Brief Lecture Notes for Unit 5
See main textbook chapters 13 and 14, but note that some material presented in chapter 13 is covered by me in lecture unit 7, not this unit.
Introduction; the client-centered approach
In some ways, the phenomenological school of thought is the least cohesive. It represents a loose collection of theorists and practitioners who have reacted against what they perceive as the sterility, determinism, and reductionism of the psychodynamic and the behaviorist schools of thought we've already encountered.
In this unit, we'll examine some of the main strains of thought within the phenomenological school, but expect less internal consistency among the ideas of these theorists. That's part and parcel of the phenomenological approach.
The term "phenomenology" refers to subjective experience. This school emphasizes respect for how individuals see or experience the world (the individual's internal frame of reference). There is little, if any, attempt to question or critique an individual's frame of reference from an external or "objective" point of view; indeed, many phenomenologists are highly skeptical about the whole notion of human objectivity -- a point to which we will return later on, in Unit 8, when we explicitly discuss the modernist-postmodernist controversy. But for now, recognize that while psychodynamicists, behaviorists, and even to some extent dispositionalists stand "outside" the person and judge his or her behavior from an external frame of reference, phenomenologists assiduously attempt to maintain a strictly internal frame of reference -- easier said than done!
As above, the key idea in this school of thought is respect for subjective experience and the internal frame of reference, counseling nondirectiveness, and the development of congruence (see below).
The structure of personality involves a distinction between aspects of yourself that you acknowledge, attribute to yourself, or label/identify as being "part of you" (self concept or subjective self), versus those which you deny, distort, fail to recognize, reject, or explain away as "not part of you". To the extent that your self concept is an accurate reflection of your objective self or who you really are in totality, you are congruent. To the extent to which your self perceptions are distorted or limited -- you are in denial about who you really are -- you are incongruent. There are degrees of congruence for the same reason that there are degrees of mental health; most of us, presumably, are moderately congruent. In simpler terms, congruence means knowing yourself well or fully, or being open to all aspects of experience.
Personality difficulties stem from incongruence, which in turn result from so-called conditions of worth -- statements (e.g., from parents to children) that indicate you have value only if you meet certain conditions ("you are worthwhile only if you..." or "I won't love you unless you..."). Such statements are external at first but later become internalized, producing inward incongruence as a way of coping with personal failure to meet the standards or conditions.
Enhancement of congruence is not a function of technical knowledge (what the therapist knows), but personal attributes, traits or qualities (who the therapist is). A person who is in relationship with another who has the necessary properties will automatically become more congruent. Essential properties of an effective people-helper include (naturally) congruence (you can't help others become more congruent than you are yourself), genuineness, empathy, and unconditional acceptance of others.
Congruence can be measured empirically by means of such tools as the Q-sort technique (see in-class exercise). This opens the possibility of objective measurement of therapeutic effectiveness.
Critiques of this school of thought include the notion that it is too unduly optimistic about human nature, that it is too nondirective, that it can foster moral relativism or moral indifference.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs and motives
Needs (and related motives), in this model, can be classified as either viscerogenic (related to a physiological need-state) or psychogenic (nonphysiological in nature). They can further be classified as either deficit motives (related to or caused by a lack, need, or state of deprivation) or growth motives (unrelated to a lack of some needed state or condition). In Maslow's model, motives are arranged in a hierarchy of decreasing intrusivity. Intrusivity means the inability to ignore a motive. There are six levels, from the most to the least intrusive:
1. Physiological motives (e.g., hunger, thirst, sex, the need for oxygen)
2. Safety/security motives (e.g., need for stability, certainty, freedom from anxiety, freedom from physical or psychological harm)
3. Love/belongingness motives (e.g., need to belong, to fit in, to have a niche or place, to be valued or cared about by someone)
4. Esteem/achievement motives (e.g., need to succeed, to climb the ladder of achievement, to obtain a social status marker)
5. Actualization motives (e.g., to enjoy creativity for its own sake, to fulfill one's potential regardless of how others may evaluate such activities)
6. Exterocentric/altruistic motives (e.g., to help others or make a difference in the lives of others, not for motives related to levels 1-5)
The intrusivity concept indicates (in Maslow's view) that a person cannot seriously and consistently address higher (less intrusive) needs unless lower (more intrusive) needs have already been substantially met. However, as with other underlying assumptions of Maslow's model, this is quite subject to debate.
Note the inherent nonreductionism in this model. Not all needs can be reduced to the simplest or lowest level. (Contrast Freud's highly reductionistic model of human motivation in this regard.)
Systems theory
A social system is any group of persons who share a common identity. Some systems interact regularly with one another (families) while others may never have met each other at all (the collection of persons who enjoy reading Civil War history), but if each person in the group thinks of her/himself as in some way "belonging" to the group (defines her/himself by using the system as a reference group), then the group qualifies as a system.
