Robert Swanson (email@example.com)
Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:34:01 -0800
I look inside to infer what this difference of respect might mean to youth.
It seems very powerful. Really quite an opening. I am jealous.
I imagine a counselor saying from his heart, "I respect you, I allow you, I
observe you for who you really are". I don't think this is fantasy. I
practice it but not often. Joseph Pearce indicated that studies show that
children see through adult's facade to their true intent, and that is what
they respond to. At SVS, what do you suppose is the intent of fellow
students, what are they saying at heart?
PS, Bill, I want to say that I react to the apology you sign your name
with... not sure what you intended. In it perhaps I see my own
on 11/15/00 5:55 AM, Sugmapl@aol.com at Sugmapl@aol.com wrote:
> Dear Eduardo,
> Thank you for your response.
> Carl Rogers (Rogerian therapy), wrote "On Becoming a Person" and created
> client-centered or non-directive therapy. The therapist does not analyze,
> interrogate, or try to figure out the client. The therapist offers a deep and
> profound respect and regard. Also, the therapist offers an abiding trust that
> the client is the most capable person to arrange their affairs and conduct
> their lives. Virginia Axline, wrote "Play Therapy", and extended these ideas
> to offer non-directive play therapy. These notions were further extended when
> Eugene Gendlin created something called "focusing". Focusing was then further
> developed by Ann Cornell.
> All of these constructions offer a singular thing, namely, a deep and
> profound respect and regard. When the client (child) realizes that a
> competing agenda is not going to arrive, what does arrive is the client
> (child) themselves, often with a heartfelt explosive expression of self.
> Like, "hey, here I am". This is what it means for the child to be present in
> his or her life. These ideas are not just similar to Sudbury Valley they are
> exactly alike. Each offers a deep and profound regard and respect for the
> child and a deep trust that the child is the most capable to conduct their
> own affairs. Moreover, each declines to offer anything further. These are
> exactly the notions in Hanna Greenburg's "The Art of Doing Nothing". How can
> someone be with someone and be non-invasive and still be additive? Both
> Sudbury Valley and Carl Rogers have come up with the same thing, namely,
> offer nothing save a deep and profound respect and a trust that people are
> Please, if these ideas are not useful, just forget them.
> Bill Richardson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 18 2000 - 01:55:50 EST