Leave Technology Out: A Conscious Choice for Promoting Unconscious Play JP LILLY, MS, LCSW, RPT-S
When play therapists consider the idea of whether or not to have
technology as part of our play therapy rooms, it obliges us to consider our own theoretical orientation. In a day and age when techniques fly at us faster than ever before, we must evaluate those techniques for their heuristic value, and then connect them to a theoretical framework to have maximum impact with our clients. As a practitioner of Jungian Analytical Play Therapy (JAPT), I the us
am opposed to the use of technology in the play therapy room. sed t echnology in the pla therapy room
FiFirstrst, as a JAPT practitioner, I operate from the theoretical posiosition thtion that i it it is the safe and healthy child-play therapist relationship that ignites the unconscious healing ararchetypes wies withithin children (Lilly, 2015). The security of the child-clinician relationship is primary to creating temenos (a safe place) where a child can freely choose materials in a play therapy room and begin to enact healing and transformation (Lilly, 2015).. I Introducing an outside agent, such as technology or “gaming,” into the play therapy room compromises the relationship between child and clinician by placing the focus on something other than the therapeutic allianc
as a J PT practitioner, I o erate from the s the safe and hea th
chil
relati nship t at igni chet
emenos (a sa er
outside agen y ro
plac
y ro (Lill
chi dren Li . T y t d can fre 20 mpromises the relatio
and clinician by placing the focus on something the therapeutic alliance.
s/he can safely explore his or her presenting issues. The toys allow the brings into therapy. Children need the freedom to give multidimensional meanings to the toys and to manipulate them in different ways to
s/he can sa ely explore hi
ng issues. T
y
Second, archetypal symbols are necessary for chichildrdren ten to engage verbally or consciously in with unconscious archetypal symbols (toys) that have been carefully selected
econd, archet pal sy en
to ols are ne e ver al or on ypa
gin tro
aming,”
Third, the process of transference is a natural phenomenon that guides the therapist in how to respond to the child-therapist interaction dance. From a JAPT perspective, technology heightens the risk of unhealthy therapist countertransference. I am not opposed to directive approaches, as long as that direction is forged within the smithy of the healing relationship, and the child is the one placing meaning on the toy or in the play.
In summary, I am opposed to using technology in the play therapy room. Adding technology compromises the child-play
therapist
relationship by directing the play away from the child, truncates the unconscious process of play, and increases the risk for unhealthy therapist countertransference. The play therapy room exists to create that secure, uncontaminated environment children need to engage unconsciously and safely with their issues, and it should be preserved that way: whole, wholesome, and un-plugged.
la a ou
COUNTER POINT
approach, engage, and transform the symbols to meet their clinical be the abuser, and in another it may be the child.
The play comes from within the child, and not from any outside agent or technology. The child’s unconscious drives healing play (Lilly, 2015). Children communicate powerfully by how they freely choose to use toys and through the manner in which they play and put meaning theme for children. Technology does not allow children to be driven by unconscious processes, which, in turn, halts the unconscious’s ability to assist them in their healing.
A common concern is that technology is replacing traditional means of play. While there is a sociocultural evolution influencing a shift from traditional to innovative methods, technology has not completely replaced conventional play methods (Altvater et al., 2017). Prescriptively (Shaefer & Drewes, 2016) incorporating some technological interventions in traditional playrooms as a supplement to the process could show child clients that play therapists want to understand their world and recognize that both traditional and
Another concern is the unfamiliarity that many adults experience with technology. Children are generally experts and some adults are completely flummoxed by it (Altvater et al., 2017). But, how beautiful is that for the play therapy process? Children love teaching adults, and it aids them in gaining a sense of mastery and developing deep connection and understanding with their “student.”
Change can be extremely challenging and frightening. We often encourage and support our clients through their transformations, so what makes it so challenging for us to do the same? Although there are some issues that co-occur with technology and communication differences, many adults might not have given it enough consideration to make an informed decision. The fears of technological addiction, the dangerousness of the cyber world, and the lack of limits and boundaries are real and valid, and they inhibit individuals from learning more. Play therapists can enhance their practice by learning more about the unfamiliar to increase their understanding, comfort, and openness to new play processes, even if they decide against incorporating technology into clinical practice (Altvater, Singer, & Gil, 2018), for the content may come into session whether or not the play therapist invites the devices into the playroom.
www.a4pt.org | September 2018 | PLAYTHERAPY | 17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
