson, Beyond Counseling and Therapy (pp. 198-213). New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Cluckers, G. (1989), "'Containment" in de therapeutische relatie: de therapeut als drager en zingever', in H.Vertommen, G. Cluckers, and G. Lietaer (eds.), De Relatie in Therapie (pp.49-64). Leuven: Leuven UniversityPress.Corveleyn, J. (1989), 'Over tegenoverdracht gesproken: bin-derpaal of hulpmiddel?', in H. Vertommen, G. Cluckers, and G. Lietaer (eds.), De Relatie in Therapie (pp. 103-19). Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.Depestele, F. (1989), 'Experientiele psychotherapie: een stap in de praktijk', Tijdschrift Klinische Psychologie, 19, 1-15 en 60-81.Gendlin, E. T. (1967a), 'Subverbal communication and therapist expressivity: Trends in client-centered therapy with schizophrenics', in C. R. Rogers and B. Stevens, Person to Person (pp. 119-28). Lafayette, Ca:Real People Press.Gendlin, E. T. (1967b). 'Therapeutic procedures in dealing with schizophrenics', in C. Rogers et al. (eds.),The Therapeutic Relationship and its impact: a study of psychotherapy with schizophrenics (pp. 369-400). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Gendlin, E. T. (1968), 'The experiential response', in E. F. Hammer (ed.), Use of Interpretation in Therapy: technique and art (pp. 208-27). New York: Grune and Stratton.Gendlin, B. T. (1970), 'A short summary and some long predictions', in J. T. Hart and T. M. Tomlinson (eds.), New Directions in Client-Centered Therapy (pp.544-62). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Glover, B. (1955), The Technique of Psycho-Analysis. New York: International Universities Press.Groen, J. (1978), 'Spiegels en schaduwen van de analyticus', Tijdschrifi voor Psychotherapie, 1, 19-27.Kiesler, D. J. (1982), 'Confronting the client-therapist relationship in psychotherapy', in J. C. Anchin and D. J. Kiesler, Handbook of Interpersonal Psychotherapy (pp. 274-95). New York: Pergamon.Kinget, M. (1959), 'Deel I. Algemene presentatie', in C. R. Rogers and M. Kinget, Psychotherapie en Menselijke Verhoudingen (pp. 11 - 171). Utrecht/Antwerpen: Spectrum and Standard.Lietaer, G., Rombauts, j., and Van Balen, R. (eds.), Client-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapy in the Nineties. Leuven: Leuven University Press.McConnaughy, E. A. (1987), 'The person of the therapist in psychotherapeutic practice', Psychotherapy, 24, 303 - 14.Menninger, K. A. (1958), 'Transference and countertransference', in K. A. Menninger, Theory of Psychoanalytic Technique (pp. 77-98). New York: Basic Books.Pfeiffer, W. M. (1987), 'Uebertragung und Realbeziehung in der Sicht klientenzentrierter Psychotherapie', Zeitschrift fijr Personenzentrierte Psychologie und Psychothera pie, 6, 347-352.Racker, H. (1957), 'The meanings and uses of Countertransference', Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 26, 303-57.Rice, L. N. (1974), 'The evocative function of the therapist', in D. A. Wexler, and L. N. Rice (eds.),Innovations in Client-Centered Therapy (pp.289-311). New York: Wiley.Rogers, C. R. (1951), Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Rogers, C. R. (1957), 'The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change', Journal ofConsulting Psychology, 21, 97-103.Rogers, C. R. (1961), On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Rogers, C. R. (1962), 'The interpersonal relationship: the core of guidance', Harvard Educational Review, 32,416-29.Rogers, C. R. (1966), 'Client-centered therapy', in S. Arieti (ed.), American Handbook of Psychiatry (Vol.3,pp.183-200). New York: Basic Books.Rogers, C. R. (1967a), 'Some learnings from a study of psychotherapy with schizophrenics', in C. R. Rogersand B. Stevens, Person to Person (pp.181-91). Lafayette, Ca: Real People Press.Rogers, C. R. (1967b), 'A silent young man', in C. R. Rogers et al. (eds.), (1967a), op. cit. (pp.401-16).Rogers, C. R. (1970), On Encounter Groups. New York: Harper and Row.Rogers, C. R. (1986), 'Carl Rogers's column: reflection of feelings', Person-Centered Review, 1, 375-77.Rogers, C. R. et al. (eds.), (1967a), The Therapeutic Relationship and its Impact: a study of psychotherapywith schizophrenics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Rogers, C. R. et. al. (1967b), 'A dialogue between therapists', in C. R. Rogers et al. (eds.), (1967a), op. cit.(pp.507-20).Rombauts, J. (1984), 'Empathie: actieve ontvankelijkheid', in G. Lietaer, Ph. van Praag, and J. C. A. G.Swildens (eds.), Client-Centered Psychotherapie in Beweging (pp.167-76). Leuven: Acco.Shlien, J. (1987), 'A countertheory of transference', Person-Centered Review, 2, 15-49 (comments: 153-202/455-75).Swildens, H. (1988), Procesgerichte Gesprekstherapie, Inleiding tot een gedifferentieerde toepassing van de cIientgerichte heginselen bij de behandeling van psychische stoornissen. Leuven, Amersfoort: Acco/DeHorstink.Tiedmann, J. (1975), 'Angst in de therapeutische relatie', Tijdschrift voor Psychotherapie, 1, 167-71.Vanaershot, G. (1990), 'The process of empathy: holding and letting go', in G. Lietaer, J. Rombauts, and R. Van Balen (eds.), op. cit. (pp.269-93).Van Balen, R. (1984), 'Overdracht in client-centered therapie. Een eerste literatuurverkenning', in G. Lietaer, Ph. H. van Praag, and J. C. A. G. Swildens (eds.), Client-Centered Psychotherapie in Beweging (pp.207-26).Leuven: Acco.Van Balen, R. (1990), 'The therapeutic relationship according to Carl Rogers: only a climate? A dialogue? Or both?', in G. Lietaer, J. Rombauts, and R. Van Balen (eds.), op. cit. (pp.65-86).Van Kessek, w., and Van Der Linder, P. (1991), 'De-hier-en-nu relatie met de therapeut: de interaktionele benadering', in J. C. A. G. Swildens, 0. de Haas, G. Lietaer, and R. Van Balen (eds.), Leerboek Gesprekstherapie: de clientgerichte benadering. Amersfoort/Leuven: Acco.Wachtel, P. L. (1979), 'Contingent and non-contingent therapist response', Psychotherapy: Theory,Research and Practice, 16, 30-35.Wachtel, P. L. (1987), 'You can't go far in neutral: on the limits of therapeutic neutrality', in P. L. Wachtel,Action and Insight (pp.176-84). New York: Guilford.Winnicott, D. W. (1949), 'Hate in the countertransference', International Journey of Psychoanalysis, 30, 69-74.Yalom, I. D. (1980), Existential Psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.Yalom, I. D. (1975), Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy (rev. ed.). New York: Basic Books.