I have just posted my latest paper on the development of Cognitive Emotive Narrative Therapy (CENT) here: http://abc-counselling.com/id185.html
This is how it begins:
CENT PAPER NUMBER NINE:
The "Individual" and its Social Relationships - The CENT Perspective
Copyright (c) Dr Jim Byrne, 30th December 2009
1. Introduction
Somewhere around the beginning of 2009, I was working on the development of a set of models that were taking shape as the core of Cognitive Emotive Narrative Therapy (CENT). I had reviewed my earlier work, from 2003, on the complex A>B>C model and was still unhappy with the way the "individual" shows up in my models as isolated and separate from others. (See CENT Paper No.1(a)[1])
I had begun with the Stimulus-Organism-Response model, and then built up a model of the A>B>Cs which included overlapping cognitions and emotions at point B in that model, as follows:
Figure 1 - A complex A>B>C model
In this model, the beliefs are assumed to be in the head of an individual, but note that the model does say that the A1 is "socially agreed". However, how this social agreement comes into effect, or gets represented at point B in the model is not discussed.
Much later in that paper, I went on to present a model which takes account of the body of the individual, as follows, but still no real social dimension:
Figure 2: The A>B>C Model Related to the Y-Model
Figure 2 shows a weight lifter, thinking-feeling-behaving in relation to his task. This image suggests that, when something happens at A1, it is interpreted at A2 (not shown), which triggers cognitive-emotive processing of the A2 signal at B (1, 2 and 3). At the same time, the B1 (unconscious cognitive-emotive processing) sends a signal to the Y-model (visceral, facial, physiological arousal), which responds by sending a signal to the C1 (not shown) where it combines with the output from B, and together these signals produce the emotional-behavioural response at C. As it stands this could seem to be a fairly straight restatement of the James-Lange theory of emotion. (Kagan and Segal, 1992, pages 321-322).
However, this still shows no connection of the individual to the social background from which he sprang.
I had lived my own life - at least up to the age of thirty, and a little beyond - as an (emotionally) isolated individual who did not understand relationship - or so it seemed to my analyst and me (back in 1968) - and yet I now (1980 onwards) knew from Zen philosophy that every "thing" is just a small distinction within "everything". In other words, Zen sees the individual as being distinguished from, but not separate from, everything else. There is only one "life" and it is all of a piece. So why did my psychological models show "separate individuals".
I had written to Dr Albert Ellis (probably around summer 2000) to say that, because REBT did not have a personality theory, I normally used Transactional Analysis (TA) when trying to understand the personality structure of my clients. TA postulates that we each have a number of ego states, primarily the Parent, Adult and Child ego states; and that our thinking, feeling and behaviour is determined by whichever ego state we are ‘occupying' (or ‘acting from') at any particular point in time. However, I still could not quite see how the TA Ego State model could be incorporated into the A>B>C> model of REBT, and I kept returning to that challenge from time to time. (This will be described in detail in Section 7 below).
...continued here...
Jim Byrne
Doctor of Counselling
The Institute for CENT Studies
and:
ABC Coaching and Counselling Services
Email address for Jim Byrne
~~~
No comments:
Post a Comment