Amida Trust Papers: Empathy for a Real World

Occasional paper

EMPATHY FOR A REAL WORLD

by Prasada Caroline Brazier

The concept of empathy is central to person-centred theory. Rogers describes the process of empathic connection as follows (1951, p29):

...It is the counsellor's function to assume, in so far as he is able, the internal frame of reference of the client, to perceive the world as the client sees it, to perceive the client himself as he is seen by himself, to lay aside all perceptions from the external frame of reference while he is doing so, and to communicate something of this empathic understanding by doing so.

Rogers saw the therapist's ability to empathise with the client as a core requirement of the healing process. If the client received sufficient genuine empathic caring, he would grow towards self-actualization.

Rogers suggests that in order to achieve an empathic relationship with the client, the therapist needs to be able to put aside other viewpoints, especially her own, and get into the shoes, or rather the eyes, of the client. She needs to achieve a level of engagement with the client's world and to develop psychological contact through that shared perception. Such a sense of viewing the client's world "as if" from the client's viewpoint is empathy.

In his paper, The Necessary Condition is Love, David Brazier (1993) hypothesised that the development of empathy was in itself a healing process, and as such was a desirable outcome for client as well as therapist. This present paper offers an extension of this hypothesis. It suggests that psychological health depends upon our ability to engage with life. It suggests that the process of such engagement is parallel to the process which Rogers described when he described the empathic engagement which the therapist strives for in the therapeutic encounter.

Empathic engagement depends upon our ability to appreciate people in their own terms, and not through a filter of our own preconceptions and beliefs. Such engagement requires a mental shift as described by Rogers in the passage quoted above. A similar shift can be applied to the world in a more general sense. We can learn to appreciate a work of art in the context of its time and culture. We can appreciate a piece of music in the context of its composition and performance. We can appreciate a natural object in its place in the ecosystem to which it belongs. Each thing or place has its own context; its own way of being. To fully appreciate it, we must get a sense of it within its own framework. We need to develop a kind of empathy for it. We have called this concept Extended empathy.

This ability to relate to the world with immediacy, appreciating things in their own terms, and not filtered by our preconceptions, seems to echo Rogers' description of the fully functioning person. In On Becoming a Person, Rogers (1961, pp 151 - 154) describes the final stage of personal growth as one in which the client experiences his feelings with immediacy, and as a constantly changing process. Rogers himself stops short of the notion of extended empathy which we are proposing, yet his statement that "The self becomes increasingly simply the subjective and reflexive awareness of experiencing. The self is much less frequently a perceived object, and much more frequently something confidently felt in process." (Rogers 1961, p153) seems to suggest a putting aside of self as an object of attention and an openness to that which is received by the awareness; ie the external world. The self is experienced not as a separate entity, but in its relation to that which is other.

THE PERCEIVER AND THE PERCEIVED

Rogers's description of empathy is framed in terms of perception. Perception is generally taken to require two components; the perceiver and the perceived. These components are in spatial relationship to each other. The perceiver looks at the perceived. We may think of this as a face-to-object relationship. Developing empathy requires that the counsellor perceives the world as the client perceives it. In other words, it is not the client she perceives per se, but the client's perception that she shares. Client and counsellor both become the perceiver, and the client's world becomes the perceived. Such a relationship between client and counsellor requires a side by side relationship. Even where the client himself becomes the object of perception, Rogers states that the counsellor should perceive him as he perceives himself. In other words, the counsellor is invited to "stand alongside" the part of the client that is perceiving and look at the part that is perceived.

In this model, we have two components, the perceiver and perceived; the subject and the object. We also have two ways of relating: the face to object, and the side by side. Empathic connection seems to relate to the latter. If I see the world through your eyes, we stand together and look in the same direction. We both have our attention on the same field of view, and yet we also have a sense of each other's presence. The shared activity of looking creates a link between us. I am not looking at you, but nevertheless your presence is powerfully there for me. In looking together we create a bond of shared experience. Roger's suggestion that the counsellor should perceive the world and the client through the client's frame of reference is intended not so much to affect the object of perception as the fellow perceiver.

The relationship between the perceiver or co-perceivers and the perceived is described by a visual metaphor. If we extend this metaphor, we may construe a third element in the process. This element is the degree of clarity with which the perception takes place. Do the elements relate to one another in a clear straight forward way, or do other elements create a filter that distorts or muddies the view? Does the perceiver perceive the object clearly, or do other objects obscure the view? Do the co-perceivers achieve sufficient closeness to share the view, or do obstacles prevent them from reaching the side by side position?

If the therapist is to achieve empathy for the client, she needs to work to set aside those obstacles which might obscure her view. Such obstacles might be her preconceptions about the client, her own experiences or beliefs, or an outdated view which she and the client explored together the previous week. If the client is to achieve an empathic relationship with himself and with life, he too needs to recognise and let go of the obstacles to that relationship. In order to do so, he may first need to explore those obstacles, first as objects of his perception, but later, in order to deeply understand their significance, in a more empathic, side by side way. Such a setting aside of the obstacles to clear perception is never complete. There is always some distortion of our ability to see clearly.

