Doing Therapy: A Source of Therapist Well-Being
Tapio Malinen, M.A.
Frank Thomas, Ph.D.
Mindfulness has become prominent in the field of psychotherapy.
Therapy as a reflective process tied closely to mindfulness invites
an investment of oneself that varies greatly from a modernist
views of self, therapy, and well-being. In this article, the authors
offer an idea of well-being that is tied both to mindfulness and
to the self-of-therapist. Exercises that promote therapist reflection
Doing Therapy: A Source of Therapist Well-Being
Can therapy be a practice in which therapists constantly revitalize
their own well-being? Can certain types of understandings of knowledge,
self, language and our position of power – and the practices
related to them – work as tools for mental growth for the
counsellor? Can therapy act as an ethical exercise in which the
therapist have the privilege of creating something true and good
with their clients so that the work can become as a mutually energy-creating
and transformative action?
For many years, we have been interested in work as a source
of the well-being for the professional. Some years ago, after
getting to know the practice of mindfulness based stress reduction
(MBSR) by professor Jon Kabat-Zinn (1990) and participating in
a ten-day meditation retreat, the first author started to pay
more and more attention to the facets in his work that maintain
and add to his inner well-being. The second author began to study
therapist well-being out of curiosity and as a direct influence
of his practice of aikido, the “loving” martial art
(Thomas, 2007). In this article, we will discuss the work of the
therapist as a source of mental well-being as well as describe
the theoretical starting points with which we can develop our
work as a possibility of a burn-in instead of a burn-out phenomenon.
In addition, we will offer some practical exercises that may help
therapists maintain and add to their well-being during the therapy
Knowledge of Well-Being
There are at least three factors related to the therapist's
well-being during the therapy process. These factors – according
to many different authors (Augusta-Scott & Brown, 2007; Epstein,
2007; Gergen, 2006) and our own experience – are very significant.
The first factor is the concept of knowledge upon which we base
our work. The second factor is the idea or experience of “self”
that therapists have of themselves. And the third – which
is connected to the two previous factors – is the way therapists
position themselves with regard to other people while working.
To be able to differentiate the therapist's well-being in connection
with therapy, we must answer at least the following questions:
1) where is the knowledge in a therapeutic relationship and how
is it produced? 2) what or who is the “self” we are
taking care of while doing therapy? and, 3) how is this “self”
positioned while we work with people, searching for the constantly
shifting balance between connection and detachment, merging and
separation, immersion and individuality?
The traditional idea of learning is based on the assumption
that an independent reality exists, a reality about which we can
obtain objective knowledge with the help of scientific research
methods. The traditional mission of language is to re-present,
to describe this reality with as much accuracy as possible, and
to transfer that knowledge from one person to another. In other
words, knowledge is something independent that exists outside
of us, a sort of “thing” that we can move into the
storage memory of a person (Gergen, 1999). John Shotter's (2004)
term for ideas based on this view of knowledge is “aboutness
thinking.” In this dualist mindset, another person is an
object outside of us who we can explore objectively. An example
of this is the diagnostic culture, which often reifies a human
being into an object without consciousness. The therapist is an
“expert” who has the heavy responsibility for seeing
that the therapy process proceeds in the “correct”
Lynn Hoffman, a well-established family therapy historian, has
presented a view that deviates from this concept of knowledge
(Hoffman, 2007a). She anchors her own therapeutic work into two
“wisdoms.” The first wisdom suggests one assume an
attitude of not-knowing, and the second wisdom is reflective processing
(see below for more on the latter). A few years ago, Tapio conducted
an interview with Harlene Anderson, who (along with Harry Goolishian)
first used this phrase to describe a clinical stance. She defined
not-knowing in the following way:
”It has to do with the way you position yourself
with what you know, and how you offer what you know and with
what intention. Our expertise is not in terms of what the better
story might or should look like, but that our expertise was/
is in the ability to create a space and invite others into what
I call the collaborative relationship in the dialogical conversation.
