Interpersonal relationships
The term “interpersonal” carries the understanding that the relationship between a person and another individual has a mutual orientation. Interpersonal relationships are a system of expectations and orientations of members of a certain group relative to each other, determined by the organization of joint activities and based on common ideas about values and social norms.
The basis of interpersonal relationships is the efforts of partners aimed at making their behavior and their feelings more understandable and acceptable to each other. It is actions and feelings that create the matrix of relationships through which direct communication occurs.
Sometimes interpersonal relationships should be considered as a system of traditional generally accepted patterns of behavior that not only structure communication, but also ensure its mutual continuity between two partners.
In such relationships, each person is inherent in playing his own interpersonal role, which entails a clearly defined status - a number of stable rights and responsibilities. In most cases, the beginning of the implementation of this role occurs unconsciously: without preliminary analysis and clear decisions, partners begin to adapt to each other. Thus, the essence of the phenomenon of interpersonal relationships is the mutual orientations of individuals who are in long-term contact with each other.
Examples
They are found everywhere. Examples of business and personal relationships accompany us constantly. The boss calls a subordinate to his office to talk about his promotion - this is the situation demonstrating the first case. Business relations are visible. This also includes the process of concluding a partnership or employment contract. Even a buyer in a store, communicating with a sales consultant, carries out a business relationship. Because their dialogue has a goal - the purchase and sale of goods. Each business contact leads to a specific result.
Personal relationships also have a purpose. But it is more sublime, since we are talking about the participants in such contact receiving joy from mutual communication. Two friends meet in the evening at a bar to discuss the events of recent days - this is a personal aspect. Just like communication between husband and wife, boyfriend and girlfriend, parents and children.
Business and personal relationships
Business relationships are those relationships in which communication is determined strictly within the framework of the defined tasks of the common cause and the guidelines of management. Business relationships are strictly aimed at results; their main motivation is not the communication process itself, but the ultimate goal.
When entering into business relationships, a person is guided primarily by internal and external discipline, which can only be developed by a mature adult. Therefore, children do not enter into business relationships; even the relationship between a child and a teacher in primary and secondary schools is a personal relationship. If partners have established an informal business relationship, then over time it can transform into a personal one.
It should not be assumed that this type of relationship is inherent only in working with colleagues, superiors, etc. Business relationships can also be established with close people. However, this is preceded by a dialogue, you should discuss with your mother, husband, child why you think that establishing such a relationship with them is important and what mutual benefit will be from this for the two parties.
Personal relationships are relationships between close people; they are devoid of a touch of officialdom. Such relationships are not supported by documents, as is often the case in business relationships. Personal relationships are relationships between parents and children, friends, classmates outside of school, brothers and sisters.
Read online Individual relationships. Theory and practice of empathy. Kurpatov Andrey Vladimirovich.
Title of the book in the original: Kurpatov Andrey Vladimirovich. Individual relationships. Theory and practice of empathy
White background Book background Black background
Home page » Kurpatov Andrey Vladimirovich » Individual relationships. Theory and practice of empathy.
Andrey Kurpatov
A. Alekhine
Individual relationships
Theory and practice of empathy
Preface
So everything turned out that this book was not destined to see the light of day. Its original text was written in 1995 and was, in fact, a continuation of those works that are now published under the titles “Philosophy of Psychology (New Methodology)” and “Personality Development (Psychology and Psychotherapy).” But then serious problems arose with the publication. With difficulty we published the theory of personality in the Bulletin of the Baltic Pedagogical Academy, and then the Philosophy of Psychology was published in a symbolic edition, in which the new methodology and theory of personality were presented in a condensed form. All this took several years, during which, however, a lot has changed. As a result, the text of the “continuation” was not completed, and the authors changed the emphasis of scientific research - the place of “relationships” was firmly occupied by “behavior”.