We would like to propose here that the distortion which prevents clear vision of the world is none other than the frame of reference described by Rogers. In order to achieve empathy with the client, the therapist must put aside her own frame of reference and see the world as through the client's filtering glasses. For the client to achieve empathy for others and for life, he too must learn to put aside the glasses that cloud and distort his view. He must let go of his frame of reference and begin to see the world in its own terms. Only then can he achieve extended empathy. Thus the frame of reference is itself an obstacle to clear perception, empathy and psychological health.

FILTERED WORLDS

...I had no apprehension about coming. The only consideration that I had was physical, you know, like can I get on the bus that day, and how far will I have to walk? So I had no emotional feelings at all - very neutral about coming. So, coming into the house, I found it very interesting because I am a very visual person. Lots to interest us and look at. It was nice to know that I could sit down and that there was a toilet handy. I've been in a lot of pain today. That was all that was really relevant, physical considerations. I enjoyed the cup of tea. Coming in here was jarred by the seats. I don't like cushions on the floor. They're not practical for me. I think it was the first time I had any emotional reaction that wasn't pleasurable, because I have negative feelings to cushions on the floor. I find it pretentious. (quietly) that's my feelings... But I was relieved to find there was two normal chairs, both comfortable (laughs) and basically I didn't do the thing (part of an exercise the group has just done recalling their arrival in the group) about the conversation. I found it totally unnecessary in the sense that I don't want to clog my brain up with what I talked about half an hour ago, no more than I want to clog my lungs up with trying to rebreathe the breath that I've had to rebreathe half an hour ago. I prefer to go on...

Although, ideally, we might wish to view things "as they are", in fact we all see the world through a filtering lens of our own interests, needs, assumptions and beliefs. Looking at a house, the carpenter may notice the banisters and fence posts, the historian the age and style of the architecture; the child will see the colours in the garden and potential for play in the winding staircase and neglected attics, the mother the dangers of the drop from the second floor landing or poisonous plants in the garden. It is to this filtering lens that Rogers seems to be referring when he speaks of the client's frame of reference.

The passage quoted above is the account given by a participant of his arrival in a research group. It follows a guided fantasy exercise in which the researcher asked group members to recall their arrival at the house where the group was to take place and their interactions with others prior to the group's start, and to become aware of what they had noticed and felt at different stages of this process. Reading the account, we can see that this person's experience of coming into the house and joining the group combines both an "external" reality of places and events and an "internal" reality of ideas, past experiences and interests. This person's account of joining the group is an experience which can only be understood if we take into account the experiencer as well as the experienced. Let us look at this passage in some detail in order to identify some of the elements which may be influencing this experience.

At first sight, we notice that much of this person's attention went to practicalities. As someone who suffered from some degree of physical disability, the first consideration in a new place was the physical comfort or discomfort which that place would provide. Items in the environment were quickly categorised into "good" or "bad" according to their convenience.

If we look further, however, we see other influences on the viewer's perception. Some comments, for example, seem to relate to expectations about the group and the other people present, and particularly about the researcher/facilitator. The focus on the practical aspects of the arrival, can be seen not just as a concern for comfort, but also as an illustration of the assertion that the participant felt no emotional feelings at all. This response is clearly prompted by the researcher's invitation to "look at feelings evoked" at certain stages during the fantasy exercise. It does, however, represent selective listening, as the researcher referred to a number of things the participants might observe, of which feelings were only one. It appears that for this person there is an assumption that he is being asked to look at feelings, and that if he is asked to look at feelings, these will necessarily be negative. This assumption may well have arisen from his knowledge that the group was being run by someone whose main occupation was as a therapist, and his view of what therapy might be about. We can hypothesise this chain of thinking from the tone and wording of his response.

Such a hypothesis may in itself be inaccurate, but nevertheless illustrates the possibility that, not only may the client be constructing a series of ideas around a few sentences from the therapist, but also that the therapist may be constructing ideas about the client based upon things the client has said or done. Our minds expand disconnected pieces of information to form pictures of the world. The person-centred approach has been wise to be wary of such constructs, as these can indeed be barriers to empathy. Nevertheless, however hard we try to put aside our own frame of reference, this process will necessarily still be taking place. The process of making sense through extrapolation is basic to human thought. In addition, "hunches" can provide a kind of deep empathic knowing that cannot be arrived at through conscious observation and reasoning. The therapist who is deeply empathic to her client will understand things about the client which have not been openly said. Distinguishing the useful hunches from the less useful constructs is not always easy. Are we seeing clearly, or imposing our own frame of reference? It is often only by being aware of our own assumptions and sharing our own inner processes that we can check out the points at which we become closer to or more distant from the client.

If we return to the passage quoted earlier, we can see that the assumptions which the client is making about the researcher's intentions colour his responses in the group. The tone of this participant's response to the facilitator is not neutral. His comments are challenging. The participant asserts that his experience does not fit into the mould which he assumes the facilitator to be expecting. His comment that the cushions seem pretentious is partly influenced by his disability, but may also be a statement of the difference of values he anticipates between himself and the facilitator. He reports that he stopped participating in the exercise because he found it unnecessary and his description of rebreathing the breath gives a strong negative image. Such responses seem to arise from his beliefs about what is and what is not useful in a group. It is as if he has a template in his mind of how things should be which he is holding against his experience of events.

