Resistance to Self-responsibility Therapy

Over the years since I developed SRT, I have observed the emergence of two camps: those mental health professionals who resist the idea of self-responsibility, and those who embrace it.

Some mental health professionals are actively hostile to the notion of self-responsibility as a factor in mental health.?The view they take is:

“Some people grow up in environments where there were no role models for self-responsibility.?As such, it is unreasonable to expect such people to take self-responsibility.”

That seems to me, to be akin to saying:

“Because someone is starving to death, as a result of being deprived of food, and therefore they are not used to eating, there is no point in giving them food.”

Failing to encourage self-responsibility, in those people for whom their lack of self-responsibility is the primary cause of their problems, seems to me to be an act of grossest negligence.

There is a political dimension to the motives of those mental health professionals who are hostile to self-responsibility therapy.?They seem to believe that many mental health clients, have become so, because they are victims of a political system that has failed them.?Accordingly, only by addressing the deprivations to which their victims have been subjected is there any hope of treatment.

Such a politicisation of mental health problems condemns the client to victimhood. They cannot, in the mind of those who resist SRT, be saved or cured because:

“The system has made them as they are, and the system will keep them as they are; the system needs to be changed.”

What does that say to a client?

“You are a victim, and there is no hope for you unless those who have imposed this evil upon you will change their ways. This is not your fault and there is nothing you can do about it.”

To my mind, even if such a stance were accurate, it further victimises the victim. It validates and exaggerates their sense of helplessness, it condones their victim mentality, and condemns them to more of the same.

To the other camp, those who embrace self-responsibility as a therapeutic tool, they see the same clients and take the view that if the client can take just a little self-responsibility they can start to move in the right direction; gradually change from living a vicious cycle of lack of self-responsibility, into a virtuous cycle of self-responsible living.

Those who understand that a little self-responsibility goes a long way, can catalyse enough change to turn negative momentum in to positive.

That does not mean that someone who has caused themselves huge harm by a long-track record of abdication of self-responsibility is going to suddenly take on all the opposite behaviours. They can make incremental shifts toward self-responsibility. We cannot change political systems overnight, but we can help those harmed by them to make the best of what they have by taking more and more self-responsibility.

Some people see the notion of self-responsibility as a left-right political debate. Let’s express both at their extremes for the purposes of illustration:

The left advocates that the state is responsible for everything, and that citizens can look to the state to solve their problems.

The right contends that the state should be responsible for next to nothing, and citizens should look to themselves to solve their problems.

In the real world where moderation and balance are a practical necessity, we all have to take responsibility of making the best of whatever system we find ourselves, and condoning victimhood simply perpetuates it.

Of course, some people are harmed by any system, and of course, it would be great if that didn’t happen, and never happened again. That doesn’t help the client who never had any self-responsibility role models. Telling the client why their case is hopeless is not going to get them to increase their levels of self-responsibility.

After the mental health professional’s session is finished, the client needs to take action to improve their lives. The only person who can do that for them, is the client. And the only way they are going to take any action is if they know it will help.

Getting the client to the point where they will take even 1% more self-responsibility is better than telling them all is hopeless because they

“are victims of a system they cannot change.”

You might say: “No mental health professional would say those words to their clients.”

You might be right; they might not say it with words, but some convey it a multitude of non-verbal ways. Without words, the client knows the therapist sees them as a victim, as a hopeless case.

Take the opposite camp; the mental health professionals who take responsibility for their own lives, and are skilled in helping others to increase their levels of self-responsibility. The client knows the therapist believes in them, sees their potential, wants to empower them, finds the way to open the door to self-responsibility thinking.

Who would you rather have your relatives go to if they needed mental health support: someone who would reinforce and confirm their victimhood, or, someone who would take them on a journey to self-responsibility enabling them to overcome their adversities?

Like most mental health tools, there is a big gap between knowing what could and should be done, and having the tools to do it. In one day, using 1:1 teaching the methods can be learned, and in two days of group training the same skill level can be reached.

If you want to learn how to systematically, and reliably take clients to the point of self-responsibility, if you want to learn about the SRT certification course, send a message.

Prof Nigel MacLennan