Our intention is towards particular process rather than towards
particular content or outcome.” (Malinen, 2004)
The attitude of not knowing makes one relate to reality as conjointly
created without forcing it to align with one's own preconceptions
In other words, not-knowing refers to a certain kind of approach
to the other person. In the state of not-knowing, therapy techniques
and encountering another human being become one. The techniques
are a means of expression through which the therapist influences
the meeting by creating an openness for change, an inner space
in which there is (ideally) no fear. In the history of Zen-based
martial arts, this fear-less inner state is connected to the mushin
state of mind, which enables spontaneity, the non-doing or the
wu-wei (Deshimaru, 1982). In the mushin state,
there are no concepts of a separate “me” or “you,”
fear, or desire. The mind and body are one. Spontaneity is not
an unthinking re-action but rather a natural appropriateness brought
on by any given moment. Techniques are used spontaneously, freely,
and playfully without clinging to images or explanations of the
final outcome. When the therapist gives up the goal of achieving
something predetermined, both therapists’ and clients’
actions become congruent expressions of their empty selves and
integral change often emerges naturally. This state approaches
what Rosenbaum and Dyckman discuss in their article “No
Self? No Problem!” (1998), about the place of techniques
in mindful practice:
“Approaching self as empty does not generate a list
of things to do, but rather encourages a certain attitude toward
the encounter between therapist and client. Technique, from
this standpoint, is not some thing we as therapist perform “on”
clients with the expectation of making some thing happen. Rather,
technique is a vehicle for expression, a particular framework
to facilitate the encounter...technique is a way of “calling”
the client and “clearing” one’s self to create
an unforced openness to change.” (p. 264)
In a more traditional or intentional way of working, the therapist
follows the movements of the client's mind and finds ways of helping.
It is the therapist who plans what to do or say next. This stance
is often guaranteed to make the work straining. The mind stops
when it receives thoughts of the final result of the action or
selfish thoughts of, for instance, the wish to be a good therapist.
The state of not-knowing, on the other hand, is a state where
we are mindfully present, a condition where the mind flows from
one place to another like water, filling even the smallest holes.
When disturbing thoughts are gone – including the thought
of self (see anatta below) – one cannot find a
difference among oneself, the technique, and the client. We no
longer evaluate, categorize or plan but rather encounter and experience
the other in her (1) suchness, (i.e., tathata [beyond
all concepts and distinctions]) (Ficher-Schreiber, 1994) without
twisting our perceptions with our own theories or preconceptions.
In this mode of being, techniques simply happen and the therapist
becomes one with her client (Segal, Williams, & Teasdale,
2002.) There is no “knower” and “known,”
just the process of knowing; there is no separate “doer”
and “deed,” just doing. In the being mode there is
a sense of freedom and freshness, an unfolding of experience in
new ways. It is responsive to the richness and complexity of the
unique patterns that each moment presents. In doing mode, by contrast,
the multidimensional nature of experience is reduced to a unidimensional
analysis of experience in relation to a goal state. The non-
dualist experience of the being has often been described in religious
and martial art-related literature but rarely when discussing
therapy. In fact, in the field of therapy this kind of experience
has been seen as a pathological dissociation with the exception
of the transpersonal approach.
(1) We attempt to use plurals whenever possible, but to avoid
the awkwardness of “him/her,” we use the feminine
pronoun throughout the document when referring to the therapist
and masculine when referring.
For well-being of the therapist, it makes a great deal of difference
how we have tuned in to perceive and experience this moment we
call therapy. In the dualist world where subject and object are
separated, we might only experience therapy from the mode of doing:
doing diagnoses, doing hypotheses, doing evaluations, doing questions,
doing therapy, doing long days, and so on. Our self appreciation
is linked only to our achievements. We are inadequate the way
we are and detached from the natural perfection of being (Loy,
1997). In a non-dualist world where subject and object are one
and part of a greater whole, we can also experience our work from
the mode of being: we are the therapy, we are
our words, we are our gestures, and we are
the consciousness that watches the world with the help of our
gaze at the moment. We are resting in our practice while also
making a difference. This state is often accompanied by a deep
feeling of equanimity, joy, and well-being.