Systems are defined by the boundaries that separate those who are in the system from those who are outside of the system. Boundaries may sometimes be literal and physical (a fence that separates two nation-states at the geographic border between them, preventing nonresidents from entering the country), but usually they are psychological in nature, having to do with entry and exit requirements. Take this class as an example. To enter the system (become a part of the class), you must be admitted as a UWMC student, must pay your tuition, must sign up for and be accepted into this specific class, must attend during the first week (else you will be dropped administratively from the class roster), and so forth. To exit the system, you must fill out an official drop form prior to the last scheduled drop date; otherwise, you remain a member (whether you like it or not) until the class officially disbands at the end of the final exam.
From this example we see that some boundaries are more permeable than others. In other words, some systems are easy to enter (and/or leave) while others are very difficult to enter (and/or leave). More on that -- along with some examples -- below. Note that boundaries may not be equally permeable in both directions, and also that the permeability of system boundaries can change over time. For instance, at the start of the semester, it is more difficult to enter this class than it is to leave it. But once the drop deadline passes, the exit boundary becomes almost completely impermeable; you can't get out of the class except through death or, perhaps, petitioning the UW Regents. (You can stop coming to class, but that doesn't mean you're no longer part of the system; it simply means you are an absent, inactive member of the system.)
Systems can be classified in terms of the permeability of two kinds of boundaries: external boundaries (those that lie between the system and the outside world, between "insiders" and "outsiders"), and internal boundaries (those that separate one person from another within the system). For an example of an internal boundary, think of the degree of privacy a family member may have within his or her own home. A teenager who insists to her parents, "This is my room!" is attempting to reduce the permeability of an internal boundary -- to establish and defend some "personal space" within the confines of the family system.
With these concepts in mind, we can start classifying systems into four distinct types, by means of two independent (or so-called orthogonal, which is a fancy statistical way of saying "independent") dimensions. Yes, once again, we have a 2 x 2 or "quadrant" classification system -- of which we've had many, and will have many more.
The first dimension has to do with the permeability of external system boundaries -- those that separate "insiders" from "outsiders". Systems with highly permeable external boundaries are said to be open; it's easy to enter or exit the system. (For purposes of simplicity, let's assume that permeability is roughly the same in both directions, though often it's not; "you can check out any time you want, but you can never leave".) In contrast, systems with highly impermeable external boundaries are said to be closed; it's difficult (or impossible) to enter or exit the system.
Let's consider some extreme examples. The collection of people who regularly ride the Route A city bus is a very open system. It's easy to enter the system -- if you have 75 cents (or whatever the fare is these days, it's been awhile since I've ridden the bus), you can enter the system, and leaving is even easier -- just pull the cord and get off. As a result, the membership of this system tends to be very fluid -- constantly changing. Yet, there are some people who have been members of the system (have ridden the same bus) for decades; and these probably tend to start defining themselves as "regulars" (chronic or semi-permanent members of the system). They probably get to know one another and begin to build relationships (at least of a superficial sort), which is evidence that there really is a system. While the boundaries are very open, they do exist; this is not a mere random collection of persons, but a true (though weak and not very influential) social system.
In contrast, the United States Supreme Court is a very closed system. It's extremely difficult to enter the system -- only nine persons are allowed to belong at any given time, very narrowly specified credentials are required even to be considered for a vacancy, and a very arduous screening process is used to qualify applicants. (I don't expect ever to become a member.) Once on the court, a member is usually a member for life (or until very old age, at which point there may be a voluntary retirement). Hence the membership of this system tends to be highly crystallized -- changes only very slowly, thus tending to lag behind changes in the social attitudes of the society it is intended to represent; changes are epochal, highly salient, a major watershed. Those within in the system are extremely likely to define themselves in terms of their membership and to know each other intimately; this is a very strong and powerful social system.
From this we see that social systems differ in the extent to which they are central to people's sense of self or their role definition. Try coming up with 10 answers to the question, "Who are you?" The answers you come up with are, most likely, those that are central to your sense of self (I am a husband, I am a college professor, I am a Christian); omitted from your list, probably, are items that are just as true of you but more peripheral to your self-definition (I am a grey-haired man, I am a person with Type A blood, I am a native speaker of English). All things being equal, those social systems which members view as central to their sense of self are more likely to be the more closed systems to which they belong, as well as being those which they personally chose to join or those which they had to work to join (that is, achieved as opposed to ascribed social roles). One reason the fact that I am a grey-haired man is not central to my sense of self is that I didn't choose it (ascribed role); in fact I sometimes try to avoid it by the use of various artificial hair coloring products that don't work all that well and are obvious to even the most casual observer. But my academic role is central to me because I selected it for myself and worked hard to obtain it (achieved role).
Note also that social systems (and increasingly so as they become more and more closed, and/or more and more central) tend to differentiate insiders from outsiders by the adoption of unique "insider" customs, rituals, traditions, and language. These help insiders to spot those who are, like them, "in". Generational language is a good example: if a desirable experience is "spiffy", you belong to one generational cohort, but if it is "phat", you belong to another. Occupation-specific jargon is another example: a "cookie" means one thing to a Web developer, quite another to a baker.
