Talk:Co-counselling

Someone took out today all of the external links that were not to the official Re-Evaluation Counseling Web site. Although I agree that the point of those links needs to be better integrated into the article, they seem relevant to what a good article on this topic would be. So I reverted the article to the prior version, which contained additional external links. But some of those no longer work, so I took those out. Jeremy J. Shapiro 13:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the links to CCI and RC-attacking websites because of the unfair and unbalanced portrayal of RC in the main text. I am writing a new version, which will be loaded shortly. In addition, I suggest that CCI and RC have different pages. CCI is a very small organisation and should not be free to colonise the main page for co-counselling in this way, which misportrays it to the wider world.

Agreed there should be seperate articles on RC and CCI, but this doesn't justify censoring out links you don't agree with. I know very little about CCI or RC and watch this article because I want to learn more about the subject. I don't have any sort of axe to grind with either organisation, but I don't appreciate attempts to block out what others don't want me to read. I am able to make up my own mind. Concentrate on editing the body text to produce an impartial NPOV overveiw of co-counselling rather than acting as a self-appointed censor. quercus robur 21:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just re-read the article, it looks pretty balanced to me as it stands, I don't see any evidence of CCI 'colonisation', as an outsider it seems to reflect the RC & CCI differences of approach quite well, without taking the side of either faction.

There aren't "differences" between the "approach" of CCI and RC. RC is fundamentally different, it is a liberation theory for oppressed people to throw off the burden of distress (particularly "internalised oppression" - the inward result of external oppression) so that they can become free to fight against the underlying cause of the oppression. It is based on the concept that all humans are free and equal, that oppression is not needed for good human functioning and that class societies are the root cause of all distresses and human "problems". RC is a worldwide movement based on the above with about 50,000 practising counselors. It is not a therapy and is not fundamentally interested in "self-help" or therapy as a goal; the goal is personal and human liberation. CCI is essentially a small group started in the 70s as a criticism of RC by a therapist, John Heron, who joined with mental health system people and others stung by head on critiques of their role in maintaining the oppressive society to create a distorted and watered down version of the theories of RC, creating another minor "therapy" organisation. The two effectively have nothing in common although they may sound similar. CCI has about 2,500 members worldwide and is in decline.

Article deficient in theory

Currently the article is missing some of the main points of the theory behind Re-Evaluation Counseling, i.e. its distinctive notion of intelligence, a decent explanation of chronic patterns, of balance of attention, etc. I hope to get to these. Jeremy J. Shapiro 13:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that the CCI people feel they can claim "co-counselling" or "co-counseling" as something belonging to them, whereas the term was originally coined by Harvey Jackins, founder of Re-evaluation Counseling (RC). John Heron (a UK psychotherapist) founded CCI in the 70s and ran it essentially as a sort of reaction or criticism of RC. The people in RC regard the CCI people as splitters and wasters whereas the CCI people regard the RC people as authoritarian. Result is that no sensible discussion between the two appears to be possible. In more recent years a number of RC'ers became upset by their reading of Jackins' "Gay Policy" (actually just a restatement of his view that all sexual distress, including gay distress, should be discharged on and that people did not have to accept a rigid identification or sexual position as intrinsic) and either joined CCI or "gave up" on RC. This led to a fresh wave of Jackins-bashing, but the main RC organisation continues and is much larger and more idea-driven than CCI. Interestingly, the CCI accusations of sexual misconduct directed against Harvey Jackins were never proven and the one case they often point at, a teacher in Seattle in the 70s, later claimed she had made the whole thing up. By contrast, a number of former CCI people I know of have complained of sexual distrust and confusion within CCI arising out of a willingness to cross over from counseling into sexual relationships. Case of the pot calling the kettle I think.

Censorship

There seems to be a concerted effort to censor any mention of co-counselling outside of Re-evaluation counselling by the following unregistered users.

86.135.33.229 , 81.159.172.242 uk, 81.159.168.31 uk, 86.135.32.135

The same paragraphs are being repeatedly removed by what look like different people. I have created seperate pages for RC and CCI . The main Co-counselling page must describe both approaches plus any other uses of the term. Lumos3 12:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]