Existential-Humanism, the RA Counseling Theory

As I’m wrapping up my final few weeks of my first semester of graduate school, I wanted to write a reflection on what I’ve been learning. In my program, our first year is focused on finding our counseling theoretical orientation. Existential-Humanism (EH) is the one that has really lit my fire.

What I love about EH art therapy (EHAT) so much is how well it blends with my pre-existing Relationship Anarchy (RA)- inspired worldview and the Intentional Peer Support (IPS) model I use at work. As part of my final project for my Theories of Counseling course, I decided to write a piece about these intersections.

From Existential Philosophy to Existential Psychotherapy

EH pulls from existential philosophy for its theoretical underpinnings. Specifically, it works with existential phenomenology and considers its historical pioneers to be philosophers such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Heidegger. From my understanding, EH draws predominantly from the ideas of Kierkegaard and Heidegger as its foundation. Kierkegaard believed that angst, or anxiety and dread, was imperative for becoming fully human, and Heidegger believed that living a meaningful and authentic life was the best way for someone to cope with their angst (Story, 2007).

Existential psychotherapy was born from existential philosophy, largely due to the work of Frankl, May, Bugenthal, and Yalom (Story, 2007). Each of these psychotherapists played a significant role in developing the Existential psychotherapy model.

Both existential psychotherapy and EH share an assumption that there are 4 universal concerns of life:

“Alone” (2022)

1.     Death – angst is a natural part of being aware of our mortality

2.     Meaninglessness – life is without meaning until we give it meaning

3.     Isolation – we are, in the existential sense, always alone

4.     Freedom – the weight of our freedom can create angst

What sets EH apart from existential philosophy/psychotherapy is the added assumption that people are capable of healing and knowing themselves (Moon, 2009; Story, 2007).

The reason I think EH and RA work so well together is because of the strong emphasis on each person finding the meaning of their own life. Through this process of finding meaning, a person can heal and know themselves. When I think about the self-reflection that goes into an RA lifestyle, it feels like a similar process. Finding meaning for one’s life is like identifying one’s core relationship values.

Finding Meaning Through Adversity

“Liberation” (2020)

EH is largely influenced by the work of Viktor Frankl, who is someone I greatly admire. A Holocaust survivor, Frankl created a school of therapy based off his experiences in the concentration camps, called logotherapy. ‘Logotherapy’ means ‘therapy through meaning,’ and operates from the assumption that finding meaning in one’s life and through one’s struggles is the path to freedom (Frankl, 1962). From my own experiences of growth-through-adversity, I find this worldview deeply moving.

My values and RA-lifestyle are a result of my own process of finding meaning through adversity. Wanting a life filled with authentic connections and intentional relationships came from painful experiences of trying to fit in the status quo and getting burned. Having experienced what it’s like to be disregarded and unseen is what motivates me to do my best to see and regard others in their authentic truth.

‘Finding meaning’ is like the final task of IPS, ‘moving toward.’ After the other tasks of ‘connection,’ ‘worldview,’ and ‘mutuality’ have been explored, a person is encouraged to find what they’re moving towards. This approach emphasizes the need to look forward at what is next, rather than looking backward or ‘away’ from. An example would be instead of saying ‘I want to stop being lazy,’ saying, ‘I want to be more productive.’

The Therapeutic Alliance – Authentic Connection

Bruce Moon, a prominent existential art therapist, uses logotherapy as the foundation for his work and expands upon it with creative action. Something I admire about his therapeutic style is how seemingly hands-off he is. His sessions are organic and fluid. There is no agenda for his clients, and he is a mutual participant in the exchange. In his book Existential Art Therapy: The Canvas Mirror (3rd ed.), he uses several case studies to describe the chapter concepts. He talks about 3 ways to be genuinely attentive with clients: (1) doing with, (2) being open to, and (3) honoring pain.

Doing With

When Moon (2009) talks about how he participates in his art therapy sessions, it sounds like how I hope to conduct mine. He stresses the importance of the art therapist maintaining their own artistic practice, and modeling therapeutic art-making from the moment the client walks into the studio. He often works on his own projects during sessions and invites conversation about his work.

I believe that it’s unethical to ask someone to do something we aren’t willing to do ourselves. The best leaders and guides are those who have gone through the depths of themselves; they are people who pull from their own experiences to provide insight and wisdom to another.