Why do we speak? What are our intentions in our conversations
with our clients? Do we ever notice the effect our words have
on ourselves? From the point of view of the therapist's
well-being, there are two kinds of speech: living and dead (Olson,
2000). Dead words are often born from the needs of our unexamined
self. They usually prevent a direct touch with reality; they manipulate,
maintain power structures, and create monologues. The nature of
living words on the other hand is flowing, uncontrolled, shared,
and unpredictable. These words are often born from mindfulness,
a conscious and accepting presence, and they help to create an
embodied dialogue. Connect to a meaningful part of your therapy
experience with this exercise:
EXERCISE: Think back to a situation at
work when you felt more lively than usual. You perhaps felt connected
to yourself, your client and life. You felt that you weren't doing
therapy techniques, but instead the techniques were happening
through you. You were openness through which life simply manifested
itself at that moment. What skills did you use to create such
a moment of being in your doing? How did you do your being?
The other “wisdom” Hoffman relates to therapy is
the reflective processing. This is what Tom Andersen, a recently
deceased professor of social psychiatry, called “withness
practice” (Hoffman, 2007b, p. 7). This type of practice
usually creates space in therapy for dialogical interaction. Knowledge
is created through language in our mutual interaction: therapy
is not seen as an event where knowledge is transferred but rather
as the collaboration between the therapist and the client, which
adds to the options for action in both parties. An increase in
knowledge, in this way of thinking, means an increase in existence
and possibilities for new kinds of practices. The goal is not
to produce change but to give space for a dialogue. The goal is
also not to seek the kind of understanding that would prove the
therapist's theories to be true. Led by the “expertise”
of the client, the therapist instead has to question her own way
of thinking (Anderson & Goolishian, 1992). In addition, it
is important for our well-being that we can, through our conversational
partners – people who are exactly like us, suffering creatures
who strive for happiness – constantly clarify our understanding
and views of ourselves and our lives. Expertise becomes a joint
action with new expertise developing for both client and therapist
in the ensuing conversation. The goal is not “curing”
someone; it is about being useful to a person, facilitating a
process where the possibility to accept who he or she is at the
given moment arises (Lax, 1996).
Language and thinking do not simply reflect reality. They are
also a movement of reality. A thinking, knowing person is simultaneously
a living process of knowing and the product of this process. In
other words, there is no separate landscape and map; the map in
itself is movement in the landscape it is trying to describe (Wilber,
2007). According to this social constructionist way of thinking,
reality and its perceiver cannot be defined as separate from each
other; knowledge is a construction created by knowing. It is a
process between the creator of the knowledge and the created knowledge.
What effects do these different practices of knowledge have on
the well-being of the therapist? To address this question, we
will compare them in the following table.
Aboutness Thinking < ------------------------------- >Withness
|Distance is maintained
|| Distance reduced, closeness increased
|Greater responsibility to “help”
||Shared responsibility for the outcome
|The therapist has a privileged position in terms
of knowledge and power
|| The therapist and the client are mutually privileged;
power is freely shared as much as possible
|The therapist determines the meanings
||The meanings are negotiated together
|Didactic, strategic, guiding
The reader should note that these continua have no absolute
point, free of context and relations that would be best for the
well-being of the therapist. Change does not happen by adopting
new stories but rather by exploring the effects of different stories
on the therapist's life and by developing experience-based, direct
knowledge on how she relates to them. As these relations become
clearer and clearer, it is possible for us to make more and more
free and responsible choices about our identity conclusions (Gehart
& McCollum, 2007). We offer the following as you continue
EXERCISE: Become aware of your breathing.
Ask yourself: Am I, at this moment, acting in accordance with
my deepest values? Do I feel I am being authentic? How do I experience
my inner energy at this moment? What kind of balance do I have
between the mindsets of doing and being? Am I resting in my work,
in myself, and in my breathing, or do I feel tense and shattered?
How is my work affecting my fellow human beings at this very moment?
Who and Where is the “Self?”
If we think and feel the “self” as an autonomic,
separate entity, we also assume that the therapist has an identity
in the core of her personality that defines her professional and
human existence. By controlling the therapy process, the main
task for therapist is to change either the structures of other
“selves” or to create some “filling self-practices”
that increase (for example) the “self-esteem” of our
fellow human beings and give them new “ego-strength.”