Such statements establish the speaker's beliefs and consequently an identity in opposition to the facilitator. The words may also be motivated by his relationship with others in the group, in that they probably also represent a bid for power in the group or an attempt to avoid being overpowered. The contradictory tone of the responses seems to say "I see the world my way, not your way". The speaker makes other statements which seem intended to establish his identity. One example is when he defines himself as "a very visual sort of person". His statements about his objection to reviewing past conversations, seem to reflect his beliefs about life, which may be along the lines of "it is unhealthy to dwell on the past", and possibly "life is too short".

As we can see from this illustration, the speaker's description of the world is a complex mixture of what is "there", and his own constructions. These constructions are in themselves complex, influenced by

1. The speaker's needs and interests
2. The speaker's past experience
3. The speaker's beliefs about himself
4. The speaker's beliefs about the world
5. The speaker's relationship with the listener and what he wishes to communicate to her.

When Rogers refers to the client's frame of reference, we may assume that it is to such factors that he is alluding.

At this point, it is necessary to consider the degree to which these processes are conscious for the client. The client is probably aware of his physical needs. He is probably also aware of a degree of irritation. Beyond this, if prompted, he may begin to become aware of some feelings towards the facilitator. He will probably remain unaware, at least for the present, of any power dynamics within the group. Yet all of these can be traced in his responses to life. All seem to contribute to the filter which colours his perception of the world.

Rogers sees a central task of the therapist as being to enter the client's frame of reference. When, however, we look at a piece of interaction such as that quoted above, we see that this task involves a choice on the part of the therapist. Because the communication has many aspects, the therapist necessarily hears selectively. Her experiencing of the client is filtered through her own frame of reference. Even when she is aware of the different layers of meaning, she will not be able to respond to all levels simultaneously. So, the therapist may choose to respond to the "raw experience"; the needs and interests suggested by the selective experiencing; past experiences, whose shadows influence the experiencing of the present; the client's belief system; or the interaction that is taking place within the therapy relationship. Each of these can be separately identified, but will contain elements of the other elements, thus the therapy relationship may contain shadows of past relationships; the expressed needs relating to an event in the client's life may reflect needs felt in the therapy; the beliefs hinted at in statements made may reflect a challenge to the therapist or a prescription for life which might have avoided past hurts.

Thus the client's frame of reference is complex and provides a filter which colours his perception of life. Events of the past or visions of the future influence perception of the present, and prevent a clear vision of the here and now. Experiencing is a combination of "external reality" and the filters which arise from the client's psyche.

THE THERAPY PROCESS

Therapy is concerned with freeing the client's process, increasing his ability to experience life more directly and with more immediacy. In order to achieve this, the client needs to let go of some of the internal structures which colour his perception of the external world. He needs to recognise and put aside the shadows of the past.

Whilst a pure experiencing of life, free from personal bias, is rare, as the client becomes the fully functioning person described by Rogers he is less hampered by prejudices and preconceptions, and more aware of when self-interest and beliefs intrude on his view.

Much of therapy is concerned with identifying those inner structures which prevent a clear experiencing of the present, and finding ways of putting them aside. Past hurts which cloud the present recede into history as healing and forgiveness are achieved. Tyrannical parents cease to wield power over present situations once their humanity is recognised. Life views cease to be as dogmatic once they have been understood and appreciated by another.

Often in therapy, the client becomes aware of the frame of reference which they have been using. When this happens, however, the frame of reference becomes the object of perception, and cannot, at the same time, become the frame of reference from which that object (ie itself) is viewed. The sheer act of recognising one's own frame of reference shifts one to a new vantage point. In fact, we may say, the client moves to a higher, more encompassing point from which a clearer view is possible. To put it another way, the old, narrow frame of reference dissolves. Therapy is not a process of remaining within a frame of reference, but of dissolving it. When Rogers suggests we stay within the client's frame of reference he is suggesting a means for the therapist, not a goal for the client.

ONE FRAME OR MANY?

Rogers refers to the client's frame of reference, but it becomes clear when one is with a client is that what is being described may more accurately be referred to in the plural. We all have a number of filters through which we can view the world. Either we need to see the frame of reference as fluid and multi-faceted, or we need to recognise that the client has not one frame, but many. In either case, we would like to suggest that the frame(s) of reference is one and the same as the filters to which this paper has referred, and that, as such, it clouds, rather than aids clear viewing of the world.

To consider in more detail the multi-faceted nature of the frame of reference, let us take an illustration.

A woman starts to consider the possibility of a new job. At first she greets the idea with excitement. The feelings of anticipation, reminiscent of feelings she experienced as a student some ten years earlier, when preparing for her first job interview, alternate between enthusiasm and anxiety. Will she get the job? How will she feel when her first pay cheque arrives? How good it will be meeting so many new people. She will need some new clothes, and perhaps a car in due course. In her imagination she is both stepping out on her first day in the new post, and reliving those heady days after her final examinations before she started out on her career.