In the mid-nineties, it seemed to us that the basis of psychotherapy should be the process of personality development, but since the work on creating systemic behavioral psychotherapy gave new and unexpected results, by the end of the nineties it became clear that psychotherapy is in itself, and psychotherapeutic support of the process of personality development is itself by oneself. Psychotherapy should treat borderline mental disorders, based on an understanding of the “mechanics” of these same disorders, and psychotherapeutic support of the process of personality development is relevant only in cases where the patient (client) consults a doctor with a crisis of personal growth, and in this case the priority is already the “mechanics” of personality development. It turns out that it is too naive to expect that the process of personality development can become the locomotive of psychotherapeutic work.
Yes, in the process of personality development, a person, as a rule, gets rid of borderline mental disorders, if he had them. In this sense, psychotherapeutic support for the process of personality development is in some sense even therapeutic (however, we have always believed that consistency is important here - first therapy, and then personality development). In addition, if the development of the patient’s (client’s) personality received an impetus during psychotherapeutic work with a doctor, then the subsequent work of the psychotherapist to facilitate this process makes it possible to consolidate the therapeutic results of the previous – actually psychotherapeutic – work. However, one cannot hope that personality development will “cure” mental disorders with the same success as psychotherapy. And if in the mid-nineties the authors still retained some illusions on this score (although our main therapeutic method has always been behavioral psychotherapy), then by the end of the nineties there were no longer any such illusions.
In 2001, we had the opportunity to publish some of the previous texts on the new methodology and theory of personality [1]. And then it became clear that the theory of personality, including a description of the processes of its formation and development, should be seriously improved. This was partly due to the progress achieved in work on systemic behavioral psychotherapy, and partly to the appearance of a large number of new, mostly translated, works on the problems of interest to us. One way or another, the section on personality theory was, in fact, written anew. At the same time, the term “psychotherapeutic support of the process of personality development” appeared, which distinguished between psychotherapy itself, on the one hand, and psychotherapeutic benefits within the framework of personal growth, on the other.
All these minor details are important only to clarify the confusion that arose at a certain moment. The fact is that initially the authors announced not systemic behavioral, but “patterned” psychotherapy, the basis of which, according to their ideas, should have been the patterns of a person’s individual relationships with the world, with other people and with himself (hence the word “patternal”) . But subsequently, precisely thanks to these changes in 2002, nothing remained of this concept itself. The term “psychotherapeutic support for the process of personality development,” as well as the separation of psychotherapeutic support for the process of personality development and psychotherapy (systemic behavioral psychotherapy), turned out to be more correct than attempts to introduce the concept of “pattern psychotherapy.” But the text of this book - “Individual Relationships” - was precisely a kind of introduction or preface to pattern psychotherapy. Since it was “cancelled,” such a preface to it turned out to be unnecessary.
However, the material in this book, which deals with individual relationships, has its own meaning and is important in its own way, but since this text did not serve as an introduction to pattern psychotherapy, its form was not suitable for the tasks, and therefore the book needed serious corrections. In fact, for these reasons, it practically did not have much chance of being published. These chances increased significantly quite recently, when the opportunity arose to publish all my scientific works and the question arose about the array of texts that were created in the mid-nineties. Thematically, they covered three issues - new methodology, personality theory and individual relationships, and therefore it was decided to publish three independent books, which were called “Philosophy of Psychology”, “Personality Development” and “Individual Relationships”. Chronologically, this book was written third, but the second - “Personality Development” - as already mentioned, later underwent serious revision, and therefore it is both the third and the second at the same time.
Why is it important? The point is that books are born in the context in which they are born. Any text, to put it differently, is created in the intellectual space in which it is created, appearing as a certain figure against the background, and in this sense, it is unthinkable without it. By changing the background, we automatically change the figure, which is not always correct. That is why everything regarding quotes and other references has been preserved in this book as before, from 1995. “Individual Relations” was written when the authors did not yet know, for example, the works of Jacques Lacan (only criticism), therefore the theme of “Other” here, on the one hand, is original, on the other hand, insufficient. This has its pros and cons. But to now introduce references to J. Lacan into this book (which was done, for example, in “Personal Development”, but there the corresponding sections were completely revised) would mean changing the entire logic of the present text, which in this case is perhaps even more important some details.
