The relationship person to person © Peter F. Schmid ENCOUNTER The relationship person to person © Peter F. Schmid

ENCOUNTER en-counter | ren-contre | Be-geg(e)n-ung [PCEP1,1] ‘Encounter’: to meet the unexpected To meet face to face: the importance of ‘being counter’. One of the consequences of viewing the human being as a person is the realization that accepting another person means to truly acknowledge him or her as an Other in the sense of dialogical or encounter philosophy. He or she is no alter ego, no close friend a priori, no iden­tifiable person. He or she is an entirely different person. Only when fully appreciating this fact of fundamental difference do encounter and community become possible. Etymologically the word ‘encounter’ comes from Latin ‘contra’ which is ‘against’ (as the German ‘Be–geg[e]n–ung’ contains ‘gegen’). To en–counter another person first of all means to take into consideration that the Other really ‘stands counter’, because he or she is essentially different from me. (Cf. Schmid, 1998b) The German philosopher and Catholic theologian Romano Guardini (1885–1968) understands encounter as an amazing meeting with the reality of the Other. According to Guardini (1955), encounter means that one is touched by the essence of the opposite. To let this happen, a non–purpose–oriented openness, a distance which leads to amazement and the initiative of man in freedom are indispensable condi­tions. In interpersonal encounter affinity and aliena­tion can be experienced at the same time. Encounter is an adventure which contains a creative seed, a breakthrough to something new. The relationship ‘centers in the Other’. The great Protestant theologian Paul Tillich (1886–1965), with whom Rogers entered into an open dialogue (Rogers & Tillich 1966), pointed out that the person emerges from the resistance in the en­counter of the Other: if the person were not to encounter the resistance of other selves, then every self would try to take itself as absolute. [...] An individu­al can conquer the entire world of objects, but he cannot conquer another person without destroying him as a person. The indivi­dual discovers himself through this resistance. If he does not want to destroy the other person, then he has to enter into a community with him. It is through the resistance of the other person that the person is born. (Tillich, 1956, p.208) ‘Being counter’, according to the Jewish theologian and philosopher Martin Buber (1878-1965) is the foundation for meeting face to face. To be opposite to the Other offers the possibility to face and to acknowledge him or her. Being a person consists in the event of encounter or dialogue, of communicating oneself. He defines encounter as the immediacy of the I-Thou-relationship, an event in which one becomes pre­sence to the Other. The I is not constituted until such an encounter relationship: ‘The I becomes through the Thou. Becoming an I, I say Thou.’ (Buber, 1923, p. 18) ‘All real life is encounter.’ (Buber, 1923, p. 18) Therefore encounter is where dialogue happens. The ‘counter’ notion of encounter can be easily understood by thinking of standing aside and making a step towards each other: It starts with a step to bring oneself opposite to the other. However, such a seemingly simple step is fundamental: to make a step away and face the other person, thus standing opposite or ‘counter’ to him or her. This ‘position’ appreciates the Other as somebody independent, as an autonomous individual, different and separated from me, worthy of being dealt with — otherwise one would turn away. In being counter the otherness of the Other is appreciated. Standing face to face avoids both, identification and objectification. It enables encounter. The step to stand opposite and face the Other is — literally — the turning point: I turn towards the Other. To stand counter also means to give room to each other and to share a common room. It expresses respect. In facing the Other I can see him or her and acknowledge their uniqueness and qualities. In facing them I do not think what I could know about them, but I am ready to accept what they are going to disclose. To take such a step is not an insignificant action, no harmless, risk–free or ‘soft’ action. To stand counter always implies ‘confrontation’ (the Latin word ‘frons’ means ‘forehead’), it might even imply conflict. Thus it is essential for the understanding of encounter and acknowledgement to deal with aggression which is often avoided among person-centered people (cf. Schmid, 1996, pp. 469-486; 2001c, pp. 57-58). To be kept awake by an enigma: the challenge of encounter. The French existential philosopher Gabriel Marcel (1889–1973) emphasizes that the Other has always been there in advance (1935). Similarly the Lithuanian Jewish encounter philosopher and professor at the Sorbonne in Paris, Emmanuel Levinas (1905–1995, a thinker of tremendous importance, who is still to be discovered for the person–centered approach), lays emphasis on the truth, which can be observed phenomenologically and developmental psychologically, that the Other always comes first. Levinas (1961; 1974; 1983) shows that this is a fundamental ethical issue. Levinas points out that all of the occidental philosophy has remained ‘egology’ (and this also applies to psychology as its ‘daughter’ and to psychotherapy as its ‘grand–daughter’, including its so–called humanistic orientation in the 20th century). This fixation on the I is clearly predominant in the terminology of those forms of humanistic psychology who are only concentrated on self–development (note the numerous self–terms employed). Despite all positioning against an objectivation and instrumentalisation, it finally indicates a reduction of the Other, of what the Other means to me. In this connection, even the well–known sentence by Martin Buber (1923, p.18) ‘I become through the Thou’ suddenly sounds quite different: even here, as is to be suspected, everything is still focused on me. This, however, presents the ideals of the humanistic movement in a new light. According to Levinas: What once seemed to be a distinctive human quality, the absolute desire to determine and realize oneself, ‘self–determination’ and ‘self–realization’, has proved the reason of violence against the other human being in the history of the 20th century.’ (Waldschütz, 1993) In his main work ‘Totalité et infini’ Levinas (1961) points out that to exist means to be entangled in oneself, caught in the totality of one’s own world. According to Levinas the first alienation of the human being is not being able to get rid of oneself. Wrongly the intention of a simplistic moral goes toward being one’s own master. But the awakening from the totality of the being–caught–in–oneself does not happen through ‘being independent’. Rather, the Other is the power which liberates the I from oneself. The foundation of self–confidence is not the reflection on oneself, but the relationship to the Other. This overcomes the limits of the self and opens up in–finity. The self is born in the relationship to another person. Levinas uses the metaphor of ‘visage’ (‘that which is seen,’ i.e., the face). This reminds of the above mentioned Greek origin of ‘person’ as ‘face’. The Other — who is absolutely different, not an alter ego, thus not to be seen from my perspective — is the one coming towards me, approaching me. The Other ‘enters’ the relationship — what Levinas calls a ‘visitation’ (i.e., ‘going to “see” somebody’): my look is touched by the look of the visage. Hence the Other is not in my view, but I am in the view of the Other. The movement goes from the Thou to the I. Also from a developmental perspective the movement always originates from the Thou: it is the call, the addres­sing of another human being, which evokes a response, confronts with free­dom and risk. En­counter happens to a human being long before he or she can aim at obtaining such an experience. Thus, encounter in dialogue turns out to be a condition for self–consciousness, to be an in–finity, to be a common trans­cendence of the (totalitarian) status quo, to be a start without return: Abraham, who starts his journey to an unknown country without return, and not Ulysses, who at the end returns to his starting–point, is to be seen as the symbolic character. In other words, encounter is always a challenge: ‘Encountering a human being means being kept awake by an enigma’ states Levinas (1983, p. 120). (More on encounter as a basic category for the person–centered approach: Schmid, 1991; 1994; 1998b; 2002a.)