At this moment she remembers that there is a difference between things as they were then, and the way that they are now. She is a mother, with two small children. Taking the job will mean placing her children with a minder during the day. Her mood changes. She is no longer the carefree student. Instead, she remembers her own experiences as a child when her mother went out in the evenings, leaving her with a sitter whom she feared. She feels the panic welling up in her again as she sees the closing door and hears again the car drawing away from the house. Can she leave her own children with a stranger? What if her choice of minder is wrong? Will she know if her children are unhappy? Did her own mother know how she felt about being left?

Then she thinks "Damn it, its always the women who get the blame. These children have a father." She hears in her head the voices of women friends. He should take his turn. Couldn't he get a part time job so he can share the childcare? She feels anger rising in her. Anger at men. Anger at her partner for working long hours and not giving a second thought to her career. Anger at her father for taking more interest in her brother's career prospects than her own.

During this episode, we can see that this woman experiences a number of shifts of viewpoint around her decision to take a job. Each viewpoint is associated with a collection of episodes in her life. First she is identified with her single, student self. From this perspective her way forward seems clear, and although she feels some anxiety, she is basically confident of her abilities and the rightness of her actions. This perspective is not the only one she holds. Her realisation that, as a mother, she has ties which she did not have as a student brings about a shift of mood. She is now able to identify with her position as mother, but also with the possible position of her children. From this position, the whole situation looks quite different. Coloured by her own unhappy memories, she imagines how it might feel for them to be left. Suddenly her way forward looks a lot less clear. Her final shift identifies her with her feminist self. She feels alongside her the women with whom she has discussed her feelings of frustration and her hopes for a more productive life. Their presence in her imagination fires her anger at the men whom she feels have limited her life in the past and the present.

Each position, then, holds within it a number of scenes, feelings and beliefs. Some of these beliefs may contradict each other. As the single person she may feel full of confidence, whilst as the mother she is beset with doubts. As the feminist she is certain that she has a right to self-fulfilment, but as a mother she believes she has a duty to her children to stay with them whilst they need her. We may therefore say that she has at least three frames of reference during this brief episode, each holding its own world view. We may also suppose that there are potentially other frames of reference from which she can view her situation.

Therapy can often involve identifying and exploring different perspectives upon a situation. This process can be one which brings us closer to a complete view of the world. If you take a red filter and look at a specially shot film, you will see a two dimensional representation of a scene. Similarly if you look at the same scene through a green filter, you will see a similar, but slightly different view of the same scene. If you take a pair of specially prepared spectacles with one red lens and one green one, the scene suddenly becomes three dimensional. This cinematic device illustrates the principle which allows us to see the world around us in three dimensions. Because our vision is binocular, we are able to get two fixes on the object of our attention. This places that object in relief against its background. Auditory signals are received in the same way, allowing us to locate a sound to its spatial origin. We are designed to form our picture of the world from two overlapping receptors. Visually, we are limited to two viewpoints, but if we transfer this metaphor to other aspects of our experiencing we may be less limited. The fact that we do have a number of frames of reference, allows us to achieve a multiple viewpoint, and so perceive our world more fully. At the simplest level, finding a new perspective can provide a way out of what seems to be a stuck situation. As she contacts her feminist self, this woman considers the possibility of asking her partner to help with the childcare. More importantly, the more viewpoints we have on life, the richer our experiencing is likely to be. This move towards a multi-frame view of the world seems to echo Rogers' description of the more fluid functioning of the actualised person. It also points to a viewing of life that is closer to, rather than further from an unfiltered view of the world. Paradoxically the more frames of reference we are able to enter, the closer we are to seeing the world in an unfiltered way.

SEEKING THE MULTI-FRAMED VIEWPOINT

If, then, it is psychologically healthy to be able to view life from a number of viewpoints, how is this to be achieved in therapy? Increasing our capacity to see life from different viewpoints can be achieved in a number of ways. Some perspectives or frames of reference are achieved by identifying with a past self or a part of the present self, some by identifying with a role, and some through identifying with the position of a person other than the self. Such shifts of perspective are commonly recognised. We may say "I did that with my teacher's hat on", or "that was my old self talking" or "I said that as if I were my mother". As the counsellor develops in skill and experience, she will learn to empathise with many viewpoints. One may hypothesise that such learning plays an important part in her own growth. She moves from a more restricted world view towards a more complete one. If we see such a process as desirable for the therapist, we may speculate that it is also desirable for the client.

Rogers (1961, p52) states that the therapist needs to be strong in her own separateness not to be "downcast by his depression, frightened by his fear, nor engulfed by his dependency". The client needs the therapist not simply to become a psychological extension of himself, but to remain close but distinct. Although the therapist works to set aside her frame of reference, her success at doing so is, and needs to be, incomplete. This process has parallels to Kohut's optimum frustration model (Kohut 1971).

If we take it that the therapist's role is to help the client to learn to see his world more fully, we may assume that by remaining alongside, but separate, the therapist offers a second viewpoint on the client's world, giving a fuller experience than the client has hitherto been able to achieve. The slight inaccuracies in the therapist's understanding of the client's world view provide the second viewpoint which serves to increase the clarity of its perception. Were the therapist's entry into the client's frame of reference perfect, the therapist's presence as a separate human being would cease to have value. The shared view would be monocular.

