Blog

Let’s take therapy first. There are many methods and techniques that can be used in therapy. Don’t expect a psychoanalyst to talk much about anything. Even more directive therapies are not that directive at all. This is based on the theory that the time spent with a client should be for the client to process whatever they came to therapy for. A therapist is there to give a safe space and empathy for that to happen. It also works on the theory that advice given (except in abuse cases) could be clouded by the therapist’s own thoughts, feelings and autobiography. Sounds great in theory and the books will certainly consolidate this. I wonder how many therapists have sat with clients and thought “I could really move this on with this or that intervention”? I’m sure there are many. Therapy has a real problem with anything remotely directive and is almost seen as a taboo. Hence, therapy tends to take longer while the client “gets it”, with gentle nudging and questioning from the therapist. 

Some may say this might be far more memorable for the client in the long run if they “get it” themselves. Theoretically yes, but how much time could be saved? I personally think there is a place for direction in therapy and I sense that therapy is moving towards a mix of therapy and coaching. Internal Family Systems therapy is a good example. Clients are encouraged to take leadership of their “parts” through a learning experience with a therapist in “self mode” who will use direct access to the “client’s parts” in order to affect the process. In my opinion, there must be a part of therapy that includes action from lessons learned. Not all clients are willing to take this step and it is the therapist’s job to give that gentle push when the time is right. Otherwise what is the point? Especially in cases of codependency, it is essential to take action after awareness. Without this, the status quo will be maintained. There is only so much awareness one can have before it becomes too much. 

The old saying that therapists always blame the parents is not strictly true. Parents are responsible for the upbringing of their children and are often bereft of the knowledge and tools needed to do this. They often parent in a similar way to how they were parented, moving the trauma from one generation to another. As a result, the environment the child grows up in is not a nurturing one in many cases. Therapists deal with the consequences for the child of living and developing in this environment. Children moving into adulthood, then need to deal with the consequences. It’s only responsible to start where it all began. Again, IFS is great for this, especially when combined with Inner Child Therapy and a nice dose of action at the end. This is where methods like CBT are sometimes inadequate. It’s not always easy to just look at things from a different perspective when the inner child is having a tantrum deep inside. 

In the end, therapy is not just about understanding the past but about creating meaningful change in the present moment. While awareness is a crucial first step, it must be followed by action otherwise, we risk remaining stuck in old patterns. Therapy, in its evolving forms, has the potential to bridge the gap between insight and transformation, and a more balanced approach that incorporates both exploration and direction may be the way forward. Our past shapes us, but it doesn’t have to define us. The real power of therapy lies in helping us take ownership of our lives, break generational cycles, and move towards a healthier, more fulfilled future.