This was the dominating idea about the self before postmodern
therapies (solution-focused, narrative and collaborative therapies)
became more prominent in the field. This essentialist concept
of the ”self” often includes the idea that we have
a sort of “tank” or reservoir inside each of us containing
different amounts of energy at different times. Following this
reasoning, distinct practices of taking care of ourselves are
necessary so that we can “recharge our batteries”
from time to time and have the energy to work at our demanding
profession as therapists. This machine metaphor easily makes us
think of our clients as “others” who constantly wear
out or suck the energy from our “tanks.” It thus becomes
our central mission to control and protect ourselves. To stop
the “self” from burning out, we must practice different
types of “self”-recharging and -refilling practices
outside of the dualist and reified relationship we call therapy.
This way of thinking has its roots in the modern liberal theory,
in which the “self” is a manifestation of an internal
and private property. It is everyone’s mission to “engage
in the internal farming of our lives through self-cultivation,
and to take up internal mining enterprises that have us digging
deep to get in touch with our personal resources, and to excavate
these resources so that they might be brought to the surface,
put into circulation and capitalised on” (White, 2001, p.
An entirely different way of understanding the “self”
is derived from ancient wisdom traditions, especially Buddhism,
and the modern-day non-structuralist and social constructionist
theories (Gergen, 1999). According to these wisdom traditions,
there is no separate entity that we could call “self.”
The “self” does not have its own inherent nature.
In this sense, self is no-self (anatta) or empty (sonyata)
(Ficher-Schreiber, 1994). Phenomena gain their meanings as a part
of a greater whole, just like the twirl of a stream is a part
of the water masses surrounding it. The “self” is
understood – and experienced – more as a continuing
process which does not have an independent, stable existence outside
its relations and different contexts. The self is constantly changing
in different contexts in a continuous process of becoming, which
constantly arises in immediate experience of the present moment.
In this state of mind, the therapist's inner well-being means
the ability to see reality in its suchness at any given moment
and not in the way we understand or wish it to be.
The nature of the “self” is essentially conceptual.
It is continually being constructed, deconstructed, and reconstructed.
It can be defined as an experience of me-ness which is born when
a person identifies with different components of the body-mind-process,
(e.g., sensory perceptions, thoughts, emotions, memories), the
image one has made of oneself (Goleman &
Epstein, 1983). Identifying with the contents
of the mind, however, leads to a completely different experience
of well-being than if we identify with a consciousness,
the Seer who is aware of the constantly changing contents that
are made up of perceptions, thoughts, and emotions.
Therefore, practices of taking care of oneself are actions that
help us become aware of the “emptiness” of our self
(i.e., that all things are empty of separate essence) because
such practices are unstable and only exist in relation to other
things. In this state of consciousness, there are no preconceived
notions about things tying us down. Instead, we can let life be
the way it is without clinging to pleasant experiences or pushing
away unpleasant ones. Nor do we have to go outside our work space
to fill our imaginary “tanks” to be able to do our
jobs. We can give up our tiresome and insatiable desire to control
life and achieve a certain result. Our techniques are nothing
but manifestations of our empty selves in different interactions
with other people. In such interactions, change often happens
by itself without the pollution of purpose. A therapist recreates
herself while recreating her client, and the client recreates
himself while creating the therapist. In order to be in this state
of consciousness, which the Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh (2001)
calls interbeing, we need to constantly train our minds. Therapy
therefore becomes a constant and endless exercise in mindfulness.
This lifelong practice opens a new way of creating our well-being
as therapists – while working.
EXERCISE: Bring yourself into this moment
by straightening your body and sitting in a dignified and yet
acceptance-exuding position. Ask yourself: What am I experiencing
at this very moment? What kinds of thoughts am I having? What
kinds of emotions? What kinds of feelings in my body? Acknowledge
and accept your feelings, whatever they are like. Direct your
attention to your breathing, to every inhalation and exhalation.
For a moment, let your breathing act as an anchor to the present
and feel how it helps you tune into mindfulness. Next, broaden
your attention so that you are momentarily aware of your breathing,
the position of your body and its perceptions, and your environment.
You can do this alone or together with your client.
Unruly (Wild) Power
Power is inseparably connected to all human interaction, including
therapeutic relationships. In these relationships we are –
whether we want to or not – always linked to the network
of power/knowledge, where it is impossible to act outside of power.