However, the book still underwent significant revision. I was once very upset about the impossibility of publishing this text, but now I’m even glad that it has been put to rest. Before this publication, I had to edit it thoroughly in order to, so to speak, “clear” the thought. As a result, this led to a serious reduction in the text, which probably somehow worsened its quality (some of the information seems too abstract), but by retaining the main thing and parting with the secondary, it undoubtedly acquired greater clarity. However, since in the field of methodology, as well as in the field of theory and practice of psychotherapy, much is now perceived differently, it took a lot of effort from me not to try to completely redo it. I am sure that as a result of such alteration he would simply die. The surgery he was facing was too extensive. Since I consider it important, I had to shorten the “branches” and change the language, while maintaining the same logic of presentation.
Why does this text seem important to me? This is probably partly explained by the new title of the book, or rather, its subtitle - “The Theory and Practice of Empathy.” If we look at books on psychology and psychotherapy published in Russia before 1995, it will not be so easy to find in them a mention of this term, which has now become so popular. It is not in this book either, although we are talking specifically about the theory and practice of empathic acceptance. However, here again the question is: what is considered this empathy? Since empathy itself is one of those phenomena that are purely subjective - it cannot be felt, it cannot be measured - the answer to this seemingly quite simple question poses a gigantic difficulty. Outwardly, everything is quite simple: the word “empathy” comes from the Greek empatheia, which means empathy
. Let’s add here the fact that this is a psychotherapeutic technique (or at least a psychotherapeutic tool), and it becomes clear that we are talking about a certain feeling of the therapist into the state, into the experiences of the patient. And then supernatural difficulties begin...
The psychotherapist, in addition to being a human being, is “on duty,” that is, performing a certain job. If we consider that this work consists solely in “accepting” the patient (client) as he is, that is, listening and approving, which, in general, is limited to the patient-centered psychotherapy of Carl Rogers, then, in principle, there are no problems arises. We sympathize, accept, approve and support - empathy as it is.
But what if a psychotherapist considers his work a little more complex (not psychologically, of course, but technically), that is, he implies that his patient (client) is wrong in some ways, makes mistakes in some places, is driven by unconscious motives in some ways and so on? Here, with empathy, as an element of the psychotherapeutic process, serious problems immediately arise. Now the psychotherapist is forced to choose what he will sympathize with and what he will not. He cannot, perceiving his patient (client) within the framework of this approach, treat with empathy his delusions, mistakes or his irrational behavior carried out under the pressure of unconscious motivations. Can not. How is such a situation possible when we generally show empathy towards a person, but at the same time we do not accept some part of him, even if it is “wrong” or painful? No, this is kind of absurd. I either accept or I don’t accept, I either sympathize or I don’t sympathize. Let's not have any illusions about this. “I sympathize with him, but I think he’s wrong” - this can be anything - pity or a sign of good upbringing, but this is not sympathy, not empathy. It’s like with pregnancy, which is not partial – either yes or no.
Now let's go further and imagine a psychotherapist who sympathizes with the patient (client) in what is his true problem, but the patient (client) himself does not yet (or in principle) feel this as a problem. A simple example: a man, being an orphan, abandoned by his parents in infancy, was brought up in harsh conditions of a boarding school and does not know how to establish truly strong emotional connections with other people. He worries because his personal relationships do not work out, that he is being deceived, betrayed, that he is abandoned, that he is neglected, and so on. Why is this happening? Well, because he simply does not know how to maintain emotionally close relationships with people, he does not understand women who suffer from his “coldness” and insensitivity. But does he himself worry because he does not know the feelings of emotional intimacy? Often, no, he doesn’t worry, because he simply never had such an experience, and the very ability for such an experience is not developed in him. How can he be burdened by her absence? The results of the absence of this ability sadden him, but not the actual lack of ability. And what will the psychotherapist sympathize with if this sympathy appears in him? The fact that this patient (client) of his is not having a good life, or the fact that he is disabled, “wooden,” blind or dumb? Of course, the second one. That is, the psychotherapist shows empathy, but on the other side there is only one bewilderment - they say, you are empathizing with the wrong person, doctor, everything is fine, I feel, I have another problem: women leave me, but I want a family! Yes, the fact that they are leaving is, of course, sad, but what is much sadder is that they will do it, because he, in some sense, is emotionally disabled. Can this attitude towards your patient (client) be called acceptance? Yes and no. There is empathy, but the patient (client) does not have the feeling that he is being empathized with.
