Introduction
Focusing experiential psychotherapy, as developed by Eugene Gendlin, and Clean Language, introduced by David Grove, may support an individual’s effort to connect with the body’s innate wisdom. Although they stem from different theoretical backgrounds, they share a common philosophy: that the answers lie within the client, and that the verbal symbolization of experience is the most direct path to accessing one’s experiential process and enabling therapeutic change.
This paper explores the encounter between these two therapeutic approaches, highlighting their points of convergence and divergence, as well as their theoretical and practical compatibility.
Focusing experiential psychotherapy and Clean Language can function complementarily: the former centers on the “felt sense” and its symbolization, which facilitates the client’s experiential process, while the latter provides a subtle, non-directive linguistic framework that helps the client explore personal metaphors and process traumatic experiences safely — something that can also take place within the context of Focusing-oriented therapy.
My Personal Encounter with Clean Language
It was in 2014 when I first came into contact with Clean Language, through three therapeutic sessions with Nicholas Pole1 in London — a deeply revealing experience, as it marked my first meaningful and profound encounter with the innate wisdom of my body. At that time, I was going through a phase of intense loneliness, disappointment, and sadness. I had just moved to the UK and, despite my efforts, was unable during this period of time to find a full-time teaching position. At the same time, my application for a scholarship and enrollment in a postgraduate program in play therapy — a lifelong dream at that point — had been rejected.
Amid this difficult period, the sessions with Nick Pole offered a space of relief, tranquillity, and freedom. I was deeply impressed by the way he accompanied me: gently, discreetly, without intervening or directing, yet with a presence full of respect, curiosity, and empathy. From the very first moment, I felt that I was in a space of safety and trust, where I could express everything I was feeling authentically, without fear or shame. It felt as if I were returning home…At the end of each session, I was astonished by the richness of the images, symbols, and sensations that emerged from my body — as if a wondrous new world, previously unknown to me, was opening before my eyes.
I distinctly remember the moment when he gently asked me, with his calm and kind demeanor, whether I had ever practiced Focusing. At that time, I wasn’t even aware of its existence. He told me he was struck by how naturally I was able to connect with my bodily sensations. Two more sessions followed2 over the course of six months. Prompted by his question, I borrowed a book on Focusing from the local library — only to return it within a week without ever opening it. I still find that surprising, but I now realize that the time for connecting with Focusing had not yet come. Toward the end of that journey, I noticed that the severe pain I used to experience in my lower back and abdomen during menstruation — something I had suffered from for years — had stopped. At the time, I couldn’t explain it, but I felt that something had shifted deep within me. Something had begun to change — silently, experientially, beyond words.
Theoretical Framework of Focusing Orientated Psychotherapy
Focusing is a revolutionary and highly effective approach in the field of counseling and psychotherapy. It is a method that has enabled millions of people around the world — either individually or in relationship with others — to connect with an inexhaustible source of knowledge and guidance: their own body.
The development of the method was initiated in the 1970s by Eugene Gendlin, a professor at the University of Chicago, as the result of clinical research and psychotherapeutic experience. In the 1950s, Gendlin was introduced to the work of Carl Rogers and his colleagues and discovered that they were doing exactly what interested him most: studying how individuals symbolize their experience and exploring the relationship between the experiential process and the symbols through which we articulate that process (Purton, 2016, p. 89).
Starting in 1963, in collaboration with his colleagues at the University of Chicago, Gendlin began investigating critical questions, the central one being: “What distinguishes those rare clients for whom therapy is successful?”
Gendlin and his team analyzed hundreds of recorded psychotherapy sessions and discovered that “improvement in the psychological state of those who completed a course of psychotherapy was independent of the therapist’s theoretical orientation or the ‘content’ of the sessions” (EKF, 2019, pp. 22–23).
“Rather, the determining factor was the clients’ ability to turn toward their immediate, inner experience” — their own experiential process. Some clients had this ability from the outset, while others did not. In order to help as many people as possible benefit from the psychotherapeutic process, Gendlin created and developed the Focusing process.
With the release of the book Focusing in 1978, the method became accessible to a broader audience — not only to professionals but also to the wider public. People can practice it individually or in collaboration with others. Moving away from the authority of the “therapist” or the doctor, they are given a tool that allows them to turn inward — toward an inner source of knowledge that is often more effective and richer than logical reasoning. Since then, Focusing has been applied in a wide range of fields, including healthcare, the arts, business, education, religious organizations, and community centers — demonstrating its flexibility and usefulness across diverse settings.