In ‘Relationships are Like Gardens,” relationships are likened to the process of creating and maintaining a garden. We are responsible for tending our own garden and if working in a community garden bed, we work alongside other gardeners. We ask what they’re planting, how their bed is developing and share our experience. We don’t tell them what to plant or how to plant it, and if someone asks our advice, we pull from our experiences of past seasons. Honoring autonomy like this is how I advocate for folks to engage with their relationships, it is how I approach my consultation and peer-support work, and this is the type of therapeutic alliance I plan to model in my practice.

Within the EH model is the belief that meaning and healing can only be found in relationship with others. This truth constantly reveals itself to me with my own struggles, and when I’m engaged with callers on the peer-support line I work with. I hear so many stories about folks feeling ‘stuck’ until a particular call or interaction with another person. Connection brings growth and can guide change or new perspective.

Being Open

Moon’s openness with his clients about the meaning and experience of his own artwork is the kind of Radical Transparency I discuss when writing about RA. I believe a professionally appropriate amount of self-disclosure is imperative to the therapeutic alliance between client and counselor, and I try to embody this in my relationship consultation and peer-support work.

In these relationship dynamics there is always a power differential. Even in my peer-support work, although the IPS model holds ‘mutuality’ as one of its 4 tasks, I am still in the paid position and am the one with the training. Being radically transparent about these dynamics is the first step toward establishing mutuality. In the art therapy setting, following the ‘seldom initiate, always respond’ model can help find balance between sharing too much and too little and allows the client to lead the discussion.

Moon (2009) says that the success of the client’s journey ultimately depends on their willingness to share their story with the counselor. By being open and responding to, the counselor allows space for the client to grow in trust. By allowing for self-disclosure, the power-differential becomes less-so. This model provides non-judgmental acceptance and honors the client’s autonomous self by avoiding agendas.

Honoring Pain

“The Patriarchy Has Major Side Effects” (2021)

I think this may be the most important of the three ways to reach authentic connection in EH. Suffering is a universal experience among humans, although it looks and feels different for each person. Those who’ve experienced significant pain (and healed from it) tend to be the most empathetic toward others’ suffering. In order to truly honor another’s pain, one must honor their own pain first.

IPS talks about ‘sitting with the discomfort’ when providing support. This means that when someone comes to us with their pain, we don’t try to diminish it or fix it. We sit with them in it. Moon (2009) talks about a similar process in EHAT, saying that less pain is a side effect of therapy, not the goal. Instead of trying to make the client feel better, the art therapist’s task is to help them understand their pain and discover the meanings of their suffering.

My ‘Theories of Counseling’ professor is an EH therapist. When discussing this part of the process, he said: “I can’t take your pain away, but I’m here with you every step through it,” (J. Rock, existential-humanism, October 18, 2022). To me, this is compassion in its highest form and is what I strive to embody in every relationship I have.

I think about the sometimes-uncomfortable space when honoring another’s autonomy and honoring my boundaries may cause conflict. In rule-based relationship structures, one might hold another accountable for solving their discomfort by forcing them into action or inaction. In RA, each person is held accountable for their feelings, and action falls on each person to do what they need for their wellness and safety in a way that doesn’t impede another’s autonomy. Sometimes that means changing relationship agreements, sometimes it means changing an internal belief. Similarly, in EHAT, the therapist doesn’t take on the client’s pain, but sits with them while they work through it themselves.

EHAT Across Cultures

One of the most beautiful things about EHAT is how adaptable it is across various cultures. Something I’ve noticed in my studies is how most counseling theories are difficult to adapt outside the Western-European ideology.

Although EHAT originates from the ideas of Western-European, cishet men, the open-ended views of this perspective encourage adaptation from other backgrounds. Across different cultures who use EH/EHAT, the methods look very different, but the core beliefs are still the same. There is not one right way to ‘be with’ a client, just as there’s not one specific definition of what ‘suffering’ is or what the meaning of one’s suffering is meant to look like. Embedded in this theory is the idea that everyone must decide these details for themselves.

This may sound very individualistic, and in some ways because of its Western-European roots I think it does, but the emphasis on growth through relationship with others opens these ideas up to collectivist interpretations.  EHAT is about the process rather than the techniques, making it very open for adaptation (Story, 2007).

Translating EHAT into my RA work feels like a seamless process given these intersections between the two worldviews. For me, RA is based in Radical Transparency, Radical Acceptance, honoring autonomy, authentic relating, and personal accountability. EHAT bolsters these beliefs by emphasizing mutuality and authenticity in the therapeutic alliance.