Finally, the third aspect: some authors regard, for example, a neurolinguistic “report” as a manifestation of empathy, however, here we can talk not only about this specific technique, but also about others that are similar in essence. We are talking about a situation where, thanks to the work of a psychotherapist, excellent psychological contact is established between him and the patient (client), the patient (client) develops a feeling of trust, and the psychotherapist himself exhibits almost “telepathic abilities” - he understands everything, guesses everything. During the “external examination”, when assessing the “effect”, there is practically no doubt - we have empathy in its purest form! But... Can we regard a technical procedure as a manifestation of sympathy, empathy, and actual empathy? No, a technical procedure is a technical procedure, and the described effect only tells us about the high professionalism of the specialist. “Adapting” to the patient (client), understanding how he thinks and what he feels is the alpha and omega of the psychotherapeutic process, but this is not something personal
participation of the psychotherapist in the patient’s experiences.
Here, rather, on the contrary, there is a high level of a sound, reasonable, rational approach. In a sense, here the specialist even feigns sympathy (although it is wrong to say so), plays it out. Of course, this is done for only one purpose - to obtain maximum information and achieve maximum therapeutic effect. But the very fact that we have to make such reservations indicates that this is not empathy (as we would like to understand it), but virtuoso work, thanks to which the patient (client) feels
that they empathize with him, that they are rooting for him that he is important, that he is accepted and supported, although, in fact, it is quite possible that the psychotherapist himself does not experience the full range of these feelings, or at least does not experience them as strongly as it may seem and seems to the patient (client).
Specialists, unfortunately, often think that their ability to inspire trust, to enter into the patient’s (client’s) position, to understand him, to predict his behavior is empathy. In fact, this is certainly not the case. And the problem is not in anything, but in this very concept - empathy. It is, frankly speaking, simply unsuccessful, although it has become entrenched in psychological science. Why it has stuck is clear: the phenomenon of empathy exists, although besides it, this term hides, as we have just shown, a variety of other, sometimes completely irrelevant, options for the relationship between a psychotherapist and his patient (client). Here exactly the same difficulties arise as with the concepts of “neurotic”, “hysterical”, “psychopath”. There are phenomena, but the names are not suitable; they name both the phenomenon and a dozen other phenomena that are adjacent to it, but are significantly, and sometimes fundamentally different. It's like a gun with a broken sight - we seem to be doing everything right, but we don't hit the target. That is why we have to put the name “empathy” in the title of the book, and not talk about it, because it is better not to talk about it at all, since it only creates additional confusion.
So, what phenomenon are we talking about? In general, any specialist has the right to understand by “empathy” whatever he pleases—either this or that. As already mentioned, empathy is not measurable or definable, and therefore subjective and, accordingly, can be interpreted by specialists as they see fit. But the phenomenon that really takes place does take place. And this is not compassion, not a certain ideological attitude towards a person (in principle, towards a person), not the professionalism of a psychotherapist, expressed in the ability to be highly congruent in relationships, this is something completely different.
In personality theory, developed on the basis of a new methodology, this phenomenon is called “individual relationships.” And in this case, both words are fundamentally important - and individual
, and
relationships
.
By “relationship” here we mean something that arises between two people
- it is not a “relationship to”, and not “my relationship”, and nothing else, but only a “relationship between”. Individual relationships do not belong to either one or the other of two people; they are a pattern of interaction in the space of which the events of their communication unfold. Therefore, individual relationships are always symmetrical, that is, it cannot be that one of the two people in this relationship feels it more, and someone less, they can experience it slightly differently, but in essence it is identical . The concept of “individuality” in this term indicates the source of these relationships, that is, what “part”, so to speak, of a person participates in these relationships. If we were talking about certain “roles” (identified or unidentified), then such relationships are “formal”. Here we are talking about individual, that is, about essential relationships, about relationships in which the essence of a person, his individuality is involved, and therefore they are called “individual”.
