Part Two: Mood Antagonistics . . . Psychotherapy Definition

This second major part of Non Cognitive Psychotherapy by Russ Hoover, is entitled Mood Antagonistics. What does he mean by this coined word (I think) 'Antagonistics'? As a starter I am guessing his term means such external 'subject matter' (see below) which work against any particularly hard-to-endure mood we are experiencing.

I am hoping though that it will become more apparent what he means by this term and others he uses when we get to the end of this second part.

PART TWO has six sub-parts, viz.:

1. The Definition

2. The RULE*

3. The CREEP

4. The SIGNATURE

5. The ANTAGONIST

6. The Constants

The Definition

In this sub-part he distinguishes between counselling and psychotherapy, a distinction  seldom used today (where the two are taken to be virtually equivalent). However, he says they are 'distinct activities' (p. 59).

For Non Cognitive Psychotherapy (NCP), counselling is understood as telling people what to do: stop drinking, be more assertive, don't be so codependent. Or, counselling may consist of recommending 'actions to secure these goals' (p. 60). So in order to overcome non-assertive behaviour encouragement is given to the client to use '"direct statements rather than questions"' (p. 60).

Psychotherapy, on the other hand, is a subclass of therapy. And therapy, he says, involves 'methods whereby some usually alien something is introduced to amend, regulate, or rectify a harmful biological state while all other relevant conditions remain unchanged' (p. 60, bolding in original).

It's clear that he has medical therapy (healing) in mind. So he uses for an example how antibiotics are introduced into the biotic system of the body to rid it of infection with all other conditions being kept the same. Although doctors may advise rest this aids the focus of their treatment (antibiotic medication) rather than being another treatment in itself.

Hoover extrapolates from medical therapy to argue that psychotherapy is the application of outside (i.e., 'alien') subject matter 'into the mix of psychological features associated with adversity' (p. 60).

This external 'subject matter' does not aim to:

alter or deny pre-existing conditions, such as: goals, values, loyalties, or even the extent of the adversity itself; the latter being more correctly reserved for problem solving, the former for missionary work (p. 60).

What he has said in this quote is quite important for understanding his psychotherapy. Most therapies in various ways do assist clients to re-assess their goals, values, loyalties and attitudes. He is saying that these approaches are not psychotherapeutic but efforts to change people's beliefs or worldviews and hence, they have a 'missionary' intent; that is, their practitioners are seeking converts to their beliefs and practices. I don't know whether he has his tongue in his cheek saying this but it's a provocative statement.

I don't think that this judgement is correct in all cases though the rational emotive behaviour therapy (REBT) practised by Albert Ellis would fall under this criticism. And then, so would Rogerian counselling because of its radical commitment to the free, autonomous individuality of the client. However, it's never possible to provide therapy without the espousal of some commitment to the way things ultimately are. Nevertheless, it might be possible to do that without infringing the rights of clients to continue to hold their own beliefs in what is ultimate.

Psychotherapy, according to Hoover, does not seek to modify anything intrapsychic such as one's attitudes or ideals. Nor does psychotherapy proper seek to change the way clients regard some threat or danger.

What NCP aims to do is to 'disengage the typical alarm features of adversity while one [the client presumably] remains cognizant (sic) of even its absolute worst potential' (p. 61).

Here is my earlier post on the way the alarm operates with the onset of some adversity (if readers need a refresher of how the alarm and the adversity are associated). So NCP is not interested in seeking to use methods of distraction or efforts calculated to change a client's perspective. If that is so, why does Hoover believe that NCP is a psychotherapy? He gives eight reasons all of which I will not canvass at this point.

He believes that NCP satisfies the general features of a therapy. Second, NCP faces up to the fact that some circumstances leading to mood disturbance cannot be changed such as deaths of loved ones. Third, psychotherapy is less intrusive and time-consuming. Lastly, it places power with the client rather than the professional.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

In case readers are wondering, I do have a number of reservations about this form of non cognitive psychotherapy but am committed to finishing the book with some understanding at least about the strengths and weaknesses of Hoover's ideas and where I stand in relation to them.

*The chapter headings have been capitalised as they appear in the chapter and not as they appear in the Table of Contents. I've given up trying to crack the code regarding the way the author capitalises his chapter headings!