In practice, the therapist never becomes so absorbed into the client's frame of reference as to totally share his viewpoint. There will always be small differences of perception, and, far from being failures, these will provide the depth of vision necessary for growth to occur. The therapist's responses offer the client new, subtly different frames of reference from which to view life. The still photograph becomes the three dimensional movie.

BRACKETING

Rogers states that the therapist needs to set aside her own frame of reference in order to empathise with the client. In phenomenological terminology this process is referred to as bracketing. The Therapist strives to set aside her preconceptions and enter into the client's world as fully as she is able, viewing it from his perspective. In the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl, the purpose of bracketing is that we should be enabled to perceive "the things themselves", as they are, more clearly.

The process of bracketing involves a deliberate choice to leave one frame of reference aside, and thus to attempt to view the world (of the client) with a naive perception. As such it appears an opposite process to the multi-frame approach suggested in the previous section.

Paradoxes, however often illuminate, rather than destroy arguments. Where apparently opposite statements both appear to contain truth, we may often be able, through them, to glimpse a deeper understanding of the subject. Thus the apparent contradiction between the need to bracket and the need to achieve a multi-dimensional view of the world, provides an example of the usefulness of a two directional approach. Let us look more closely at the processes involved.

If I bracket my preconceptions, I attempt to set aside those views and assumptions that make up my frame of reference. Of course, such a setting aside is always incomplete, as we have already discovered, but, given this, I will achieve a partial bracketing. This will be sufficient for me to become open to a fresh experiencing of the subject. I am likely now to see new aspects which hitherto have been hidden by my assumptions. These will allow me to view my situation from a number of new viewpoints.

So, whilst previously I held a view that was more or less rigid, now I am open to a number of views. Similarly, if I deliberately attempt to adopt a muti-dimensional stand point, I again let go of my rigidity of outlook and am able to see the situation from a number of angles. I recognise that there is not one right view, and that my situation is complex. I become open to receiving new view points. My previous certainties become simply some of many possible viewpoints.

So, whether I attempt to bracket my predominating frame of reference, or whether I deliberately seek out other view points, the effect is to make myself open to a range of possibilities. There is a levelling of viewpoints. My world view becomes more complex and more open to reinterpretation. I no longer hold onto a fixed view of how things are.

A factor in this process, which has already been raised is that of identification. It is often our sense of identity which prevents us from seeing other aspects of a situation. If the woman, whose story is told earlier, depends on her image of herself as a feminist, she will find it very hard to see the choice of work from her children's or partner's perspectives. In order to achieve a more holistic world view, I have needed to loosen my hold on that which I regard as mine. I need to be open to other's view points, not just because I want to take the feelings and needs of others into account, but also because by seeing the world through their eyes, I can enrich my own experiencing of it. I can develop a more fluid experiencing of the world.

THE MITWELT

One particular aspect of the frame of reference is the ever present sequence of scenes and images which we carry with us. We have adopted the term mitwelt to describe this phenomenon. The mitwelt is a term used to describe the part of our inner world which we perceive as other than ourselves, but with which we feel identified. Our mitwelt may, for example, be memories of past scenes, our images of our parents or other relatives, our home, possessions, beliefs and aspirations.

As a client describes an event from his life, the therapist may notice that the client is caught up in reliving the event in his mind. As he describes a conversation, he may look towards a particular part of the room, as if seeing the person with whom the conversation took place seated there. Other times he may gaze intently at a distant point whilst describing a scene, as if watching the event being played out on a screen in front of him. The client is here in touch with his mitwelt.

In such cases, the mitwelt is generally experienced as if it were outside the body space of the client. It is projected. (we use the term here to mean any part of the client's inner/internalised world which is perceived by the client as being outside his physical space) Sometimes this projection is onto an empty space. It bears no relationship to the actual physical entities in the room. If it bears any relationship, it is in occupying empty space. The imagined father may be seen sitting on an empty chair. The scene may be placed through the window.

Such projections of the client's mitwelt may easily be distinguished from the external world of the therapy room. In much therapy an exploration of the mitwelt takes a central role. Nevertheless, as with other aspects of the frame of reference, the projected mitwelt is a barrier to clear engagement with the world. In many circumstances the projected mitwelt's presence is not recognised and acknowledged.

If we consider the example given at the start of this paper, the group participant's responses towards the facilitator, we can identify expectations which are not readily understood simply in terms of the actual interaction which has taken place during the group session. We may speculate that the facilitator is perceived through the filter of the participant's projected mitwelt.

Distinguishing the elements in this kind of projection in which the client's response to a place or person contains a mixture of elements from their actual relationship and elements which have been projected from the mitwelt is more difficult than when the projection that is made onto empty space, as when the client imagines a significant person from their past sitting on an empty chair. Recognising that the client's view of the therapist or of another group member is coloured by a projection of their mitwelt requires skill. Disentangling the external from the projection becomes a complex task. The psychodynamic therapist working with such material might make interpretations in terms of transference projections. The person centred therapist is more likely to respond to such a situation by empathising with the client's view of herself, whilst remaining congruent in her sense that she does not fit this view.

