Editing Talk:Co-counselling (section)

== Sept, Oct. 2005, Jan. 2006 ==

Someone took out today all of the external links that were not to the official Re-Evaluation Counseling Web site.  Although I agree that the point of those links needs to be better integrated into the article, they seem relevant to what a good article on this topic would be.  So I reverted the article to the prior version, which contained additional external links.  But some of those no longer work, so I took those out.  [[User:Jjshapiro|Jeremy J. Shapiro]] 13:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I am removing the links to CCI and RC-attacking websites because of the unfair and unbalanced portrayal of RC in the main text. I am writing a new version, which will be loaded shortly. In addition, I suggest that CCI and RC have different pages. CCI is a very small organisation and should not be free to colonise the main page for co-counselling in this way, which misportrays it to the wider world. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:86.135.33.229|86.135.33.229]] ([[User talk:86.135.33.229|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/86.135.33.229|contribs]]) 20:25, 7 October 2005 UTC.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->

:Agreed there should be seperate articles on RC and CCI, but this doesn't justify censoring out links you don't agree with. I know very little about CCI or RC and watch this article because I want to learn more about the subject. I don't have any sort of axe to grind with either organisation, but I don't appreciate attempts to block out what others don't want me to read. I am able to make up my own mind. Concentrate on editing the body text to produce an impartial NPOV overveiw of co-counselling rather than acting as a self-appointed censor. [[User:Quercusrobur|quercus robur]] 21:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

:Just re-read the article, it looks pretty balanced to me as it stands, I don't see any evidence of CCI 'colonisation', as an outsider it seems to reflect the RC & CCI differences of approach quite well, without taking the side of either faction. [[User:Quercusrobur|quercus robur]] 00:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

::There aren't "differences" between the "approach" of CCI and RC. RC is fundamentally different, it is a liberation theory for oppressed people to throw off the burden of distress (particularly "internalised oppression" - the inward result of external oppression) so that they can become free to fight against the underlying cause of the oppression. It is based on the concept that all humans are free and equal, that oppression is not needed for good human functioning and that class societies are the root cause of all distresses and human "problems". RC is a worldwide movement based on the above with about 50,000 practising counselors. It is not a therapy and is not fundamentally interested in "self-help" or therapy as a goal; the goal is personal and human liberation. CCI is essentially a small group started in the 70s as a criticism of RC by a therapist, John Heron, who joined with mental health system people and others stung by head on critiques of their role in maintaining the oppressive society to create a distorted and watered down version of the theories of RC, creating another minor "therapy" organisation. The two effectively have nothing in common although they may sound similar. CCI has about 2,500 members worldwide and is in decline.  <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:81.159.45.25|81.159.45.25]] ([[User talk:81.159.45.25|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/81.159.45.25|contribs]]) 00:10, 22 January 2006 UTC.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->

:::Some interesting comments here. I seem to recall the claim that Jackins "invented" co-counseling was challenged some years ago, it was argued that he picked up and adapted dianetic counseling from Scientology. I also recall conversations with people who knew Jackins in the 50s in the West Coast of the US, they felt that at that time it was pretty clear he was the organiser for L Ron Hubbard in Dianetics in that part of the US. Not sure when this stopped exactly. Later on RC was declared "suppressive" (eg, banned) by Scientology. Not that these bans had much effect other than in the minds of Scienos, but this suggests HJ had pretty definitively broken with L Ron. Not sure when this happened, some time in the 60s I think. Jackins was a pretty sharp characted, I met him a few times - he had a good deal of the showman to him, was something of a salesman or huckster but also was a pretty clever guy who could make you think about things in a different way. He was very outspoken and annoyed a lot of people. I think he tended to adopt some ideas from other people and whilst not exactly claim them as his own, kind of left you with the impression he'd invented them, which I found a bit dishonest. Examples would have included his critiques of the mental health system, which he got from RD Laing and others, against class structures (mainly he adapted Marx and Lenin for those), his little books of quotes and such (Mao), very long speeches (Castro) and so forth. He was a kind of a strange mix of new age, Marxist, science-fiction-ist, salesman and therapist. All this was very attractive to some and there was always a cotery of (mainly women) who were big fans. He was kind of unpleasant to guys quite a bit. He published many books, and, like any good Marxist leader, his followers are expected to bulk buy and memorise them. Some claims in them, like those of the origins of RC (HJ claims he stumbled it by accident whilst working as a union activist trying to help fellow members - the truth appears to be that he was a keen Dianeticist who practised Dianetics for a while and, finding it wanting, gradually adapted the techniques) are highly suspect. There also appears to be quite a difference between personal reactions to Jackins and use of the theories of RC, which focus on encouraging discharge (laughing, crying, trembling, yawning, etc) as natural relief mechanisms for stored up painful emotions, leading to mental relief and recapture (re-emergence) of normal intelligent function. The latter seems to be growing in popularity all the time, and I would say was largely "discovered" or "developed" by HJ and his inner circles. Criticisms of Jackins have focused on his veracity and authoritarianism and on his sexual conduct. The first two are easier to test and seem to be true in some cases. The latter is very difficult to establish as factual and most people within the current RC organisation seem to avoid the subject. Fairly strictly applied "no-socialising" rules exist within the current organisation aiming to prevent straying into such relationships. (Derek Davies, London, England.)  <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:81.159.45.25|81.159.45.25]] ([[User talk:81.159.45.25|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/81.159.45.25|contribs]]) 00:10, 22 January 2006 UTC.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->

