Empathy and the ACT therapist
Printer-friendly versionSend to friend
Hello,
I am a counselor in training and I absolutely love ACT. I will get to the point. I am currently studying the relationship between facets of mindfulness, cognitive empathy, and emotional empathy. I am interested on the ACT perspective on empathy in counseling. Just to let you know where I am coming from, I do not think emotional empathy is necessary in working with most clients. What is the role of emotional empathy in ACT?
Empathy
While I totally agree that we should always engage in a functional analysis of the various behaviours taking place in therapy – ours and the clients - I also think it is important to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Like - What is empathy?
Many writers in the Emotional Intelligence, mindfulness, and mindfulness based therapy fields, commonly confuse empathy with compassion. Or, with some other process that we just don't have the right words for in English. This distinction is important.
Compassion means to suffer together with. If you don't believe me look it up in Skeat's “An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language.” Empathy on the other hand means “the power of projecting one's personality into (and so fully comprehending) the object of contemplation” (the concise OED, 1964). Now that sounds sort of unsavory to me. My understanding is that the word only came into the English language it the early 20th century by way of the German. It was a term used in the psychotherapy of the time. A psychotherapy that, by our current standards, didn't work'. By the way, you won't find “empathy” in Skeat.
This empathy, which is a very confused concept at best, is generally held up as something important to practice, and to develop. The implication is, as you have mentioned, that we should “have” it. Once this importance is established, it then becomes important to study it and break it up in to little pieces, and then to expand on our new understanding. Much as you have done in the distinction between different types of empathy. The problem is, if the initial understanding is wrong we end up wasting a lot of time on a very convoluted side issue that is founded on a simple misunderstanding. I think this gets in the way of developing a true, spontaneous, human response to others, rather than following a rigid set of rules about how we should behave.
Now some ability to understand what is going on with other people is important in everyday life for a number of reasons. We tend to regard those who don't have this ability as disabled, and those who don't practice it as just plain mean and self-centered. It seems like having a reasonable degree of social skills would be good in a therapist or counselor. But empathy? Projecting your thoughts on to another so you can figure out what they are thinking about what you are thinking. Isn't part of the purpose of a functional analysis to avoid all those potential pitfalls?
Compassion is a different kettle of fish. Dogen (paraphrasing some old Chinese Zen master) said that compassion is like reaching behind you in the night for a pillow. That is what true compassion is like. What you do with that compassion is what really matters. And that is where you bring in your therapy, your skills, your theory. As a practical demonstration of compassion.
My view - “We don't need no stinking empathy.”
Jim Hegarty
Are we splitting hairs about empathy?
I imagine it makes a difference which definition of empathy is used here. I was taught in undergraduate school that empathy was the ability to step into another's shoes, see the world as s/he see it, then to step back out and observe from a larger vantage point. In that sense of the word, it still seems quite a useful concept. Whether we call this compassion, lovingkindness or something else, the point is, few people are looking for cold interactions with their providers.
Kimberly Montgomery, Ph.D. HSPP
Clinical Manager of Behavioral Medicine and Health Psychology
Community Health Network
The Hairy issue of compassion
I like Kimberley's view of empathy – and thinking about it I may have overstated my case, slightly :) .
My thinking is: Empathy is largely a cognitive maneuver. Compassion is a felt response from which a cognitive maneuver arises.
We need to see things from another's perspective to be good therapists, and sometimes we need to be reminded of that. In my experience this is particularly true for student or training therapists. Compassion on the other hand is a step or two beyond empathy. We probably don't think need to feel real deep compassion with every single client in every single session to do good work. I think that would probably lead to better therapy, if we did; don't know how achievable it is though.
My gripe/discomfort/concern is that empathy and compassion are often confused. Also, that some authors, who become influential, make blanket statements regarding how to develop these traits. And I use traits deliberately as the behavior involved is not often described clearly. This means that some people will be devoting a lot of time to things like loving kindness meditations in order to become a better therapists, or a better person. Is this necessary? Is this the best way? Does it even work?
One problem is that, at least recently, views of compassion and concepts like loving kindness have come from translations of Buddhist writings. Buddhist psychology is very well developed. These concepts are well defined, and different schools have prescribed courses of education to develop certain qualities. We don't. I just think we need to be really clear about what we are talking about, about the behaviors and attitudes we want to train as therapists, and how we go about training ourselves to do better work.
Jim Hegarty
Empathy as a way to move on
Hello,
I guess it depends what is the fonction of empathy for a client. Is it to welcome emotions that are present to move forward towards values? then empathy would be useful. If empathy is used as a way to stay with emotions without moving towards value, it could be just reinforcing stillness or being stuck in it. Whereas empathy is important, you might need more then that. Sometimes I had clients having the honesty telling me that they have a certain delight in staying in their story and how they got hurt in it. The story is giving a meaning to their life and they like when people would go in the story with them and empathize what they lived. The thing is that their life is suspended to that story and they are reinforced to stay there. Actions towards value become limited by that story. Some clients appreciate the fact that being empathic about their story is just reinforcing staying in it and not moving on. I guess that is why you have to be present carefully to the interaction with your clients because one intervention at that moment with that person might be useful but at an other moment not useful at all. We are always back to "what does empathy serves for that client?" Empathy is not FIT ALL circonstances. In my humble opinion, I would say that the context has the answer to that question. Cristel
Emotional Empathy and ACT
I believe functional analysis of empathy is important too. Does empathy move the client toward living a valued life or not? If yes, then empathy is good. If it keeps the client stuck in their story, then, no, it is not good.. However, I believe emotional empathy is a bit different. Let me define it. Emotional empathy is experiencing similar emotion as the client while the client is having it. For example, a client feels extremely sad and I, the therapist, also feel extremely sad too. Some within the counseling field believe this is "genuine empathy." I, for one, do not find it any more or less genuine than other forms of empathy. As with most emotions, emotional empathy cannot be instantaneously turned on and off like a switch. So, if a client is expecting me to be 'emotionally empathic' it simply isn't going to happen because I understand that the story the client is telling me is "just a story." Saying it a slightly different way, I am not working "within" the client's frame of reference. The client BELIEVES his or her story and holds onto it tightly. In contrast, I hold the story lightly (defused point of view) and work from therapeutic standpoint. It seems that client-centered therapy has focused heavily on working from within the client's frame of reference. In a way, it is assumed that just being able to understand a client's frame of reference is therapeutic and healing. How this works is completely mystical to me. Hence the reason I don't buy it. It seems to me that moving the client toward defusion and valued living is more important than "feeling with" the client.
Saving the bla bla bla of having the right to have what is
It is hard to do generalization because the context of interaction with client might vary a lot. As a therapist, it might be useful to be able to echo client's frame of reference and resonate his feelings. For exemple, someone whose feelings are often invalidated by their surroundings might need a place where it is possible to be listen to. If not, this person might be tempted spending her time convincing herself or the other that she is right about feeling it. In that sense, empathy might be a useful way to short cut trying to be right about something. It says implicitly that "Whatever is there has the right to be there". This might save a lot of bla bla bla about having what is and be able to move ahead. However, we again need to be aware of the fonction of it in the interaction. For that, each case is a special one.