Therapists are often so used to their power as experts that they
tend to completely forget about this. However, in our therapist-client
relationships, we are inevitably both under the influence of power
and influencing with the same power. According to Johnella Bird
(2004), even when we are trying to equalize or minimize our power
as postmodern therapists we in fact make our power invisible instead
of removing it from the therapy relationship. After we have some
awareness of complex interpersonal power relations, it is important
to ask (a) how to work by using power relations in a way that
benefits both ourselves and our clients and (b) how to work so
that our awareness of power relations could increase. Instead
of asking who has the power or who is using it, it is more useful
to ask what types of practices make power relations possible in
therapy. The critical thing is to recognize how power is used
and that it can be used in either a helpful or a hurtful way.
Particularly within the field of narrative therapy, there has
been a lot of research on how the positioning of the therapist
in a therapeutic power relation is connected with her well-being
(White 2007; White & Morgan, 2006). White argues that we can
be in four kinds of positions in relation to people who come to
therapy, outlined in the table below (White, 2005).
The Position of the Therapist
|Decentred and Influential
||Centred and Non-Influential
|Decentred and Non-Influential
||Centred and Influential
When the therapist takes a centred and influential position in
the power relations, she detaches people from their own experiences
and independently takes the responsibility for fixing any problems
with her expertise. This position is often very exhausting for
her. If, on the other hand, she is in the centred and non-influential
position, she listens to others but keeps making her own interpretations
based on professional knowledge. The therapist leads her client
in the direction she assumes, as an expert, to also be important
for the client. Often the conversation cannot proceed only through
the assumptions of the professional, and this is when the therapist
experiences the situation as exhausting. When the therapist works
in a decentred and non-influential way, she is passive and does
not take responsibility for how the therapy goes. Everything sort
of happens, but no one has the responsibility for how the
conversation proceeds. In this position, the therapist often ends
up in ethically doubtful situations, which burden her.
Being in the decentred and influential position gives the practitioner
a possibility to experience her actions as potentially energizing.
The therapist's professional knowledge is not in the centre of
the process. The clients or family act as the experts in their
own lives, and their knowledge, skills, preferences, and commitment
are important. The therapist works actively and critically, constantly
reflecting her own work alone and together with the client. She
is influential, not by imposing a preconceived plan for the therapy
process but by creating questions that give the client a possibility
to experience his own knowledge of life and practices of living,
opening up new alternatives to the actual predicaments. The therapist
is not neutral. It is her responsibility to acknowledge and perceive
her own power and constantly explore its effects in the therapy
with the client. It is crucial to recognize the discourses that
inevitably have an effect on the therapist – gender, age,
sex, the Western idea of human nature and self, and so on –
and make them visible. Whenever the therapist acts deconstructively,
opening up power-knowledge relations, more room is created for
the mode of being, and the therapist has greater opportunity to
be as she is in the work. This experience has a positive effect
on our well-being because power issues are often related to the
ways in which we protect and construct our “self.”
As therapists, we often strain ourselves in an effort to take
away insecurity and ignorance. On the other hand, the burden of
the “truths” we know is something to which we give
little thought. Maturana defines violence in the following way:
“the holding of a
view by one person or group to be true so that another person’s
or group’s view is untrue and must change” (Sanders
& Tomm, 1989). The illusion of safety and clinging to orthodoxy
are part of violent thinking, not thinking that respects the other
person. In a practice where we create well-being and constantly
question our own actions, living in insecurity can be seen as
an ethically valuable human feature.
EXERCISE: While in a therapy session, answer
one of the following questions in your mind from time to time.
Am I mentally evaluating people, or am I helping them evaluate
how I am working as a therapist? Does my work as a therapist separate
or unite people? Am I acknowledging and expressing my values,
beliefs, view of people so that others can evaluate their effects
in therapy? Are my questions supporting dominant social practices,
or are they creating alternatives? Which is more important, what
my colleagues think of me or how my clients experience me?