The 6 Steps of the Focusing Process
The Focusing Process consists of six distinct steps:
1. Creating an inner, open space
2. Felt sense
3. Finding a symbol
4. Resonating / Mirroring
5. Dialogue
6. Receiving
It is important to acknowledge that there are diverse teaching styles within the field of Focusing, and many sessions may vary considerably from the process described here. Each person is unique and may enter the process at different stages — sometimes even beginning directly from a specific step.
The Focusing process is often preceded by a brief body scan relaxation. This practice helps create the inner spaciousness that constitutes the first step of the Focusing process. As the person sits comfortably, they gently bring their attention to their entire body —starting from the soles of the feet and moving up toward the center of the body.
This practice has been especially helpful for me, as it creates a kind of “pause.” I stop endlessly thinking about the issues that concern me and reconnect with my body — something I often neglect. I frequently experience a sense of relief, and most importantly, it allows me to breathe deeply and calmly.
1. Creating an Inner Free Space
The first step of the Focusing process is especially important, as it serves as a necessary precondition for the rest of the process to unfold (Gendlin, 2016, p. 110). In this step, the individual becomes aware of the issues that are currently on their mind — but from an appropriate distance that allows them to work with the experience more effectively.
Questions such as “How do I feel right now?”, “What’s preventing me from feeling great?”, or “What is it that’s bothering me today/at this moment?” help bring whatever is present to the surface. There are many creative variations of this step, often involving the use of metaphors that are personally meaningful and stimulate the imagination to help create a sense of psychological distance. Examples include: “clearing a space in an overcrowded room,” “pushing an experience slightly to the side,” “placing the issue at some distance,” or “setting down a heavy backpack beside you.” All these metaphors aim to vividly evoke the internal process of temporarily setting aside what is burdensome or pressing, creating an open, calm space within from which deeper exploration can begin. (Leijssen, 2016)
As a result, the individual ceases to be a monument to their problems—neither overwhelmed by them nor avoiding them (Gendlin, 2016, p. 112)—but instead finds an appropriate distance from them. The therapeutic effect of creating an inner free space allows the person to relate to these concerns from a new, more empowered perspective, enabling them to begin processing them while also acknowledging parts of themselves that needed to be “heard.” In fact, the accomplishment of this step alone has been shown to have therapeutic benefits for both children and adults, across a wide range of emotional and psychological challenges — including serious illness. (Leijssen, 2016)
2. Felt Sense
In this step, the Focuser is invited to reflect on what feels like the most important or urgent issue they are facing in the present moment. If identifying this proves difficult, it is recommended that they simply choose any one of the concerns that are present, in order to allow the Focusing process to move forward. Gendlin (2016, p. 79) writes:
Don’t go down into it the way you usually do. Stay at a little distance from it and notice the bodily sense it gives you. Ask: ‘How does the whole problem make me feel?’
Here, the importance of cultivating an attitude of kindness and acceptance toward oneself is also emphasized. The felt sense refers to the bodily sense of the whole problem, and it includes not only the issue itself but also the body’s implicit knowing of a way forward or a solution (Gendlin, 2016, p. 112).
At first, there may seem to be nothing there until a felt sense forms… The forming and opening of a felt sense usually take about thirty seconds. (Gendlin, 2016, p. 131)
If the individual finds it difficult to connect with their felt sense, the following prompt can be helpful in re-establishing that connection:
“This problem is now completely resolved … isn’t it?” (Gendlin, 2016, p. 131)
3. Finding a Symbol
In this step, the individual finds a word, phrase, or image that arises from the felt sense. For some people, this felt expression may emerge as a sound, a picture, or even a movement. When a word or image fits the felt sense accurately, we call it a symbol (Gendlin, 2016, p. 84).
Typically, the emergence of a symbol brings about only a subtle, bodily-felt shift — yet one that is significant enough to signal that the symbol is right (Gendlin, 2016, p. 85). This may often be experienced as a small sense of bodily relief.
A successful symbolization process is physically felt and leads to a shift in the felt experience itself, as well as in everything associated with it (Gendlin, 2016, p. xix).
