Doing, not Being

This subcategory unfolded listening to all participants striving to be controlled and autonomous/self-contained, but also pulling away from intentional contemplative awareness, towards an automatic type of functionality. There was a clear conflict in striking the balance between doing and being with their clients.

Most participants evoked a sense of needing to be composed, calm and not phased by any questions. My impression was that practitioners were very adept at ‘blocking out’ their own emotions; this was demonstrated in their skilful side-stepping of more personal, probing questions. There was a clear sentiment of keeping a distance, when

135

having to focus on existential uncertainty and not quite knowing what the ‘right’ answer was, which was construed as being ‘professional’ in a therapeutic context.

In the 6th interview we discussed how this was probably because practitioners could be scared of offending, showing their ignorance, and also worried about being judged by the client in terms of their own beliefs or somehow having to justify who they are as a person. P10 and P8 enthusiastically agreed with this, saying that this was indeed what many practitioners could be feeling.

As described already, there was a definite theme of wanting to keep professional boundaries and a belief that staying neutral is the countertransference management strategy of choice to do this. These controlled actions were fuelled by focussing on the client at the expense of looking inward at themselves first. This was shared by most participants, which was perhaps a result of the stereotypical idea that religion is ‘untouchable’ and the corporate mandate of ‘being professional, controlled and entirely self-contained in the therapeutic relationship.

4.3.4.1 Bracketing & Neutrality – Keeping It In

The research process crystallized most participants’ difficulty with reflecting on their own feelings when working with religious clients, as reported by P6, below. Some participants acknowledged they had not reflected on the meaning of some responses, until thinking about it, in their interview. Once this realization took root, they started to recognise possible gaps in their thought processes. Below, P3 describes a moment like this, pondering this fresh realization:

“I can see the beliefs as either something we need to work with because it’s functionally related to the problem …or it’s …a kind of protective factor… but in terms of how it impacts on me…um… it’s a difficult question to answer.” (P6: 49-52) "I’ve not thought about it in terms of whether it (religion) has influenced me, it must have, I can’t say it hasn’t." (P3: 927-928)

Practitioners appeared reluctant to reflect on deeper feelings, unless probed with follow-up questions. This seemed matched with the belief that holding things in, is an important ability for a psychological practitioner to acquire:

136

“So keep bracketing any assumptions you may have and stick with the phenomenology.” (P4: 481-482)

“It leaves one feeling frustrated… it is just difficult really with clients, it’s a constant battle isn’t it… we need to get all of our assumptions out the way before we meet the clients, otherwise we’re just going to bring them into the room.” (P2: 520-523)

Above, P2 gives a picture of what it’s like to manage countertransference with regard to one’s own religious issues – it’s a constant “battle”. Again this ties in with the image of a “war”, whether it’s between herself and her colleagues, or on an intrapersonal level. P2 described this sense of needing to keep control with a slightly raised tone of voice, returning to her training days of being taught to work with cultural and diversity in a robotic fashion. Similarly, P12 described it as “ticking the box”.

“I think because of that power dynamic… we get trained this, it’s almost like I can say all this stuff off pat.” (P2: 54-55)

“It’s box tick. Do you have any spiritual or religious connections, yes/no? Yes, what would you identify yourself as? Methodist. Right, okay, move on.” (P12: 338-339)

P3, who has just been challenged about her religious beliefs, by a client, had the following response:

“I got practical in my head, which I think happens to us, we get very hung up, you know, ethically. Am I going to be responsible here? How do I deal with this?” (P3: 132-134)

This resulted in the participants feeling the need to suppress their own instincts or

intuition, by manipulating their professional identity. Similarly to P4 above, P9

described the only stance to take when working with a client’s religious beliefs was by using the technique of ‘bracketing’ to provide a consistent way of ‘neutralizing’ his own responses:

“One should have a neutrality and… if one’s doing evidence-based practice one should stick to that.” (P9: 596-597)

137

When exploring why staying neutral was so important culturally and professionally, P9 elaborated that this idea of staying neutral and keeping one’s own religious views hidden from the client, is also reproduced by the media and wider society:

“I think you have to be very careful because there have been stories in the press where GPs have suggested to people that they go to church or talked about their faith and people have been making complaints.” (P9: 592-594)

P9 explained his aim was to keep this part of himself hidden from the client. He seemed to use bracketing as a way of side-stepping the need to be reflexive as a psychologist; it not only provided him with a way of dampening his own reaction, but also allowed him to be in control of the therapist-client interaction:

“So, occasionally thoughts like that might have come up, outside, not in the session. And I might have kind of like joked about it.” (P9: 466-468)

Similarly, when asked about how it affects him when he works with clients religious beliefs, P6 described a belief around avoiding self-disclosure of his own religious orientation indicating a powerful influence rooted in his professional code of practice:

“It’s something that can be quite difficult to negotiate… but I don’t disclose a great deal anyway, in terms of therapy.” (P6: 56-57)

It occurred to me that in all of these cases, distancing was not only the means for keeping to the therapist code of conduct, but it was also used to express submerged emotions and feelings and was a way to connect on the surface. Distancing as a strategy to manage internal responses, seemed to have a dual function of either “keeping things in”, or “keeping things out”, to maintain control. Further analysis and interviews clarified that the participants’ desire to bracket out assumptions, could be a reluctance to process their own thoughts or feelings, a lack of reflexivity. P13 told me how he usually refers clients of a different faith to himself, to a colleague:

“I spoke to my Christian colleague and recommended that he be in touch with him [a Christian client].” (P13: 518-520)

When asked to reflect on the process of working with a client’s religious beliefs, participants all reported that bracketing helped them manage their own reactions. P2

138

and P6 summarised this well, stating simply that the strategy of bracketing helped them re-orient their thinking and maintain a sense of autonomy, when overidentifying or disidentifying strongly with a client. Stepping back in this instance, is a constructive intervention when practitioners were aware of their own internal response:

“Sometimes I have to squash responses because you can find yourself asking questions to try and open that up, like there’s a desire to convince…and you have to step back and think, what is the most helpful thing in this situation...is that actually impacting on the issue at hand. It struck a chord with me because I have a very different belief system.” (P2: 504-509)

“What does press my buttons… very right wing beliefs, those kind of things I find more difficult to leave alone – and there is a danger – there’s a strong pull and that becomes less about the client and more about me. But I am aware of that and that’s when I have to step back a moment and say okay, which direction is that going?” (P6: 352- 360)

Similarly, P3 described her use of bracketing to minimise the impact of her own responses on the therapeutic process:

“I think it’s about being open but mindful of the bracketing off. What is your stuff is your stuff and it should – it comes in the room, you can’t put it out.” (P3: 971-973)

She was also aware of the non-verbal expressions of herself, in the therapy room, highlighting the difficulty of staying "neutral". It is an important point because the therapy setting conveys something to the client about the therapist: you know, I’m in

a room which has got a lot of me in it as well as my patients and clients

“And you know, I’m in a room which has got a lot of me in it as well as my patients and clients.” (P3: 973-974)

It was interesting to see that this was a common experience for all participants, both religious and non-religious. It occurred to me whilst trying to reach sufficient saturation, that P10 succinctly summarised the process all of the participants were describing and struggling with, in one phrase:

139

Participants spoke about the intensity and complexity of working with religious beliefs as a psychological counsellor and sometimes feeling overwhelmed with this task, not knowing what to do or how to respond to the client. In these moments they, also, portrayed a difficulty sitting with the unknown or unknowable in their therapy session. It seems that the force of the client’s beliefs, created an automatic ‘knee-jerk’ reflex, to step back from the client and from their own discomfort, reinforcing their need to be autonomous, keeping their religious and professional selves apart and restricting their vulnerability with clients.

It appeared their underlying attempts to be in control and portray a professional image combined with their need to conform and fit in led to feelings of having to abide by ‘rules’ rather than listening to themselves. Participants were quicker and more likely to follow advice from colleagues, media reports and other sources than they were to reflect on their own thoughts. Consequently, the therapeutic relationship often became strained, evoking misattunements with their clients. The theme of failing at attunement is elaborated in the next main category.