The internalised mitwelt, then, is often the filter which prevents us from experiencing the world with immediacy. It can prevent us from seeing others clearly, and can lead us to respond to them in ways that have more to do with our own history than with the other person. It can be a potent factor in preventing us from living fully in the present. We are unlikely to become completely free of the filter which our inner process imposes on our perception of the world, but we can work to recognise and reduce the distortion which it produces. To do this we often need to fully contact the internalised mitwelt and deal with the unfinished business which keeps it in place.

EXTENDED EMPATHY

The concept of empathy is generally applied to human relationships. When we are empathically engaged with another, we are able to experience the world "as if" through their eyes. We are able to share their world view, with the distortions of their frames of reference. Empathy requires intense engagement. It involves experiencing with another. It means appreciating his perspective. Not simply knowing the facts of his life, but having a feeling sense of how it is to be viewing the world and oneself as that person does.

We would like to offer a concept of extended empathy which goes beyond the usual definition of empathy to incorporate not just a relationship with another person, but a relationship with the world. Extended empathy can be applied to objects, to phenomena, to ideas. Achieving extended empathy means appreciating things in their own terms. It requires an imaginative entry into their worlds. It means having a felt sense of their essential qualities. If we can achieve extended empathy, we can appreciate the stoneness of a stone, the flowerness of a flower, the dreamness of a dream.

In his paper, "The Necessary Condition is Love" Brazier (1993) proposed that empathy is itself a quality leading to psychological health. His paper highlighted the universal drive towards reaching out to others in a loving and deeply understanding way, and suggested that the need to love preceded and over-rode the need to be loved. Here we would like to suggest that empathic engagement has a far wider application than simply human relationships, and that the development of extended empathy is the route to psychological well being.

Empathy is developed by setting aside one's own frame of reference and adopting the frame of reference of another. Extended empathy is similarly achieved by setting aside our own viewpoint and taking on the "viewpoint" of the object of empathy. In both instances a rigid frame of reference is an obstacle to the achievement of empathic connection.

Extended empathy can be applied to the external world of objects and events, but the concept can also be applied to objects within the inner world. These processes are parallel. Thus, developing his ability for empathic engagement with life allows the client to deepen his sense of his inner world. Both require an attitude of open acceptance.

EXTENDED EMPATHY AND THE MITWELT

As the therapist listens to the client, she will be aware of shifts in the client's perceptual field. At some points the client will be fully engaged with the therapist. They will make eye contact, and speak directly. The therapist will have no doubt that she is being addressed as a fellow adult, and told clearly the details of the client's life. At other times the client may seem more caught up in the story that he is telling. He may perhaps be looking at a distant point, or hardly seem to be focusing his eyes at all. If the therapist responds in a reflective way, he may hardly seem to notice her presence, and if she says something that cuts across his train of thought he may react in a startled way. Sometimes the client's story becomes so vivid that the therapist can almost see the angry relative whom the client is describing as a presence in the room.

The person-centred therapist works to empathically enter the client's world, and to convey her sense of that world through her responses. Empathy requires that the therapist adopt a "side by side" position in relation to the client. That she sees the world that the client sees. Thus the empathic therapist will see, not the client, but the client's world. Only on rare occasions, at times when the mitwelt has receded, will the therapist stand alongside the client in reflexive contemplation.

Having stated this, it is nevertheless the case that many therapists, in practice, see their role as being to focus the client's attention on himself. If the client speaks of his mother, the response is often "And I'm wondering how that is for you..". The difference in effect of these two different styles of response becomes apparent if we look at an example.

John, who has been describing vividly a scene in which his father was abusive towards him, tells his therapist "I feel angry with my father".

If John's therapist chooses to focus on John, her response may be "You feel angry". This response is a commonly used empathic reflection, picking up John's stated feeling. Many therapists talk about feelings because they think this will help the client become more in touch with their inner world. If we look at this response again, however, we see that John's attention is probably actually still focused on his father. This being so, the therapist's response to John's anger is based upon her observation of John, and her hearing of his words. It is a face to face response. It does not offer an understanding of how it feels to see the world through John's eyes, but rather of how it is to see John experiencing the world. John is feeling angry, because he has his attention upon his father. If he focuses on his anger, he will step into the "face to face" therapist's viewpoint, and he will probably become less angry.

If, instead, the therapist mentally steps alongside John and sees the world through his eyes, she is more likely to respond "Yes, its like your father is standing here with us." Such a response may be verbally more distant from John's original statement, but it may well offer a closer account of John's actual experience. Both John and his therapist are "looking" in the same direction. Responses of this kind have the effect of making the mitwelt more "real" for both therapist and client. This process, termed amplification, is described in Caroline Beech's paper "Looking in, Looking out" (Beech 1993). It tends to help the client to be more in contact with the feelings that his mitwelt evokes.

Reflections which amplify the client's experience of the mitwelt help the client to deepen their engagement with their inner world. By making that world the subject of experience, feelings are evoked in a way that they are not if the feelings themselves become the objects of attention. Thus reflections that centre on the client, and those that centre on the client's mitwelt will have quite different effects upon the course of the therapy.

Feelings arise in relation to an object. If I want to experience joy, I think of an event or object that gives me joy: a new baby, a sunrise, a first snowdrop. If I try to find joy in myself without such an image, I am unlikely to experience the feeling to the same degree. Indeed I may well find that the word evokes an image spontaneously. Similarly, we may ourselves become changed by a perceived object. If I imagine a school teacher who taught me when I was six, I may feel myself to be six once more. If I imagine giving a lecture to an appreciative audience, I may feel more confident.

