Giving clients permission not to speak encourages disclosure. Explicitly granting the freedom to subvert our power frees the client to tell us what they need.

The first time is to check out the therapist, the second is to tell you the real problem.

I was given this advice in training and for years it seemed to be true. Now, in my practice at least, it is the exception rather than the rule.

The balance of power in therapy lies with the therapist. We decide when, where and for how long is each appointment. We set the boundaries and grant exceptions. The client must work within our framework.

Clients can exercise control by withholding information or themselves. Failure to attend is the ultimate means of regaining control of therapy. More subtly, the client can, without overtly challenging the therapist, keep back important facts for as long as they choose.

Full disclosure can occur in the first appointment if the client has permission to withhold. I tell clients “if there are any questions you don’t feel comfortable answering, that’s OK”. It is now rare for clients to surprise me in the second appointment (unless I forget my line).

The underlying process may be that, having been given permission to withhold, the client can now exercise control by disobeying you…and telling all. This appears manipulative but this accusation would be genuine only if the permission to withhold were false, given only to manoeuvre the client rather than arising from a genuine respect for their privacy.

One Response

Comments are closed.