Quote:
Originally Posted by atisketatasket
I would say that the premise of all therapy - whether or not the therapist expresses it or makes the client feel that way - is that the client is "broken" and that the therapist is there to "fix" it. There's all kinds of things you can learn in therapy, and many are useful - I am talking about the view of therapy.
The way the question is phrased in the OP reminds me of this view. Say one goes to therapy as an adult to learn how to manage anger, for instance. The implication is that "normal" adults have already done this. That one needs to see a therapist to learn this task that everyone else seems to have mastered just fine does, in fact, suggest that that there is something wrong with the client, who has not mastered this skill. I simply don't think the profession can escape that implication; it is at the heart of mental health care.
|
But I don't see that as being told I am "broken" and have never gotten that message from my very competent therapists who DID teach me very specific skills. That seems to be your perspective and experience, and I do think some therapists have that approach, but I wouldn't say it applies across the board by any means. Perhaps different modalities tend more to the "client is broken and flawed and needs to be fixed" mentality, but I've very actively chosen not to see therapists with that approach and really had no problem finding therapists who completely believed in my strength and ability, and they saw clients as people who already have the ability and just could use assistance in finding it in themselves. That is about empowerment and autonomy, not brokenness and "saviors" imparting knowledge.