If we are to let go of those parts of our inner world that keep us from functioning fully in our present life, we need to recognise and acknowledge their existence and power. More than this, we need to accept and appreciate that inner world and those parts of ourselves that are still caught up in it. If I am to achieve empathy for the external world, I may first have to achieve empathy for my inner world. If I do not, that inner world remains, a rigid aspect of my frame of reference.

EMPATHY FOR THE WORLD

Whilst much therapy is concerned with the client's inner world, the fully functioning person, as described by Rogers, is one who lives is the "real world", and who is in contact with their inner process in as much as it flows through them in response to external events and interactions.

Much of our inner distress arises from a holding onto inner structures. Shadows from the past, rigidly held beliefs, expectations, all colour our perception of the world. In therapy we can work to diminish the effect of such elements, but we can also work to connect more directly with our present experience. Learning to empathise with the external world takes us beyond those things which block our perception. If we learn to connect more fully with our present experience, we can let go of encumbrances.

Working with awareness, then becomes an important aspect of the therapy process, not only in developing awareness of the blocks to engagement, but also in developing engagement itself. The client may need to fully experience his grief in order to let it go, but he may also be able to let go of it by focusing his attention fully in the present. Present focus has tended to be the preserve of eastern approaches to the mind, rather than western psychotherapy. The Buddhist practice of mindfulness centres around a letting go of attachment to all that is not within the present moment. Letting go of attachment to illusion is the practise of full engagement. (Nhat Hanh, 1975)

Some approaches have attempted to bring working with awareness into the personal growth arena (Brooks, 1974), but many of these focus more on engagement with the inner process (for example focusing, Gendlin 1981). Therapies which have as their focus deepening engagement with the world remain a minority.

Yet it has been our experience that through working with awareness in a direct way, clients often achieve a sense of wellbeing and engagement with life that conventional therapy does not provide. Because its nature is experiential and qualitative, such work is hard to document. An account of a session in which awareness and engagement were the focuses is therefore included as an appendix to this paper.

Extended empathy allows us to experience the world in a feeling way; in a way that involves our whole attention. If we can start to feel the stoneness of stones, we will in that moment become absorbed into that stoneness. If we can feel the flowerness of the flower, we will become that flowerness. It is at these moments that we are most fully alive. In becoming most other, we are most self.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beech C. (1993). Looking In, Looking Out. in Brazier, D (Ed) Beyond Carl Rogers, London: Constable.
Brazier D. (1993). The Necessary Condition is Love. in Brazier, D (Ed) Beyond Carl Rogers London: Constable.
Brooks C. (1974). Sensory Awareness, the rediscovery of experiencing. Santa BarbaraRoss-Erikson.
Gendlin E. (1981). Focusing. Toronto: Bantam.
Kohut H. (1971) The Analysis of the Self. USA: U of Chicago Press.
Nhat Hanh. (1975) The Miracle of Mindfulness. London: Rider.
Rogers C. (1951). Client Centred Therapy. London: Constable.
Rogers C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. London: Constable.

Appendix

The following example gives an account of a group session in which awareness was the primary focus:

I would like to invite you to stand up.

The group stands, forming a circle. Each woman a part of the circle, part of the whole, yet separate. There is a new energy in the group. We have been together for half a day now. We have met each other in different ways, verbal and non verbal. We have just been sitting, sharing our feelings about the morning's activities. It has been good sharing, but our minds have been with the morning and with ideas that the morning has evoked. Suddenly, by standing, we have arrived back in the present.

I see bright eyes, making contact with me. I feel elated. We are here. We are now. Something is happening. I feel anticipation.

Perhaps you would like to look inside yourself. To get a sense of what is going on in your body. To get a sense of how you are feeling about standing here. To share some of what comes up spontaneously.

There is a silence. Each of us turns our attention inwards. Each listens to those small voices and impulses that are so often lost in the hurly-burly of speech.

After a pause we start to share. For one there is wonder in the sense of connection; the circle. Another experiences the central space as special; she is moved by its safeness. Another would prefer not to be in the group at all. Her impulse is to move away, to leave the room even, to break the circle.

In me the excitement flutters under my ribs. my arms feel ready to move. Is it an embrace they seek? Or perhaps a dance? I feel the tiny testing movements in them. They are wanting, longing.

Then why not try following that impulse, see where it leads? Lets each explore where in the room our impulses take us. Lets explore what position they invite us to occupy.

We start to move. One slowly walks around the perimeter of the group. Another takes herself into a corner and curls up on a pile of cushions. Another stands in the sunlight, face up turned. Another moves into what had been the centre of the circle and lies, arms and legs outstretched. Quite quickly there is stillness again.

I move. My feet want to be slow. To touch the ground tenderly. To feel the soft strands of the carpet under my instep and between my toes. My arms want to dance lightly on an unseen breeze. They float before me. Flow and move. Find a resting place against my heart. I reach a stillness. My feet are firmly planted on the earth. My body strongly upright.