The second dimension has to do with the permeability of internal system boundaries -- those between one "insider" and another within the system. Systems with highly permeable internal boundaries are said to be enmeshed: there is very little privacy within the system, everyone is highly involved with others' "business", and independent action within the system is difficult or impossible (anything one member does sends "ripple effects" throughout the entire system). In contrast, systems with highly impermeable internal boundaries are said to be disengaged: members lead highly separate, distinct, private lives within the confines of the system, no one is really involved with other system members, and independent action within the system is the order of the day (no one is really paying attention to anyone else, which is liberating but also lonely).
In our society at least, personal systems (groups of friends, for instance) tend to be more enmeshed, while impersonal systems (those that exist for a purely economic purpose) tend to be more disengaged. This is gradually changing, however, for a variety of reasons too complex to examine here: for instance, many people's closest friends are now often drawn from the circle of their co-workers.
It's also interesting to consider the impact of the information revolution (that is, Bill Gates) on how systems work in our culture. One of the impacts, for better or worse, of the Internet is that the power of propinquity has somewhat been diminished. Propinquity means "geographic closeness" or "nearness": prior to the information age, people usually had little choice but to select friends and intimates from among the circle of those who lived and worked nearby (how else could you meet?). However, in the Internet age, it's much easier than it's ever been before to find groups of like-minded people who may live half a world away but who share similar interests, experiences, perspectives, or values. This has led to some paradoxical distortions in how people relate to one another which again, unfortunately, would take me too far afield to elaborate: people share more freely with those they know only through the medium of the Internet, partly because they are (or think they are) more anonymous. Hence these kinds of social systems tend to be more enmeshed in one way, more disengaged in another... wreaking havoc with the dimension above.
At any rate, we can classify most social systems as falling into one of the four quadrants defined by the two dimensions above:
These dimensions influence the development of human personality. Thinking of your own family of origin (the one within which you were raised as a child), and remembering that the two dimensions above are actually continuous (middle-of-the road scores are possible) rather than strictly dichotomous, in which quadrant do you think your family falls? How about your family of generativity (the one within which you are a head of household)? While there's no clearly better or worse configuration overall, extremes on any of the dimensions above tend to become less adaptive (liabilities begin to outweigh the assets):
Clearly the optimal configuration is closer to the midpoint of both dimensions, where there is a moderate degree of permeability in both external and internal system boundaries. External boundaries are impermeable enough to be protective, permeable enough to allow access to culturally diverse inputs and experiences. Internal boundaries are impermeable enough to permit some freedom and privacy, permeable enough to permit some interactivity, bonding, caring, and sharing.
Satir's model of communication involves the relationship between family systems and relational (communication) patterns. She uses the notion of congruence to represent the extent to which different communication channels (verbal content, paralinguistics, body language) line up, match, or fit (congruent) or not (incongruent). There are basically four kinds of communication incongruence in Satir's model, which can be thought of as two dimensions that form a quadrant model:
Deconstructionism, semiotics, and social ecology
I consider the material on pages 409-411 to be particularly important. I won't duplicate it here, but pay careful attention to these pages.
On cultural classification, note the following:
One influential model of cultural differences classifies cultures along two independent dimensions:
Since the two dimensions are independent or orthogonal, there are four culture types overall:
Contemporary America is presumably a V-I culture, though there are undercurrents of other themes (the "hippie" movement of the 60's was an attempt to push culture in a more H-I direction, for instance). Subcultures may have a different ethos (the military, for instance, is presumably V-C in outlook).
Since each type of culture looks for and reinforces certain kinds of behaviors and seeks to repress others, what is seen as maladaptive in one culture may be another culture's ideal. For instance, in China (probably a H-C culture), shyness is seen as an asset: it means self-restraint, submission to the social order, and a lack of the pathological desire to "stand out". In V-I America, shyness is often viewed by parents and others as a liability!
Study Guide 5
1. What is meant by the internal frame of reference? Give some examples.
2. What is congruence? What is the relationship between congruence and conditions of worth?
3. What leads to personal growth in the phenomenological model? What qualities does an effective counselor or people-helper have to have?
4. What is a Q-sort? What relevance does this methodology have?
5. State and explain some common criticisms of the phenomenological approach.
6. What is intrusivity? How do needs and motives differ in this property? What behavioral implications does this have?
7. How do psychogenic and viscerogenic motives differ? Deficit and growth motives?
8. Explain, and critique, Maslow's model.
9. Define what is meant by a social system. Give some examples and explain why they fit the definition.
10. Define, and give examples, of system boundaries as exemplified by entry and exit requirements.
11. What is meant by the notion of boundary permeability? How do permeable and impermeable boundaries differ? Give some examples.
12. How do external and internal boundaries differ? Give some examples of each.
13. How do open vs. closed systems differ? How do enmeshed vs. disengaged systems differ? Give some examples of each. Be able to classify examples into the proper quadrant. What implications do these types have for child-rearing patterns and experiences?
14. How do central vs. peripheral roles differ? Achieved vs. ascribed roles? Give some examples.
15. Summarize Satir's model of communication congruence. Discuss its therapeutic implications.
16. Summarize lecture material on deconstructionism, semiotics, and social ecology. How do individualistic and collectivistic cultures differ? Vertical and horizontal cultures?