COUNSELING WITH “UNCONDITIONAL POSITIVE REGARD”

“Unconditional Positive Regard” (UPR) had become popularized by the humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers. He explained that when the therapist regards the client with unconditionally positivity, the client can best improve:

·       The central hypothesis of this approach can be briefly stated. It is that the individual has within him or her self vast resources for self-understanding, for altering her or his self-concept, attitudes, and self-directed behaviour—and that these resources can be tapped if only a definable climate of facilitative psychological attitudes can be provided. ("Client-centered Approach to Therapy", in I. L. Kutash and A. Wolf (eds.), Psychotherapist's Casebook: Theory and Technique in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass)

Many have subsequently found this approach to be useful in advancing a productive relationship with their clients. However, I think that the building blocks of such a relationship must be much more nuanced.

I had worked for the New York City Department of Probation for 15 years and enjoyed relationships with many of my probationers. I tried to show them that they were important and valued. To demonstrate this, I would offer to make them coffee or hot chocolate when they would enter my office. I also made it clear that I was willing to take the time to listen and provide honest feedback.

I hope that they were able to see that my regard for them was not merely a manipulative ploy to get them to comply and reform so that I could feel that I was doing a good job. I genuinely regarded them as precious human beings despite their poor moral and vocational performances and the pain that they had caused others. As God’s highest creation, humanity bears a moral and intellectual resemblance to our Maker, and I feel that God had enabled me to see this resemblance in them, despite the destructiveness of their lives.

However, there was also another reason that I could see a different side of them – a side that transcended their dismal performance. I knew what God had done for me to lift me out of shame, self-contempt, and dysfunctionality, and I knew that He could do the same for them. He might not make them all into Harvard grads, but He could convert their lives into something beautiful. And I knew that I had to treat them according to how my Savior had treated me. Scripture warns us that our words must reflect this love:

·       With [our tongue] we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. (James 3:9-10)

My God had enabled me to accept myself despite my many failings, and this enabled me to also accept others, even to be drawn to them. Consequently, instead of running from them in disgust and contempt, I found I was drawn to them, wanting to bring out the best in them, despite my own long list of inadequacies.

I began to see them through the eyes of my God, who pleads with broken people in this manner:

·       "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” (Matthew 11:28-29)

As a counseling student, I had learned about the therapeutic necessity of UPR. However, for a long time, it was no more for me than a useful technique to elicit positive responses from the client. I acted out the UPR but didn’t really believe that someone who looked pathetic could actually be regarded in honesty with UPR.

I also observed the psychotherapists as they used UPR in a counseling setting. However, they were not sincere about it. I knew what they really thought, because we would have professional processing sessions during which we would discuss the cases.

Consistent with their materialistic assumptions, they often considered their counselee a laughable basket case. Therefore, for them, UPR was no more than a necessary manipulation, which they cynically used as one of many tools. Meanwhile, there were other therapists who were genuinely compassionate. For them, UPR complemented their natural empathetic inclinations, although they too probably had difficulty to philosophically justify UPR.

Why? UPR does not coincide with secularism. Secularism’s viewpoint is strictly materialistic—what you see is what you get. This has a tremendous impact on how we see and evaluate others! If we only have eyes to see what is before our nose, then we will not see the transcendent and are compelled by the limits of this worldview to evaluate others from the only perspective we have—the material perspective. However, from this perspective, worth could only be determined from one’s contributions (performance). Therefore, the one who wastes valuable resources by going to drug programs and jail (or the incurably “mentally ill”) should be regarded negatively worth and not worthy of UPR.

 As a result, the secular therapist fails to operate in a consistent manner with her worldview. She extends UPR to someone who is “unworthy” of it. If the secularist does extend this respect, she is hypocritical. If instead, she was to operate in accordance with her worldview, she would have to disrespect her non-worthy client. Sigmund Freud’s confession highlights this problem:

·       I have found little that is “good” about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or none at all. (Psychoanalysis and Faith)

It becomes increasingly difficult to exercise UPR when our clients fail to improve for us, if we are empathetic.

Besides, UPR should never become an excuse to enable or indulge immoral behavior. Instead, it was because I regarded my probationers with UPR, that I also regarded them as responsible moral beings, culpable before the law. Consequently, I also confronted and even threatened them. From the start, I laid out the law for them – their conditions of probation – explaining to them that I would not hesitate to send them back to court if they failed to fulfill their conditions. I feel that I dignified them by treating them as responsible agents, and I never received an argument from them about this! However, I assured them that, if they were trying to go in the right direction that I would be there for them, and if they were not, I’d be against them.

UPR doesn’t mean that relationships should only be about soft-fuzzies. There are objective behavioral standards to which we all must conform. This is because there is an objective moral reality supported by a righteous creator God. Without such a God, we cannot have coherent moral or legal standards. Otherwise, these standards would be no more than socially created, mutable, moral conventions. Would I then be able to require anyone to follow a set of arbitrary rules? Not at all!

However, this raises an important philosophical question – “How can we regard someone positively and negatively at the same time?” To reconcile this paradox, we need to recognize that there are two different perspectives – a material, performance-based perspective and a transcendent perspective. With only the material perspective, we can only judge someone based upon performance. With only the transcendent perspective, we cannot engage their behaviors as we must.

Occasionally, I would receive a report that my probationer was harassing his girlfriend. I would have to act in a way that wouldn’t compromise my principles - UPR, justice, and the need to protect the innocent. Happily, from a Biblical perspective, there is no essential conflict between these principles. If I regard the probationer with UPR, this does not mean that I cannot criticize or punish them. If I regard them positively, I will speak the truth to them and hold them accountable. We should not give in to the temptation to regard them as a mere product of their environment. This is to demean them. However, if the secularist is consistent with her materialistic assumptions, she will demean them as a mere product or result of deterministic forces.

If they have done wrong, they require a punitive response, not only for the good of society but also for their own good. I found that once they understood that I was trying to be fair, I rarely experienced any hostility from them. In fact, the younger ones would welcome a firm disciplinary hand.

I had derived a deep joy in doing this work. This was largely because I believed in what I was doing. I believed in justice, and I also believed in the value of the people who had been committed to my oversight.

True UPR requires humility – accurately seeing our inadequate selves, despite our desire to promote ourselves. If I regard myself as a superior human being, it becomes almost impossible to not look down on others. But the Lord had painfully revealed to me that if it were not for His protection, I could have easily ended up either behind bars or as a suicide statistic. This self-realization changes the way we regard others.