Popular Psychologies, a Critique

Has any reader shared my frustration at receiving advice or help from those who are consumed by their own errant models? Perhaps you are speaking to a counselor - as a friend or in a professional capacity - who refers your every comment to a list of categories that you don't subscribe to; or their maxim is simply 'love yourself more' or 'release the inner child', in response to whatever you say.

For me, it has been vital to understand where an advisor's training and sympathies lie before proceeding. Are they person centred, or cognitive behavioural therapists? Are they interested in The Secret or other Cosmic Ordering type philosophies, who believe that your thoughts attract your current circumstances?

The JOYme2u.com website expounds inner children and boundary setting as a key for happy relationships. I immediately found this grating and alarming.

The author speaks of acceptance and healthy behaviour as if these are objective and absolute. Having others set these standards for all immediately has consequences - even as far as medical and criminal procedures. For it says - this behaviour is good; and this is one that needs treating or even punishing; this person is not safe or normal. And how much power the label of normalcy has. The sociology of health expands on how 'healthy' and 'normal' are social constructs enforced by the powerful in society.

Presumably, this article is written by someone who is setting this perimeter - of what is healthy and acceptable - for his readers and (as a practising therapist) his clients. I immediately wish to ask HOW this was arrived at and what are his penalties for transgressing?

It seems to me that much of the advice on relationships requires a certain personality and a limited use of words. One must feel comfortable using phrases such as 'I own my feelings' and ' I feel...' rather than 'I am...'. This contracts our channels of expression. It is not acceptable to say that you are angry - for, according to these therapists - anger is therefore YOU. But we know that 'I am angry' is a statement; it is a choice to see language so literally as needing to spell out what is obvious - that anger is a feeling, not a defining condition.

No wonder that those not into this vocabulary steer so well clear of such psychologies. It means that those of us struggling in relationships with those who talk and think outside of psychology models are unable to move forward, because they don't respond to this philosophy or way of expression.

We are told to communicate honestly and directly - again this removes the intricacies individual human reaction, and gives us a standardised way to talk to one another, regardless of our different personalities, and that this is quite unnatural and uncomfortable to some.

It was interesting - and quite telling - when the writer shared his own past. One can see why the hurt child within might be so persuasive to his philosophy now, and why it was part of his own healing process which he offers to others. The ethos and wish are to be commended: it is to affirm and improve or lives, not to control us. But as with any one size fits all doctrines, this is flawed. There are the traits of peculiar and accepted language, of formula, and a standard to meet and be compared against. And any encounter is referred back to this framework, so it is only meaningful if all parties accept the framework.

I have always been interested in relationships and emotions, and been very willing to improve my relationships and communicate and listen. Perhaps this is where the proponents of such theories as this website should be wary; for if someone like me is cynical of them, how much more will those who do not seek out psychology and spiritual help books or counseling and naval gazing? Therefore, they are not reaching many of those who most need them.