Why I Chose a Counseling Degree: Self-Reflection Essay

Motivations for Pursuing a Counseling Degree

My reasons for seeking a counseling degree begin with a lifelong desire to help others. I was myself counseled as a child by therapists who, I noticed, attempted to shape me according to their own particularistic beliefs. Wondering whether psychotherapy could ever be truly objective, I read extensively on the subject and observed practicing therapists. At the time I naively thought of counselors as wonderful figures — almost God's second-in-command. I later read that psychotherapists do project that kind of authority, which is part of what makes the profession somewhat controversial (Dawes, 1994).

Gradually it dawned on me that these practitioners were playing with people's lives. I and presumably many others were either compelled to visit these "deities of fate" or chose to do so voluntarily. It was widely assumed that such people — wise in the ways of the world — held the key to human fortune and well-being. Yet the advice I received seemed to resonate more with my therapist's personality than with my own reality. I began to wonder how I, on my own terms and without another's direction, might arrive at my own solutions. I realized that counselors were influencing clients to think as the counselors themselves thought. I wondered whether I, trained as a counselor, could instead help others find answers from within themselves. Many would argue that Rogers's person-centered model does exactly that. I am not convinced.

I am also drawn to philosophy and logic, subjects I hoped would lend objectivity to the human psychological condition and resolve my questions about "normality" and "abnormality." These constructs seem to me to be defined by the social tendencies and perspectives of any given time. This is an area in which counselors, too, play a significant role — disseminating social meaning and narrative.

Most counseling modalities fall somewhere between directive and non-directive extremes. Directive therapy, such as psychoanalysis, guides a client on the premise that the client needs help. The therapist may be professionally trained, empathic, and even helpful, yet may still be disabled from fully entering the client's reality. As Gadamer (2005) put it, "Our situation is by necessity (and definition) ontological."

Cognitive psychology's discovery that our reasoning skills are intertwined with an emotionally saturated memory (see, for instance, Leighton & Sternberg, 2004) strengthens this argument, particularly since each of us possesses a different core structure of conditioning. Hence, as Gadamer (2005) notes, "the knower's own situation is already constitutionally involved in any process of understanding."

On the other hand, non-directive approaches such as Rogerian therapy, grounded in empathy, affirm that no one can truly direct another (Rogers, 1951). But is genuine empathy possible? Is it not rather a cognitive reconstruction of the client's situation based on the therapist's own experience? Are we not as metaphysically isolated as Leibniz's monads, and therefore disabled from knowing another as they truly are? If so, should the client not access their own mind for solutions? But how can they, if a stressed mind is physiologically limited in its capacity for rational thought (Masters, 2004)? These were among the questions that drove me toward this field.

My path to counseling was therefore driven more by an interrogative, research-oriented spirit than by a simple desire to help, though that desire was genuine. I believed — and still believe — that counseling is a wondrous and influential profession: one that is almost literally capable of changing a world through practice. But I also kept asking: is the counselor helping the individual grow into more of themselves, or reshaping the individual to reflect the counselor's own image? And why is there assumed to be something wrong with the client in the first place? Might there not be something problematic about the image the counselor wishes to produce? Who sets the standards for "right" and "wrong" when those standards change so dramatically across countries and across time?

I envision my own framework as a holistic, life-spanning system in which I encourage clients to articulate their goals across all spheres of their lives. I will emphasize the communication of the client's own thoughts — not the adoption of others' — and will stress the use of clear, unambiguous language. My fundamental ethical concern has always been this: how can I help another person as though I were genuinely part of their existence, part of their life experiences and socialization, so that I address their concerns from their own perspective rather than mine? My objective is not that I change the client, but that the client changes themselves.

This approach aligns with counseling effectiveness research, which demonstrates that client empowerment in the therapeutic process is a powerful agent of change, and that therapeutic progress depends on the counselor exploring options with the client rather than imposing any particular view of the correct path forward (Duncan & Miller, 2000).