The attitude expressed by supporters of RC towards CCI speak for themselves.  CCI does not have a corporate structure and so has no overall opinion about RC or anything else outside the practice of co-counselling sessions.  Each member of CCI has their own view, some are quite anti RC but most that I know are well meaning towards RC.  I have completed an RC fundamentals course and counselled with RC for a few years as well as having been active in CCI for over 20 years.  Most CCI people know about RC and have an understanding of the differences between the two approaches.  There is no evidence that CCI is in decline.  Since CCI does not have a membership structure it is impossible to know how many members there are.  The number of people who come within "A Definition of CCI" must be far higher that the 2,500 figure quoted above.  [[User:John Talbut|John Talbut]] 13:59, 23 January 2006 UTC

:Having worked in mainstream counselling organisations in the UK, I find the idea that CCI members have no opinion about RC or are postive towards it ridiculous. Many CCI publications are fiercely critical, and meetings I went to basically consisted of one long snipe at RC. All very bizarre really seeing as most had started doing co-counselling in RC and many admitted finding it life-changing, but seemed to reserve the right to attack it. However I've since concluded that the "break-away" of CCI was really about money and ego - John Heron and subsequent "teachers" of "co-counselling" outside of RC didn't want to operate in a regulated and carefully structured way that would limit how much they could charge for classes and how they could claim ownership of it, and, if they wanted to, abuse it. They had very specific disagreements with RC about important areas like the "no-socialising" rule - many CCI counselors do in fact want to be free (very unethically in my opinion) to cross over from co-counselling into sexual and other relationships at will. This disrupts the effectiveness of co-counselling and makes it less anti-distress and causes confusion and childish behaviour. I met Heron a couple of times and was under-impressed - he seemed to me a typical academic rather than a radical counselor, and having read his books, seen his TV programmes and met him, formed the distinct impression that he was mainly interested in tucking co-counseling under his belt as his baby and resenting RC for having thought of it first. (An RC'er in England)  <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:81.159.45.25|81.159.45.25]] ([[User talk:81.159.45.25|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/81.159.45.25|contribs]]) 16:40, 23 January 2006 UTC.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->

::Well, there you are.  Anyone wishing to to read what some members of CCI actually do believe can look at the CCI web sites.

::I have removed the reference to Harvey Jackins basing co-counselling on his experience of personal counselling as this is contested and not a NPOV.  I have reworded the paragraphs about the ways of working as the question of who is in charge in a session is an important difference between the two approaches.[[User:John Talbut|John Talbut]] 12:16, 25 January 2006 UTC

:::The idea that in RC, the client is not in charge of the session, is a complete misrepresentation of, and misunderstanding of, the basic theory of RC, and this is not therefore an "important difference between the two approaches" as John Talbut claims. In RC, the client and counselor both think about the client, and the client is in charge of themselves and decides what to do; the counselor can encourage the client to discharge every way they can think of, but there is no question whatever of the client not being in charge. I have therefore ammended the Talbut corrections. Sarah Williams <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:SarahWilliams|SarahWilliams]] ([[User talk:SarahWilliams|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/SarahWilliams|contribs]]) 22:28, 25 January 2006.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->