gazes met—that was unusual. Perhaps, Julius thought, Philip was
signaling his appreciation of the finesse with which he had conducted this
meeting. Or perhaps Philip was pondering Gill`s feedback to him. Julius
decided to inquire and nodded at Philip. No response. So he said, «Philip,
your feelings so far about this meeting?»
«I`ve been wondering whether you were going to participate.»
«Participate?» Julius was astounded. «I`ve been wondering if I were
too active, too directive today.»
«I meantparticipate in the sharing of secrets, ” said Philip.
Will the time ever come, Julius thought, when Philip will say
something even vaguely predictable? «Philip, I`m not evading your
question, but there are some pressing loose ends here.» He turned to Gill:
«I`m concerned about where you are now.»
«I`m on overload. My only issue is whether you`ll allow me to stay
in the group as an alcoholic,” said Gill, whose forehead glistened with
perspiration.
«Sounds like this is the time you need us most. I wonder, though, if
your bringing it up today indicates that you`re gathering resolve to do
something about it. Perhaps entering a recovery program?»
«Yep. After this meeting, I can`t keep doing what I`m doing. I may
need to call you for an individual session. Okay?»
«Of course—as many as you`ll need.» Julius`s policy was to honor
requests for individual sessions with the proviso that members share the
details of those sessions at the following group meeting.
Julius turned back to Philip. «Back to your question. There`s an old
therapist trick which provides a graceful evasion of embarrassing
questions, and that is to reply, вЂI wonder, why are you asking that
question?` Well, I am going to ask you that, but I`mnot going to evade
you. Instead I`ll offer you a proposition: I promise to answer your question
fully if you agree first to explore your motivations for asking it. Do we
have a deal?»
Philip hesitated, then responded. «Fair enough. My motivation for
the question is not complicated. I want to understand your approach to
counseling and, if possible, integrate any parts that might improve my own
counseling practice. I work very differently from you: I don`t offer an
emotional relationship—I`m not there to love my client. Instead I am an
intellectual guide. I offer my clients instruction in thinking more clearly
and living in accord with reason. Now, perhaps belatedly, I`m beginning
to understand what you`re aiming for—a Buber–like I–thou encounter...”
«Buber? Who?» asked Tony. «Hate to keep sounding like a jerk, but
I`m damned if I`m going to sit here and not know what`s going on.»
«Right on, Tony,” said Rebecca. «Every time you ask a question,
you`re doing it for me too. I don`t know who Buber is.»
Others nodded agreement. Stuart said, «I`ve heard the name—
something about» I–thou “—but that`s it.»
Pam jumped in: «Buber`s a German Jewish philosopher, died about
fifty years ago, whose work explores the true encounter between two
beings—the вЂI–thou,` fully present, caring relationship—as opposed to the
вЂI–it` encounter that neglects the вЂI–ness` of the other and uses rather than
relates. The idea has come up a lot here—what Philip did to me years ago
was to use me as an it.»
«Thanks, Pam, I got it,” said Tony, and then turned to Philip. «Are
we all on the same page?»
Philip looked at Tony in a quizzical manner.
«You don`t know whatthat means?» said Tony. «Gotta get you a
dictionary of twentieth–century talk. Don`t you ever turn on your TV?»
«I don`t have a TV,” said Philip in an even, nondefensive tone. «But
if you are asking, Tony, whether I agree with Pam`s response about Buber,
the answer is yes—I could not have said it as well.»
Julius was fascinated:Philip uttering Tony`s and Pam`s name?
Philip complimenting Pam? Were these merely evanescent events, or
might they be heralding a momentous change? How much he loved being
alive, Julius thought—alive in this group.
«You still got the floor, Philip. I interrupted you,” said Tony.
Philip continued, «So I was saying to Julius...I mean, I was saying
to you»—he turned to Julius—right?»
«Right, Philip,” Julius replied. «I think you`re going to be a fast
learner.»
«So,” Philip went on, speaking in the measured tone of a
mathematician, «First proposition: you wish to have an I–thou encounter
with each client. Second proposition: an вЂI–thou` consists of a fully
reciprocal relationship—by definition it cannot be a unilateral intimacy.
Third: in the last couple of meetings people here have revealed a lot about
themselves. Hence my entirely justifiable question to you: are you not
required to reciprocate?»
After a moment of silence Philip added, «So that`s the conundrum. I
intended only to observe how a counselor of your persuasion handles a
client`s request for parity.»
«So, your motivation is primarily a test of whether I`ll be consistent
in my approach?»
«Yes, not a test ofyou, personally, but of yourmethod. ”
«Okay, I appreciate your position that the question is in the service
of your intellectual understanding. Now just one further query and then I`ll
proceed to answer you. Why now? Why askthis particular question at this
particular time? ”
«First time it was possible. That was the first slight break in the
pace.»
«I`m not convinced. I think there`s more. Again,why now ?» Julius
repeated.
Philip shook his head in confusion. «This may not be what you`re
asking, but I`ve been thinking of a point Schopenhauer made to the effect
that there are few things that put people in a better humor than to hear of
another`s misfortune. Schopenhauer cites a poem of Lucretius»—«first
centuryB.C. Roman poet,” Philip said in an aside to Tony—«in which one
takes pleasure from standing on the seashore and watching others at sea
struggle with a terrible storm. вЂIt is a joy for us,` he says, вЂto observe evils
from which we are free.` Is this not one of the powerful forces taking
place in a therapy group?»
«That`s interesting, Philip,” said Julius. «But entirely off the point.
Let`s stay focused now on the question of вЂwhy now?`”
Philip still appeared confused.
«Let me help, Philip,” Julius prodded. «I`m belaboring this for a
reason—one which will provide a particularly clear illustration of the
differences between our two approaches. I`d suggest that the answer to
вЂwhy now?` is intimately related to your interpersonal issues. Let me
illustrate: can you summarize your experience in the last couple of
meetings?»
Silence. Philip appeared perplexed.
Tony said, «Seems pretty obvious to me, Professor.»
Philip looked at Tony with raised eyebrows. «Obvious?»
«Well, if you want it spelled it out, here it is: you enter this group
and make a lot of deep–sounding pronouncements. You pull some things
out of your philosophy bag that we all dig. Some people here think you`re
pretty wise—like Rebecca and Bonnie, for example. And me, too. You
supply all the answers. You`re a counselor yourself, and it looks like
you`re competing some with Julius. Same page?»
Tony looked questioningly at Philip, who nodded slightly,
indicating that he should continue.
«So here comes good ole Pam back, and what does she do? Pulls
your cover! Turns out you`ve got a messy past. Real messy. You`re not
Mister Clean after all. In fact you really fucked Pam over. You`re knocked
