1/ Are you suggesting we do away with secondary positioned approaches like cultural competence, the study of identity, antidiscrimination, power, or difference and diversity?
A. No. We will always have a multitude of disciplines, theories, specialisms, and additional topics. The WS is asking for essential inclusion across mainstream foundational body of knowledge (as well as additional topics and disciplines like supervision, research) in self-development, theory, relationships, skills, and practice within mainstream helping. This best practice helping model and curricula in the book A New Introduction to Counselling & Psychotherapy. This includes embedding access and accessibility, self-context, and lived context (called WICKET), as these areas represent reality and so help attune relationship, understanding as well as in exploring experiences.
2/ I use antioppressive / diversity / cultural and trauma informed models already. Where does this sit amongst that? Why do i need it?
WS is about avoiding fragmentation and keeping together a view of self and relationships, and therefore of topics and conceptualisation, that is considerate of the whole (holistic). For example, in the model you will see coverage under embodiment, of relational patterns and attention and executive function, as well as identity, which can further be characterised as normative and/or different depending on context. The difference is that it is whole and complete, encapsulating all aspects which influence experience rather than solely focusing on identity, marginalisation, or diversity or anti-oppressive practice lens. Therefore diversity, culture, and anti discrimination as well as many other considerations are natively embedded within the whole and relationship rather than treated as add-on without which they would also perpetuate fragmentation because they (e.g., cultural models) are perceived as separate models to the mainstream core. Therefore, WS framing is mandatory for stronger and more equitable practice that begins with what we embed within ourselves from day one, rather than embedding a generalised, decontextualised view of the human self or a separate model of culture, diversity, embodiment etc. This does not away with need for models that are specific lens focus but they also need to be represented in the core model to avoid fragmentation.
Further the model can be used as an explicit enhancement to existing models. For example, TA concepts of Parent, Adult, Child are in context of WICKET or another example Supervision models view of relationships also includes WICKET as being part of client, therapist and supervisor self. Similarly then for diversity models, antioppressive models and cultural models they can use the WICKET explicitly as appropriate.
3/ is there a risk that therapists will have an agenda if embedding contextual awareness?
I often hear people say that by accounting for clients’ context or having a socio-political viewpoint (e.g., environment, social position, normativity/difference, material conditions, discrimination, culture, beliefs, political policies), therapists might have an agenda and/or take away clients’ autonomy.
Yes, it is true that overidentification with any matter, whether one’s own trauma, lived experience, particular expertise, social issues, or personal (e.g., political) beliefs, can take away from autonomy. But this is baked into ethical practices.
We always stay client-directed, but empathically attuning to context which can often be a missing part of conceptualisation, relationship building, and exploration.
4/ Surely the individual person-to-person matters the most?
Yes, and client-directed. But we also recognise inner experience, interpersonal AND contextual interplay in forming experience. Context gives a more complete scope of understanding and exporation. For example, material and environmental conditions are important lenses of understanding. We are still client experience centred but just like riding a car signposts and dashboard signals (contextual aspects) may need to be attended to as well.
5/ I work more humanistically and phenomenologically but your asking me to work out of that frame?
I don’t believe any theory disallows shifts and flow of experience outside of the here-and-now frame including prompts and questions. If it did, then how would that help with blinkered areas impacting client experiences and ultimately reducing client harm (for both normative and different parts)?
6/ I am a psychoanalyst which doesnt emphasis the relationship but the material, blank slate and interpretation?
The WICKET frame is part of the Analyst–Analysand relationship and forms the scope of analytic material (called societal transference), including contextual dynamics. The book articulates this in the section on transference and counter transference. How the material is interpreted needs to recognise the broader contextual picture and the realities of societal suffering and discrimination, rather than focusing solely on intrapsychic dynamics.
7/ How do politics apply to the model?
Fundamentally it is modelled in three ways 1/ How the organisation structure (resources/policies) influences the relationship and therapy process 2/ How politics and socioculture in the world impacts client experience and mental health (e.g. healthcare / resource policies / access to therapy) 3/ How the client-therapist relationship might mirror societal arrangements e.g. marginalisation and dynamics of societal power which impacting helping.
7/ Why do you use the term ‘solution’ in wholeness solution?
WS is fundamentally a way of making whole the knowledge we use to learn and apply. Its not a problem statement but a solution to the problem of splitting and fragmenting of our self context, wicket, power conscious edi from the bowels of knowledge. So by design rather than adapting or addon. It is atheoretical and an evaluative tool so can be used by other models and theories evaluatively. Further it is a solution because it includes a curricula transition plan, tools, lesson plans, guidance for training institutes and tutors, and advocacy strategy. The solution has been implemented by over twenty tutors within organisations. I wanted to emphasis action through a solution. It is not saying its finality of solutions. Solutions can and must evolve from multiplicity of ways.
8/ You use the term prerupture surely all relations have to be built and trust so why the term.
Fundamentally its because we may forget WICKET forms of ruptures. We often focus on personal barriers but less so on contextual barriers. Prerupture is a way of focusing in on these parts of relationship that are pre fractured because of assumed or real societal relationships. Not in general but because of who therapist represents to the client. An example would be a clients have had a harmful relationship with mental health institute of which therapist represents.
