What does it mean to be non-directive? Tony Merry, in his definitive introduction to classical client-centred therapy, describes it as respect for a person’s process of self-determination, and creating a relationship in which the sources for change reside in the person themselves.
In recent years, however, I think two different ways of understanding this non-directive stance have been articulated. The first is what we might call therapeutic non-directivity. Here, the therapist is not directive in the therapy session. They trust the client to talk about what is important to them, and to lead the way in finding answers to the question that they are posing. The therapist works mainly through empathic reflection and understanding.
The second is what we might call meta-therapeutic non-directivity. This is also a form of trusting the client’s own process of self-determination, but this time in terms of what they might want from therapy itself: that is, at a meta-therapeutic level. So, when the therapist is being non-directive at the meta-therapeutic level, one option might be to work in a therapeutically non-directive way. But there could be other options too—depending on what the client wants and what the therapist is skilled in and able to offer. For instance, if a client wanted to learn a particular mindfulness technique, or if they wanted advice on relationship problem, the therapist might input on these areas if they know how to. This wouldn’t, then, be therapeutic non-directivity, but it would still be non-directive at the meta-therapeutic level as it’s trusting that the client knows what is best for them.
It is often assumed, particularly in early stage person-centred trainings, that non-directivity means therapeutic non-directivity. So, for instance, if a client asks for guidance or suggestions, you reflect back to them that this is what they are looking for, and encourage them to find their own answers instead. But, in recent debates, many experienced person-centred practitioners have said that, in such instances, it may be quite appropriate for therapists to respond to the client’s wants: that is, to practice non-directivity at the meta-therapeutic level. Pluralistic therapy is a form of practice, emerging from the person-centred field, which particularly emphasises meta-therapeutic non-directivity. Some people have argued that pluralistic therapy is unnecessary because the person-centred approach, by its very nature, advocates this already. However, this criticism is very dependent on how the person-centred approach is defined. Given that, in many cases, person-centred non-directivity is understood at the therapeutic level alone, it may be useful to have a perspective that explicitly advocates a meta-therapeutic approach.
To a great extent, the stance that people take here may be dependent on how they understand the actualising tendency, and this is another person-centred concept that is open to a wide range of interpretations. In particular, do you understand the actualising tendency as something that lies deep within the person, outside of consciousness (what I have called an ‘essentialist understanding’ of the actualising tendency); or do you understand the actualising tendency in terms of the person knowing, consciously and here-and-now, what is best for themselves (an ‘existential understanding’)? If you take the latter perspective, you are more likely to trust that the person can, there-and-then in therapy, articulate something of what they want and need. But if you see the actualising tendency as something buried deeply away, you are more likely to feel that it needs time, space, and therapeutic non-directivity to be able to emerge.
At the meta-therapeutic level, we can also distinguish between active and reactive non-directivity. Reactive non-directivity is where we would respond to particular requests from the client if they made them (assuming, again, we were appropriately trained), but we wouldn’t specifically solicit meta-therapeutic suggestions or suggest options. Active non-directivity at the meta-therapeutic level, on the other hand, might mean that we would ask clients about the kinds of therapeutic inputs that they would want, or even make suggestions about what we believed might help them. Pluralistic therapy tends to advocate such an approach. The assumption here is that, because of the power differential between therapists and clients, clients may not feel able to say what they want unless they are asked. They might also not be aware of all the different options. But the danger, here, is clearly that clients may feel obliged to agree with therapists, and in so doing lose their own self-direction.
Of course, there are no rights or wrong here, and each of these forms of non-directivity may be very useful to clients. They are also not mutually exclusive. But what may be important is that therapists—and particularly trainees—are aware of what kind of non-directivity they are advocating and practising. The general definition of non-directivity is so broad, and so open to misunderstandings, that specifying what you, personally, mean by it is essential for anyone advocating such a stance (and particularly if you are trying to write about it in an assignment!). Non-directivity, as Tony Merry said, is about a deep respect for the client’s own process of self-determination, but how we manifest that respect in our client work is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires careful consideration and articulation.
This blog post can be referenced as: Cooper, M. (2021, Sept. 21). Non-directivity: Therapeutic and meta-therapeutic perspectives. https://mick-cooper.squarespace.com/new-blog/2021/9/21/non-directivity-therapeutic-and-metatherapeutic-perspectives