Theorising about counselling

The process of counselling differs from other helping processes not only in its aims and methods but also in the nature of the relationships established between the two participants. Clearer definition of these various processes in terms of the 'primary task' and the role relationship which each task involves would avoid role-confusion when individual helpers are called upon to switch from one job to another. An agreed definition of the nature of counselling would also be beneficial on theoretical grounds since many so-called 'theories of counselling' deal not with counselling per se but with varying approaches to the study of human development. The relation between theory and practice in the training of counsellors is discussed in the context of the work of Argyle, Goffman and the learning theorists, as well as Rogers.     

Apology as Self-Repair

Bernard Williams (1981) briefly discusses agent regret in his broader account of moral luck. The present paper first outlines one way to develop Williams’s notion with reference to the unintended harm; it then suggests that agent regret can be counteracted by externalizing the action that caused unintended harm, in Harry Frankfurt’s (1988a, b) sense of externalization; and then the present paper argues that apology is a mechanism by which a person can externalize an offending action/effect—in that way counteracting agent regret (and possibly, though this is a further empirical point not defended here, mitigating the psychological effects). This function for apology—self-repair—is different from others described in the literature, which address the role of apology in repairing relationships. The present paper describes a nonfictional example, that of a veteran of the U.S. war in Iraq who contacts a family gravely injured by him and his combat unit; the veteran is motivated to contact the family to apologize. The example serves as a prototypical case of agent regret. The example is taken from a recent literature on the clinical psychology of (what that literature calls) self-inflicted “moral injury”; categorizing this example of moral injury as agent regret also helps broaden our understanding of moral injury as a philosophical category and as a psychological phenomenon.     

The Apology Paradox

Some leaders and citizens think it appropriate to apologize for historical injustices like slavery or the dispossession of indigenous people. But can we sincerely say 'Sorry' for the deeds of our forebears? By making an apology we are expressing regrets for what they did: we are saying that we prefer that these deeds had not been done. However, if these deeds had not been done, history would have been different, and probably we would not exist. Since most of us are glad to be alive, it seems that our apologies must be insincere. I discuss a number of proposed solutions to this paradox.     

Theorising Interventions as Events in Systems

Conventional thinking about preventive interventions focuses over simplistically on the “package” of activities and/or their educational messages. An alternative is to focus on the dynamic properties of the context into which the intervention is introduced. Schools, communities and worksites can be thought of as complex ecological systems. They can be theorised on three dimensions: (1) their constituent activity settings (e.g., clubs, festivals, assemblies, classrooms); (2) the social networks that connect the people and the settings; and (3) time. An intervention may then be seen as a critical event in the history of a system, leading to the evolution of new structures of interaction and new shared meanings. Interventions impact on evolving networks of person-time-place interaction, changing relationships, displacing existing activities and redistributing and transforming resources. This alternative view has significant implications for how interventions should be evaluated and how they could be made more effective. We explore this idea, drawing on social network analysis and complex systems theory.     

The Apology Paradox and the Non-Identity Problem

Janna Thompson has outlined 'the apology paradox', which arises whenever people apologize for an action or event upon which their existence is causally dependent. She argues that a sincere apology seems to entail a wish that the action or event had not occurred, but that we cannot sincerely wish that events upon which our existence depends had not occurred. I argue that Thompson's paradox is a backward-looking version of Parfit's (forward-looking) 'non-identity problem', where backward- and forward-looking refer to the perspective of an agent apologizing for or contemplating an action. The temporal perspective of the agent gives us the tools with which to dissolve the air of paradox which surrounds these problems. Each is best grasped from one temporal perspective, but the paradoxes arise when we attempt to examine it simultaneously from another. The evaluations appropriate to the apology paradox and the non-identity problem are therefore time-indexed.     

Fiduciary Duties and the Ethics of Public Apology

The practice of official apology has a fairly poor reputation. Dismissed as ‘crocodile tears’ or cheap grace, such apologies are often seen by the public as an easy alternative to more punitive or expensive ways of taking real responsibility. I focus on what I call the role‐playing criticism: the argument that someone who offers an apology in public cannot be appropriately apologetic precisely because they are only playing a role. I offer a qualified defence of official apologies against this objection, considering them through the lens of fiduciary duties. This focus draws our attention to formal or impersonal relationships that are nevertheless normatively rich, capable of sustaining trust, concern, and care. At the same time, I highlight several pitfalls for fiduciary apologisers, including the tension between apology as a mode of truth telling and the duty of confidentiality. I consider whether the fiduciary apologiser, in reflecting on her fiduciary obligations, has ‘one thought too many’ for genuine apology, and argue that the issue of mixed motives is not limited to fiduciary contexts, cautioning against excessive idealism in our conception of apology. I conclude with some reflections on possible conflicts between fiduciary obligations and the conscientious desire to apologise.     

An Apology for a Religion of the Melancholic

This article is a study of depression and melancholia from the psychoanalytic perspective. Starting with the issue of levels and categories involving the phenomena of depression and melancholia, it elucidates the particular nature of the melancholic loss; the fact that the melancholic’s problem has to do with language; the view of the melancholic subject as a default subject; and the question of desire in melancholia and its trajectory toward recovery, eventually leading to a hopeful imagination concerning the innermost human desire. Three Lacanian psychoanalytic theories (Darian Leader (2009); Colette Soler (2006); Slavoj Zizek (2006)) are used to support my arguments; Suah Bae (2003, 2004) provides fascinating fictional truths that witness to the melancholic’s inner world; and Donald Capps (2000) renders a decisive help in my pastoral psychological reading of all of these writers.     

The Politics of Apology and Forgiveness

The politics of apologies and forgiveness is present in individual pastoral care and psychotherapy as well as in the broader context of the world in which we live. Forgiveness is a process that names harm and injustices while also offering possibilities for change, ultimately providing individuals, families, and communities with deeper and more profound ways of imagining relational justice. Such a perspective illuminates the ways in which harm and damage can be individual and systemic in nature, as well as how struggles over meaningful forgiveness are part of larger political realities. As one part of this process, apologies that account for the multiple ways power functions can assist individuals and communities in creating more justice-oriented forgiveness processes. Pastoral care specialists are wise to recognize that apologies and forgiveness always engage social, relational, political, and theological realities.     

道歉：对冒犯事件的关系补救行为

道歉是指当冒犯者意识到自己的冒犯行为后, 为重建与被冒犯者的关系, 向被冒犯者承认错误、承担责任、表达懊悔并请求原谅的一种关系补救行为。冒犯者的性别、归因倾向、冒犯意图、知觉到的道歉有效性等影响道歉的发生, 道歉的表达方式与内容、冒犯者的性别等会影响道歉的有效性。道歉能促进宽恕、和解以及民族和睦。未来研究需明晰道歉的概念, 拓展其研究模式与测量工具, 在系统深入探讨道歉的产生机制与结果的基础上构建道歉的理论及促进其实践应用。