ABSTRACT
The issue of the degree to which person-centred therapists may express and disclose themselves in the person-centred relationship is contentious. However, there is general agreement that self-expression, self-disclosure and a ‘willingness to be known’ are different from congruence. What is certain is that, even under the (misunderstood) label of ‘being congruent’, there is no licence to ‘tell it how it is’ and the excuse ‘I felt it so I said it’ runs directly contradictory to person-centred practice. There is nothing in the necessary and sufficient conditions to indicate the desirability of the therapist responding to the client from the therapist’s frame of reference and in classical client-centred therapy this would be done only exceptionally if at all. Also, an investigation by Barrett-Lennard (1998: 265) of the effect on the therapist’s willingness to be known on the progress and success of therapy indicated no correlation – but it did show the importance of empathic understanding. Nevertheless, the issue of the therapist’s self-disclosure to the client is constantly revisited and many take the view that, at times and in limited ways, this may be a useful thing to do. Just what to do and when to do it is debatable and there are no commonly agreed guidelines. Even Rogers himself can be considered inconsistent with respect to his views in this matter. Perhaps when and how to make responses from one’s own frame of reference is something that arises from our personal style and it is for each of us to make up our minds about this facet of practice. To help, there are some key points.