9/ a) In a recent presentation you said we need to widen the epistemic frame of “The relationship” based on your WICKET-BOND framework since lack of contextual understanding within the relationship introduces instability of authenticity (amongst other things), authenticity therefore becomes inexorably impossible to achieve. b) I’m interested to know whether within the model, these relationships are considered unsuccessful/inadequate please? If not, I suppose the question becomes “How much knowledge of the Other can be considered “enough”? How can this be known, or felt, when such context is also in a constantly fluid state?
Thanks for the question.
a) Authenticity in an individual is mediated by multiple factors, such as protective and vulnerability factors, group acceptance, spatial safety, and personal and historical influences, as well as learned experiences, lived context (family, friends, individualism vs collectivism in families, versus in public spaces) and socialisation. Therefore, when creating optimal conditions for authenticity in therapy, where the client is able to explore what they need, a therapist may inadvertently inhibit a client’s authenticity by not being attuned to the contextual factors shaping safety and trust in the therapeutic space.
For example, if a therapist is secular and the client is religious, the therapist might neglect or overlook this dynamic. This might constrain authenticity due to the influence of broader social power relations in the room (assumed or not). By widening our epistemic frame (WICKET), we can develop ourselves, including our relational awareness, skills, and responsiveness, to better attend to these dynamics in therapy. This might involve appropriate self-disclosure, broaching, or simply signalling openness, for instance through a website that explicitly welcomes diverse beliefs. So we could make a broad statement that when there is more difference (although similarity can also freeze authenticity) particularly power through social hierarchical relationships there is more risk that we could inadvertently be constricting authenticity. Similarly, then if a client has religious beliefs (or experienced other forms of the -isms) they may not wish to disclose these beliefs or share their political opinions due to risk of hostile reactions or worse esp. The same applies to any “relational parts,” as described in the presentation. Similarly, we need to account for context when considering repair, belonging, and safety.
In other environments, safety, and therefore authenticity, may be constrained. While a client may attempt to “push through” such barriers (therefore answering your question NOT impossible to achieve), a therapist who has not engaged in contextual self-development may fail to recognise their significance, and therefore particularly when supporting clients in exploring belief-based issues.
b) In personal relationships you may be more used to being authentic especially when we have a history that knows we can say things that aren’t going to be met with a wall, aggression, or emotional or physical hostility. In couples work people might not speak for fear of (power dynamic) of retaliation so end up caretaking rather than being authentic. So authenticity as i said is mediated by lived (context) and interpersonal contexts too. Of course the Whole Experience Model may be used (e.g., focus on survival strategies) to engage in safe dialogue as appropriate to learn about each other and hopefully understand where people are coming from and enhance the relationship. Therefore, as you say they are in process of evolving and learning and connecting rather than inadequate. Good enough relationship is based on clients needs or partner needs or partners needs (therefore yes, bidirection understanding).
In your example, they feel that it is good enough but if we neglect some parts it may not be good enough to get the most from therapy or a relationship e.g., neglecting importance of partners ultimate beliefs. In a relationship a person may not feel individual factors are good enough e.g., differences on parenting styles, worldviews, level of emotional literacy creating mismatch etc.,
The “impossible” bit is when we think on grand scale with groups or the world, the provacative word “impossible” draws attention to collective authenticity, dialogue and repair in improving groups, spaces and the world. Is it possible without fuller appreciate for all relational parts including historical factors? Certainly we could say its on shaky ground.
10/ How does “active (objective) belief” rather than “subjective belief” play a part in therapy?
Your right to point out that there is an ethical risk associated with “active belief” rather than belief in clients experience and the belief in clients valid feelings. It is important to be more cautious about saying “I believe you” in situations where neutrality may later be required, such as cases involving third parties, legal issues (e.g., i didn’t abuse a child), or family conflict, when reality testing and exploration is part of the work/process, or when the statement might reinforce a fixed or unhelpful interpretation rather than encourage exploration. In these contexts, it is often better to validate the client’s feelings and experience without implying factual certainty by acknowledging the impact and emotional reality of what they are describing.
Saying “I believe you” or an equivalent statement is appropriate when it serves to communicate emotional validation rather than factual certainty, particularly after disclosures of harm or trauma (e.g., assault), when a client fears not being taken seriously, or when the therapeutic relationship needs strengthening. In these situations, the phrase helps counter past often chronic invalidation and conveys that you take the client’s experience seriously and trust their account of it. Clients may be used to not being believed or “over” trying to “prove” that they have a believable account e.g., by a felt sense of anxiousness and/or explaining in detail and repetitively to convince.
What might help is to start by asking what tends not to be believed in society or within families, for example childhood abuse, or how socially privileged groups may not believe experiences of identity-based hostility, discriminatory language, or overt/covert hate crimes and minoritising language. So what should our response be to this in therapy? We can certainly validate that these issues objectively exist in the world and have an impact on mental health, as supported by research, rather than treating everything as purely subjective. This is a common problem when issues like -isms and misogyny are framed as individual experiences (therefore, neutral subjective disagreement), when in fact they are socially connected.
When clients speak about -isms. disablism, misogynoir, or other forms of oppression, they are often used to being doubted or minimised, so saying “I believe you” can be appropriate and even important because it validates their experience and counters that pattern of dismissal. In this context, you are not verifying every detail but affirming their account, its impact, and the broader reality of systemic oppression. At the same time, it is important to keep space for exploration, especially if the client is unsure or the situation is complex, so belief is paired with curiosity rather than shutting down discussion.
The Wholeness Solution for Training, Curricula & Practice 