‘to be touched by the essence of the opposite’ ‘an amazing meeting with the reality of the Other’ R. Guardini, 1955 ‘to be touched by the essence of the opposite’

‘the person emerges from the resistance in the encounter of the Other’ P. Tillich, 1956

‘being counter is the foundation for meeting face to face’ M ‘being counter is the foundation for meeting face to face’ M. Buber, 1923

‚The I becomes through the Thou - all real life is encounter‘ ‘encounter is the immediacy of the I-Thou-relationship, an event in which one becomes presence to the Other’ M. Buber, 1923 ‚The I becomes through the Thou - all real life is encounter‘

‚The movement goes from the Thou to the I‘ ‘The self is born in the relationship to another person‘ E. Levinas, 1961 ‚The movement goes from the Thou to the I‘

‘Encountering a human being means being kept awake by an enigma.’ E. Levinas

2. The client comes first Traditional (objectifying) approach: what do I (the therapist) see? what can I observe? what is over there? what can I do? how can I help? I  Thou Rogers’ (phenomenological) approach: what does (s)he (the client) show, reveal, want to be understood? I  Thou the client comes first (‘client-centered’) the therapist responds to a call

The client comes first ‘phenomenon’ active: fainein ‘show, bring to light, make appear, announce’ passive: fainesqai ‘be shown, come to light, appear, come into being’

 The client is the expert The client comes first epistemologically the movement goes from the client to the therapist Thou-I-relationship, not ‘egology’ (Levinas) person: to reveal oneself to the Other and oneself (‘co-experiencing’)  The client is the expert

3 possible positions on expertism therapist is expert for CBT contents & process client is expert for contents, Gestalt, therapist is expert for process ET client is expert for contents & process PCT

The client is the expert In PCT the client comes first phenomenologically (Thou - I) in terms of the contents (knowledge) in terms of the means and the process The therapist responds existentially (i.e. as a person)

ENCOUNTER person to person (the personal way of relationship) to meet the unexpected the otherness of the Other Thou-I-relationship therapy is the art of not-knowing counselling is response out of respons-ability The Third One – We – group - community