It is pointless to say anything more about individual relationships now, since the entire book is devoted to this phenomenon. Another important question here is of a terminological nature: can we call individual relationships empathy? Yes and no, and even despite the chosen title of the book, it’s more likely no than yes. It’s just that when it comes to empathy, we must understand that this, on the one hand, is such a discourse
(that is, a set of various kinds of thematic judgments about a certain “abstract subject”, and judgments that are often very contradictory), and on the other hand, this is something ineffable that we are trying to talk about (after all, a phenomenon cannot be
said
, one can only say “ about him,” and these are, to put it mildly, different things).
What is the phenomenon in this case? If we accept that in the case of empathy we are talking about individual relationships, then we are thus solving a very serious “methodological problem”. After all, if these are basically individual relationships, then this is already a problem of personality development, and not a question of treating mental disorders, and, accordingly, psychotherapy - as a medical specialty - will be able to part with the concept of empathy with a pure heart. This seemingly tragic separation, in fact, turns out to be unusually healing for the discipline as a whole. Refusal of the concept of empathy allows us to calmly and meaningfully build the edifice that should be called the “humanistic continuum of psychotherapy,” leaving aside all that idealistic nonsense that still so often turns psychotherapeutic science into something flowing along the tree, amorphous and irresponsible “ creation".
The fact that individual relationships and the humanistic continuum of psychotherapy are different things became clear precisely with the loss of the last illusions about the possibility of creating “patterned psychotherapy.” The separation of psychotherapy (systemic behavioral psychotherapy) and psychotherapeutic support of the process of personality development became for us a kind of final chord, eliminating the equal sign between the phenomenon of individual relationships and the phenomenon of the humanistic continuum of psychotherapy. A job or profession may require certain skills from a specialist - to be attentive, sensitive, understanding, however, it cannot require him to be sincere, loving, and absolutely open. And if the first is relevant for psychotherapy, thanks to which the psychotherapist creates a certain atmosphere of psychotherapeutic work (like a surgeon creating sterile conditions in the operating room), then the second is a question of personal, individual relationships between two people, one of whom could “by chance” turn out to be a psychotherapist, and the other as his patient (client).
It is important to make this distinction, but since this book will only talk about these personal, individual relationships associated with the process of personality development, I will therefore allow myself to make a small clarification. This very term - “humanistic continuum of psychotherapy” was proposed by me in 2000 in a work published in the Bulletin of Psychotherapy. The deputy editor-in-chief of this journal was then Professor, Doctor of Medical Sciences O.N. Kuznetsov is our common with A.N. Alekhine's teacher. So Oleg Nikolaevich invited me to “report” on the pages of his journal about the work that I was doing at that time at the Neurosis Clinic named after. I.P. Pavlova. The fact is that the issue was supposed to be thematic and was supposed to be devoted to “cultural aspects of psychotherapy,” and Oleg Nikolaevich, remembering my previous works on bibliotherapy and the work of F.M. Dostoevsky, hoped that I would write some kind of “programmatic work” on this topic. But at the Neurosis Clinic, I was entirely occupied with systemic behavioral psychotherapy, and as a result, Oleg Nikolaevich and I even had a kind of “debate” on this matter.
Then I tried to clarify my position: there is psychotherapy (a certain “mechanics” of the process), and there is the “environment” in which it occurs, and although the “environment” is partly therapeutic, it should not be considered as an independent psychotherapeutic means, because this blurs the boundaries psychotherapy. Based on the results of this conversation, during which, as it seems to me, Oleg Nikolaevich and I never came to a consensus, I wrote a paper where I used this “politically correct”, as it seemed to me then, definition - “the humanistic continuum of cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy " And only after this work was published in the magazine, it became clear how important and significant this, as it seemed at first, “compromise” term is.
