Autonomy in Psychotherapy from a Feminist Point of View
Bidisha Chatterjee, nee Mukherjee
18th December, 2009
Most of classic -and some of modern- psychology has been somewhat steeped in the values of the patriarchal mode of thinking. You may observe such bias, for instance, in the different theories of moral development put forth by Kohlberg, Freud and Piaget. Each of them takes a linear approach. Kohlberg and Piaget take similar identical approaches, in which they suggest that girls can at best achieve only a slightly lesser level o achievement.
As (in)famous as Freud's theories were, the criticisms leveled against them by the feminists are also equally well-known. Perhaps one of his most controversial ideas were around the Oedipus and Elektra complexes. The point at which a boy is free fromthis complex is when he starts developing autonomy, rationality, etc. As an adult, he reflects this impartiality and his emotions are kept leashed. Girls, according to Freud, lack in development because they never clearly resolve their Elektra complex. Feminists, on the contrary, don't see this as a lack, but believe this is rather a one sided way of explaining away the use of emotions in problem solving.
The feminists have taken up issue with the structure of the self in mainstream psychology, as well:
>>Mainstream: By morality, what is generally meant is equality.
Feminists: They are critical of this, and insist that it would be ignorant to treat everyone the same because differences DO exist!
>>Mainstream: Ideas of reason and decision-making emphasize impartiality, a sort of neutrality, detached from context.
Feminists: They wonder if such a view from nowhere is even possible. They believe in open ended decisions.
>>Feminists do not believe that responsibility equals being answerable for one's actions, but that it should go beyond 'duty'.
>>Mainstream: relationships are defined in terms of give-and-take, of needs, and of “contractuality”. Solution of problems is based on what is just, on impartiality. Private emotions are not aired in public and relationships are kept at arm's length.
Feminists: Their perspective is all about “connectivity”.
>>Mainstream: An autonomous person sees hierarchy in nearly every relationship. Psychotherapists with this sort of training often believe they have power over the client. A man would supposedly not understand a woman client because to him an objective relationship is important. Subjective involvement is almost nil.
Feminists: Although they agree that too much emotional involvement can be detrimental in practice, they believe the mindet to understand the other's emotions is important.
In fact, feminists deny that autonomous development of the self is possible, because human beings are social animals. To understand what a man is, you also have to understand what he is not. In this respect, Carol Gilligan has made a remarkable contribution, and helped formulate the requirements of a healthy, care-based relationship between therapist and client.
And thus, the feminist version of self development is as follows:
>>The self develops amidst associations and connections
>>Self prefers care over reason (although feminsts haven't gone so far as to deny the importance of reason).
>>The primary moral imperative is caring for others, not just equality
>>Responsibility ought to mean care and respect at a personal level
>>The self perceives relationships as interconnectivity and wmotional bonding and not just contractual relationships.
>>The self arrives at decisions in the context of relationships. The question is, “How to respond?” not simply, “What is just?” as in mainstream belief. Mrs Chatterjee then wound up her lecture and drove home her point with reference to the Heinz dilemma.
Tissy ma'am then had some interesting comments to make. She pointed out that there lies dangers in over-generalization. This patriarchal psychiatric model comes from the West, and that Ayurveda does consider everything the feminists are saying. So, culture must not be forgotten as a major influence. The humanistic school also talks about individual uniueness and relationships. To this, Mrs Chatterjee added that therapist-client situations ought to conider species survival. Needs must be met, but in a way that transcends the give-and-take policy. Power relationships do exist, but should be viewed as power WITH power and not power OVER power.
Someone in the audience then raised the question of professionality. Would it then not be better to go to a friend, who would be just as caring, maybe more? Mrs Chatterjee responded that feminists criticize the modern concept of empathy. They assert that therapists should maintain professionality, but should keep it at a human-to-human level. Co-feeling, and not empathy, and interconnectivity instead of inter-involvement are emphasized.
“But isn't the concept of co-feeling a little presumptious?” another member of the audience wanted to know. For instance, how can the therapist really know EXACTLY what a rape-victim is going through unless (s)he has experienced it for him/herself? Mrs Chatterjee clarified her stance, saying that feminists believe today's concept of empathy to be a limited, insufficient form of sympathy. The therapist shold try to “extend beyond his/her area of thought” and cultivate the mindset to accommodate what the client says into hs/her framework. Consider various possibilities of suffering and think about what best can be done.
With this, the session was wrapped up. Being as thought-provoking as it was, this lecture still left some questions unanswered in the minds of some of the audience members. For instance, how possible and plausible is co-feeling? How can a therapist possible understand the world of, say, a schizophrenic? Also, some of us felt it was unfair that the 'onus of emotionality' should always fall on the woman's shoulders. Why can't women also be rational and autonomous? Isn't the concept of the emotional woman a stereotype?
No comments:
Post a Comment