As you pause, you might like to take your attention inwards, and notice what is going on for you in this new place. Have things changed? Do you feel differently?

There is a pause, a silence. It is a time for each to explore in her own way. Space for the attention to move around the body or the mind, just as, a few minutes previously, we have moved physically around the space of the group room.

I am strong. So strong. Strong and tall as a tree. My feet are rooted. I can send them down, down into the earth. I can drink my fill from the good soil. My arms can grow tall and free. They are not longing now.

You might like now to start to move your attention outwards. To make contact with your surroundings. To use your senses to explore. What is supporting you? What is in contact with your skin? What contact do your other senses make with their surroundings?

Almost imperceptibly there is a change in the room. More alertness. Bodies that had been slightly slumped become slightly more upright. Attention is outward. Hands, feet, arms, backs move over the surfaces they touch. Feel textures, temperatures. Smoothness and roughness.

I feel the carpet under my bare feet. The pressure under the ball and heel of my foot. The softer caressing fibres of wool where my weight is less intensely focused. I feel the slight give in the pile as I rock very gently to and fro. I play with slight muscle movements, feeling the effects of even the slightest shift of weight from one part of my foot to another, or between my two feet. The intensity of contact is almost unbearable. Moving my attention, I become aware of my hands. My finger ends tingle with anticipation. I reach down now to feel the carpet, as if for the first time. I run my hands lightly over the pile. To my hands, it is softer, lighter. I can push my finger tips into it. Feel them surrounded by its softness. I can move it. Draw patterns in it. Smooth it. I open my eyes, which have been shut, and see the colours. Browns and golds. I see the patterns and the dark and shade.

You might like to experiment with different focuses of attention. Inward attention and outward attention.

There is little outward change in the room. Only the slightest movement. All is peaceful.

I feel the carpet and I feel my body touching it. My feet, caressed by its softness. The muscles of my legs moving as I play with the sensations under my feet. I stand once more. My hands now touch my clothing over my heart. My heart feels brimming over with the softness of my contact with the floor. I feel its steady beating on the palm of my hand and the slight rise and fall of my breath. I feel the warmth of my body, comforting against my hand. I feel the fabric of my T shirt, smooth but firm, slightly creasing between my hands and body.

We have paints and paper here. Perhaps you would like to use them to express something of what you have been experiencing. On the other hand, you may prefer to stay with what you are doing now. In an hour or so, we can maybe come together to talk about what we have been experiencing.

Some women slowly start to move towards the art materials. Others remain where they are. Two women take paper and paints. One starts to cover her paper immediately, with urgent brush strokes and bright primary colours. In a few minutes she has filled her paper and takes a second sheet. The other sits for several minutes with the empty sheet before her before starting to paint, carefully and slowly, feeling each brush stroke as she applies it, and stopping frequently to sit and look at the shapes she is producing. An other woman, who has been curled up in a corner of the room takes a pad of paper and returns to her space, where she sits for a moment before starting to write. The words seem to flow in fits and starts and her face looks filled with emotion. Other women take pastels and charcoal and start to draw. Two remain in positions they took up earlier, still wrapped in inner process.

I take some paints. Soft soft colours. The softness of my heart. The softness of the carpet. The curves of hands caressing, touching, letting go. Sweeping strands of paint. Gentle blues and greens. Merging, flowing together. Melting into one another.

Several women seem to finish together. They sit, looking unsure what to do.

You might like to sit with what's going on for you now, or you might like to choose a different medium to work in and see if that takes the process further. As you work, try to allow the materials you are using to speak to you. See what they are able to do.

One sits, the others take new paper. One who has painted begins to write. Haltingly at first, then fast, scribbling and crossing out in her urgency. Another who has drawn with coloured chalks takes a large sheet of paper and starts to daub colour onto it. Others too change their means of expression. One starts to walk around the room again, first slowly, then more quickly and lightly. Her energy seems to infect others. several begin to paint more actively.

Paper. I write. Words, words, chaotic words, hurtling helter skelter onto the page. Faster than I can manage, my fingers tumbling over themselves, trying to express.

We need to be coming together soon. Before we do, you might like to sit with what you have produced, to notice how your body is now, to notice how you respond to this thing that you have created.

There is a settling. The women slowly put paints aside, and sit, pictures and writing spread before them.

I see the energy rising in my painting. Life energy. It is this energy I have been struggling to contain in words, but it feels uncontainable. I look at it and my body wants to move. The upper part wants to flow in the breeze. The tree image returns, and I realise how grounded my lower half feels. Sitting, I make solid contact with the ground. I no longer need to contain. The ground contains me, but my branches flow freely. I look around the room with newborn eyes.

Perhaps we could share now.

The women start to talk. Each shares a little of the process she has been going through. Some have a lot to say, others little. The group begins to reconnect in a new way. We have been on parallel courses, our journeys, like different coloured threads have run together, weaving in and out of one another, but we have also been separate. We have each remained within our personal worlds of images and perceptions, making our individual contacts with the inside and outside processes. As we talk we discover the points at which those processes touched. "I chose that blue, because the blue you were using spoke to me". "I felt your energy as you passed and felt joyful." Sharing, we learn to trust our sense of contact.

P.C.J. Brazier
1992