EHAT encourages a client-led practice where the therapist responds more than they initiate; the therapist is there to facilitate a process, not implement a program or series of techniques. The word ‘existential,’ can make this orientation seem unappealing to some, but I find it to be the most natural therapeutic orientation I’ve learned about so far.

Helpful Resources:

Frankl, V. E. (1962). Man’s Search for Meaning: An Introduction to Logotherapy. Boston: Beacon Press.

Mikayla. (2018, September 11). Relationships are like gardens. Medium. https://medium.com/@mmmikayla/relationships-can-be-like-gardens-98827d8dfdfa

Moon, B. L. (2009). Existential Art Therapy: The Canvas Mirror (3rd. ed.). C. C. Thomas.

Story, M. L. (2007). Existential art therapy. Canadian Art Therapy Association Journal, 20(2), 22-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/08322473.2007.11434771

—

Intentional Peer Support (IPS) official website

The short instructional manifesto for relationship anarchy — Andie Nordgren

— written by Emily Lichtenberg

An Introduction to Radical Transparency

For me Radical Transparency (RT) is a core value. It’s so important that I have it as a key facet in my definition of Relationship Anarchy, and it is one of the first things I address with my clients.

When I talk about Radical Transparency I am typically faced with a few prominent questions, mainly:

·       What is the difference between RT and just being transparent?

·       Doesn’t RT lead to over-sharing? How do you maintain boundaries at the same time?

·       What’s the point if no one else is being radically transparent with me, but I am with them?

·       Being honest about something ended up with me being hurt in the end, why would I do that again?

All of these are important questions, and this week’s writing addresses all these points.

What is Radical Transparency?

Radical Transparency refers to the practice of openly sharing what is alive for us within any given moment. This practice allows us and our beloveds to know where our/their intentions are and helps foster deeper levels of understanding. - Emily’s definition

“Awakening to the Other Self” (2018)

RT is a dedicated practice where we allow those in connection with us more insight into our present moment experience. This can mean a beloved, friend, or family member. This can also mean a business colleague or a stranger we have a momentary interaction with. Most importantly, this also means connection with oneself.

What makes this practice radical as opposed to just “being transparent” is that there is a constant engagement with the act of transparency. It’s not just about being honest but about being honest with intention.

For me, practicing RT is a conscious choice. While I tend to be a rather transparent person by nature, I still have moments where my instinct is to hide a facet of my present experience from whomever I am engaging with. This may be hiding a moment of depression from a beloved or being quiet about a personal struggle during a client’s session. Sometimes there is a valid reason for withholding sharing with another, however, I find that how I’m addressing the experience within myself is where the difference really lies.

I understand the idea of “being transparent” as typically referring to how one interacts with the external world, meaning that being transparent refers to how we interact with others. RT, however, emphasizes transparency in all connections in all moments – that means in moments within ourselves as well.

Radical Transparency is not the same as oversharing

RT doesn’t necessarily imply that we are encouraged to overshare our experiences with others, nor does it mean crossing ours or others boundaries within sharing for the sake of “being transparent.”

I will use the example above regarding times when I am struggling with a personal issue during a session with a client to showcase this. As one might anticipate, it would be a boundary violation of the consultant/client relationship for me to openly share my woes during the session. I have a duty to be present with and for my client during our time together.

When something in my personal life is so alive for me that I feel its presence in my sessions, I take note of it within myself. A few minutes before a session begins, I will sit with the aliveness and be radically transparent with myself about my current state of being. RT in this instance is honoring my current state of being, while also being mindful of what boundaries are in place for the coming interaction. I allow myself space in this reflection to assess and decide what I need to successfully transition into the session, and I go from there. Taking this time with myself allows me to show up for my client in the fullest capacity that I may.

Often my clients bring a similar concern or situation from their own life into session and act as a mirror to my own story. I am typically able to see or pick up on patterns and thoughts both in them (and myself) that I might not have caught otherwise. Without directly expressing to them that I have a resonating experience, I can lead the conversation with this in heart. This usually lends itself to a very productive session for both parties.

I consider this a form of RT because I am intentionally not hiding anything about my present experience from the client, but I am also not directly sharing what I am experiencing with words. I am using my experience to inform how I connect with them and stay present with their experience, which makes the moment our experience.

When a client asks me if I’ve experienced the conflict they are discussing, I answer with a more direct type of RT. I will say whether I have or haven’t experienced that conflict, and if they ask for insight into how I navigated it, I will share what insight I believe will be most helpful for them. I can share “yes, this was hard for me, too, and here is how I navigated that,” without oversharing the details of those long, painful nights in between Point A and Point B.