The occupation of being a therapist is privileged. Depending
on our view of knowledge, what kind of idea we have about the
“self,” and how we are positioned in a therapy process,
we can experience our work either as a humane activity that creates
our well-being or as a tough and wearing job. As we become experienced
at doing therapy mindfully, looking outside the work context for
our well-being and energy diminishes. In our achievement-driven
societies, the mode of doing has often become dominant. However,
as we give up our own self-importance, we can also experience
our work as a constant mental exercise that energizes us. In this
way, doing therapy can offer us an experience of transformation,
where the therapist's way of looking at the world and experiencing
it changes. Rather than being agents of change, we can be changed
agents, affected by therapeutic interactions and gaining
personal agency (Lax, 1996). We can be transported through our
clients to places that open up our views, curious and exited about
the possibilities where our work and lives show themselves as
unique and inspiring adventures.
Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. (1992). The client is the expert:
approach to therapy. In S. McNamee & K. Gergen (Eds.) Therapy
as social construction (pp. 25-39). London: Sage Publications.
Augusta-Scott, T., & Brown, C. ( 2007). Narrative therapy:
Making meaning, making
lives. London: Sage Publications.
Bird, J. (2004). Talk that sings: Therapy in a new linguistic
key. Auckland, NZ: Edge
Deshimaru, T. (1982). The Zen way to the martial arts. New York:
Epstein, M. (2007). Psychotherapy without the self – A Buddhist
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ficher-Schreiber, I. (1994). The encyclopedia of Eastern philosophy
Gehart, D., & McCollum, E. (2007). Engaging suffering: Towards
a mindful re-visioning
of family therapy practice. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
33 (2), 214-226.
Gergen. K.(1999). An invitation to social construction. London:
Gergen, K. (2006). Therapeutic realities: Collaboration, oppression
flow. Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute Publications.
Goleman, D. & Epstein, M. (1983). Meditation and well-being:
An Eastern model of
psychological health. In R. Walsch & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Beyond
health and normality: Exceptional psychological well-being (pp.
229-252). New York: Van Nostrad Reinhold.
Hoffman, L. (2007a). The art of “withness:” A new
bright edge. In H. Anderson &
D. Gehart (Eds.), Collaborative therapy: Relationships and conversations
that make a difference (pp. 63-79). New York: Routledge.
Hoffman, L. (2007b). Practising “withness:” A human
art. In H. Anderson & P. Jensen
(Eds.), Innovations in the reflecting process (pp. 3-15). London:
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom
of your body and
mind to face stress, pain and illness. New York: Delta.
Loy, D. (1997). Nonduality: A study in comparative philosophy.
Lax, W. (1996). Narrative, social constructionism and Buddhism.
In H. Rosen &
K. Kuehlwein (Eds.), Constructing realities. Meaning-making perspectives
for psychotherapists (pp. 195-220). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Malinen, T. (2004). The wisdom of not knowing: A conversation
Anderson. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 23 (2), 68-77.
Olson, C. (2000). Zen and the art of postmodern philosophy. New
University of New York Press.
Rosenbaum, R., & Dyckman, J. (1996). No self? No problem!
Actualizing empty self
in psychotherapy. In M. F. Hoyt (Ed.) Constructive Therapies 2
(pp. 238-274). New York: Guilford Press.
Sanders, G., & Tomm, K. (1989). A cybernetic-systemic approach
to problems in
sexual functioning. In D. Kantor & B. F. Okun (Eds.), Intimate
environments: Sex, intimacy, and gender in families (pp. 346-380).
New York: Guilford Press.
Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2002).
cognitive therapy for depression: A new approach to preventing
relapses. New York: Guilford Press.
Shotter, J. (2004). On the edge of social constructionism: “Withness-thinking”
“aboutness-thinking.” London: KCC Foundation.
Thich Nhat Hanh (2001). Essential writings. New York: Orbis Books.
Thomas, F. N. (2007). Simpler may not be better: A personal journey
with and beyond
systemic and solution-focused practices. Journal of the Texas
Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, 12 (1), 4-29.
Wilber, K. (2007). A brief history of everything (2nd ed.). New
White, M. (2007). Maps of narrative practice. New York: Norton.
White, M. (2005). Workshop notes. Retrieved September 21, 2007
White, M. (2001). Narrative practice and the unpacking of identity
Gecko. A journal of deconstruction and narrative ideas in therapeutic
practice (pp. 28-55). Adelaide: Dulwich Centre Publications.
White, M., & Morgan, A. (2006). Narrative therapy with children
and their families.
Adelaide: Dulwich Centre Publications.