In fact, the situation of that dispute, as I now understand, can be explained very simply. Oleg Nikolaevich himself never separated the therapeutic effect of the patient’s (client’s) work with a psychotherapist and the “spiritual”, “moral”, “existential” effect of this work, which was certainly a strong and, at the same time, a weak side of his work. And he did not understand why I refused to accept the “humanistic approach” as an independent therapeutic procedure. Since A.N. and I developed Alekhine’s theory of personality, as well as the description of the processes of formation and development of personality, formed the necessary scientific foundation; it became possible to differentiate the various effects of interaction between a psychotherapist and his patient (client).
A humanistic approach, an appropriate view of the patient (client), creates both an atmosphere of psychotherapeutic treatment and conditions for potentiating the process of development of the patient’s (client’s) personality. But in some cases these conditions potentiate personal growth, and in others they do not. If this happens, then we no longer treat, we assist the person in his personal growth. At the same time, the role, position and place of the psychotherapist in the relationship with the patient (client) change, which is very important; now he is no longer a “doctor”, now he is a person who is at a certain level of personal development and has a certain set of special knowledge. Is there a “humanistic continuum” in this case? No, it no longer has. It is relevant only for therapy, but if we are talking about accompanying the process of personality development, then here we are no longer dealing with a continuum of perception
("how-I-feel-towards"), but with
the reality of relationships
- individual relationships.
Returning to the structure of this book, it remains to say that, in addition to three main sections devoted specifically to individual relationships, it also has a “general section” devoted to the open system of human psychology, and an “additional section” devoted to ethosthetics - the problems of “morality” in the psychotherapist's perception. They, too, were written more than ten years ago, and since much has been done to develop these ideas since then, I think it is important to draw the attention of readers not so much to the content of these sections, but to the approach they demonstrate. Now, for example, we can say much more about the open system of human psychology, not only in detail, but also in the methodological aspect, since, as it turned out, this approach allows not only to radically reform psychology (as a science about man), but and philosophy (as the science of truth).
Finally, the text that ends this book, its “appendix,” should be presented. This is an unpublished part of my book, already known to readers - “Self-instruction manual in philosophy and psychology.” The story here is very similar to the story of the publication of Individual Relationships, but in my opinion it is even funnier. The published version of the “Self-Teacher” ends with an indication of the date of its writing – 1996–2002. Actually this is not true. The first and second parts of the book (“Self-instructor in philosophy” and “Self-instructor in psychology”), containing stories about Semyon Semyonich, were written in 1996. In the same year, the third part was written - “Just a tutorial”, but by the time in 2002 I had the opportunity to publish the book in its entirety, the text of its third part no longer suited me at all. And then I completely rewrote it (it was in this new, modified form, in 2002, that it was published), and the original text was shelved.
Now I remember one very remarkable conversation that I had with the literary editor of the magazine “Reality and Subject” - Daria Bogacheva, and which seemed strange to me. At least I was somewhat confused. The fact is that in 2001 my stories about Semyon Semyonich had already begun to be published in this magazine, and I received an offer to publish the text of the third part of the book in a special issue of the magazine. My refusal, argued by the frivolity and even outright weakness of this work of mine, greatly surprised the editorial board. Without expecting it, I ran into a lot of flattering words about my text, which, I admit, I didn’t take personally and considered biased. Then, I remember, I once again, just in case, looked through the text of the first version of the third part of the “Self-Teacher”, became convinced that it was no good, and a year later, for publication in the book version, I wrote a different text instead of the previous one.
What's funny about this situation with my “Just a Tutorial”? Now, while preparing for the publication of “Individual Relations”, forced to preserve my previous “ideology” in it, I suddenly remembered this text. I returned to it, re-read it and only now understood why six years ago it seemed absolutely untenable to me. Yes, if you evaluate it while studying this...
The introductory fragment is finished.
Read the book on the Litres website Home » Kurpatov Andrey Vladimirovich » Individual relationships. Theory and practice of empathy.