Please note that I am not a licensed therapist and my consulting practice does not adhere to the same boundaries as a licensed psychotherapist. My future therapeutic practice will, however, reflect those boundaries.

 I make it a point to iterate to my clients that I believe inner work is a lifelong practice, and that my own journey is ongoing.  This allows for interactions to become human-to-human, rather than just consultant-to-client. Boundaries are still in place, but the perceived power dynamic within the interaction is lessened.

Maintaining boundaries while practicing RT

It can be easy to perceive RT as a means for pushing boundaries (this includes oversharing). I want to iterate that truly embodying RT includes a wholehearted understanding and acceptance of our and others’ boundaries.

Part of being radically transparent with oneself includes knowing our boundaries. For me, I can overshare sometimes because of my deeply ingrained people-pleasing trauma responses. The wounded child within me feels the need to explain myself constantly. In being radically transparent with myself about the source of this behavior and with how much information I really want to share, I was able to discover where my sharing boundary is.

With my sharing boundary firmly in my mind and heart, I set out to learn new ways to share my experiences with others that feel authentic to my needs as well. Often I find that the best way to practice RT and maintain my boundary is to accurately name my experience and my intention for sharing. For me this looks like: “I’m experiencing/feeling _____, and I would rather not talk about it. I’m just letting you know, so that you can know where I’m at right now.”

RT does not mean we have to share all of the details of our inner world with another, but it does mean that we dedicate intention to naming our experiences in a moment to those around us to avoid potential miscommunication, and to foster deeper understanding.

Being radically transparent in a non-transparent world

Sometimes I find it disheartening how many people struggle with honesty and transparency in our society. Through my experiences with friends, lovers, and colleagues, I’ve come to the conclusion that these struggles come from a mixture of poor communication skills and a lack of RT practice within the self. This may not be true of everyone, but it helps me lean into deeper compassion in moments where my RT practice is not reciprocated.

I truly believe that the only way to foster more connection based in RT is to be the initiator. How can others discover the true freedom in Radical Transparency if they don’t experience it firsthand? A core part of my practice as a Relationship Anarchist is acknowledging that I have no control over the people in my life. That includes their abilities to meet me in radically transparent spaces.

I find that when being radically transparent with another it can be easy to see when it’s not being reciprocated. I combat this discord with more Radical Transparency. I kindly and compassionately name my experience, and I inquire with genuine curiosity about their perspective. In the event that this does not foster mutual RT, I kindly and transparently assert my boundary and shift in desire.

Sometimes people may come off as not being transparent when they believe they are. There are plenty of potential explanations for this, but the important thing to remember is that if something within a connection doesn’t feel right to you, then it is your duty to be transparent about that experience, rather than attempt to change the other to your liking.

When being radically transparent creates conflict

The final question I receive about RT often revolves around the fear of conflict. As a peacekeeper, I empathize greatly with conflict aversion, however, sometimes conflict is necessary.

I find that practicing RT evades more serious conflicts because you give opportunity to air grievances and discover conflicting desires before they have time to fester. For example, when exploring relationship dynamics with a new beloved, I much prefer to find out early if we are compatible than months down the road. By being radically transparent about feelings and desires right off the bat, it saves me time and energy addressing these things immediately.

In my experiences, having these conversations earlier on also tends to save meaningful relationships – if we can have a transparent dialogue early on and both parties feel seen, heard, and respected afterward, then we now have a stronger foundation for which to build whatever relationship we want. When I am not able to have these transparent dialogues or feel seen/heard after an attempt at RT with someone, I kindly and compassionately move on.

I would also like to say that just because RT makes a moment of conflict easier to navigate, does not mean that the conflict will not hurt. Hurt feelings are extremely valid, and it can be very disappointing to discover the end of a connection due to a transparent conversation. While the hurt can be present and valid, the “ripping of the Band-Aid” tends to be less painful (for less time) than a prolonged betrayal of oneself for the sake of conflict avoidance, and that is why I find practicing RT so valuable.

It’s important to remember that we are only in control of our actions and that the reactions of another person are not a reflection of us. People in our lives are not obligated to accept our truths as theirs, just as we are not obligated to accept others’ truths that don’t resonate with us. Conflict is a natural part of life, but I have found that navigating such spaces with Radical Transparency can ease these moments and foster deeper understanding and compassionate, human-to-human communication.

— written by Emily Lichtenberg