4. Resonating
At this stage, the focuser checks the symbol repeatedly against the felt sense, asking: “Is this the right word or image?” The answer usually comes in the form of another felt sense. During this process of attunement, both the feeling and the symbol may shift until they match precisely. Often, a felt shift occurs at this step — as if something is released within the body. In many cases, deep changes and inner movements happen right here.
5. Dialogue
A bodily felt shift may occur during the second, third, or fourth step of the Focusing process. However, when no such shift has yet taken place, the next step involves entering into a gentle dialogue with the felt sense. This stage can bring forth meaningful and sometimes revealing insights related to the issue the person has chosen to focus on.
6. Receiving
In this final step, the individual welcomes and accepts whatever has emerged during the Focusing process. Often, this open stance leads to a further felt shift. Sometimes, what arises can be difficult to accept. At one point in my life, caring for my young child while also managing my job had left me completely exhausted. What surfaced during Focusing was a strong desire to give up. It was a decision I couldn’t act on at the time. Yet, through this experience, I began to explore ways to better attend to my own needs.
Introduction to Clean Language
Clean Language is an innovative questioning technique developed by New Zealand psychotherapist David Grove in the 1980s. Through his therapeutic work with individuals who had experienced psychological trauma, Grove observed that the metaphors his clients used offered a safe, indirect, yet remarkably powerful way of processing painful experiences.
He found that these metaphors were not random; rather, they were deeply personal expressions of the client’s inner world. “They had structure and internal logic, and they maintained a striking consistency over time. It wasn’t just that people had metaphors — it was as if they were their metaphors. And when those changed, they changed too.” (Sullivan & Rees, 2008) Honoring the client’s own language, Grove began asking open-ended questions and reflecting back their exact words.
Clean Language emerged as an approach that fully respects the individual’s linguistic and inner reality, offering a space for free expression—free from the therapist’s assumptions, interpretations, or cognitive filters.
The Foundations of Clean Language
David Grove developed a set of questions designed to intervene as minimally as possible in the client’s process, allowing for the unobstructed exploration of their inner landscape. For the effective application of Clean Language, six core elements are recognized:
1. Position
2. The questions
3. Reflection of the client’s words
4. Tone and pace
5. Syntax
6. Intuition
1. Position
At the beginning of each session, the facilitator asks the client where they would like to sit, and where they would like the facilitator3 to sit. In the context of Clean Language, position holds particular significance: the appropriate spatial arrangement can support the client in accessing both their inner blocks and their sources of strength — without any external interference.
I clearly remember, in my first session with Nick Pole, how surprised I was when he asked me where I would like to sit, and where he should sit. It felt strange to me, and I replied,
“Wherever is most comfortable for you.” I was wondering why he was asking. And when he asked again, I gave him exactly the same answer. We both smiled. In the end, almost instinctively, I pointed to a chair close to me.
2. Questions
Questions form the core of the Clean Language process, ensuring that the exploration remains “clean” — that is, free from the facilitator’s projections, assumptions, or interpretations. The reflection of the client’s exact words and the way the questions are phrased significantly influence the effectiveness of the method.
David Grove developed specific questions to help his clients explore their internal metaphors. Penny Tompkins and James Lawley observed his sessions throughout the 1990s and found that approximately 80% of the time, Grove used nine basic questions (Tompkins & Lawley, 1997), including:
- And that [xxx]4 is like what?
- And does that [xxx] have a shape or size?
- And what kind of [xxx] is that [xxx]?
- And where is that [xxx]?
- And is there anything else about that [xxx]?
- And what happens just before [xxx]?
- And where could that [xxx] have come from?
- And then what happens?
- And when [xxx] happens, what happens to [yyy]?5
(Wilson, 2011)
Additionally, three more important questions are recognized:
- And what would you like to have happen? (Outcome question)
- And what are you drawn to?
- And can the [xxx] do the [yyy]?
Although there is a specific set of questions, others may also be formulated, as long as they are based exactly on the client’s own words and respect their unique linguistic reality.
Example:
Client: “The birds are chasing me.”
Facilitator: “And when the birds are chasing you, how many birds are chasing you?” (Wilson, 2011).
Functions of the Questions
- Questions 1 and 2 aim to invite the emergence of metaphor.
- Questions 3, 4, and 5 help deepen and explore the metaphor.
Additionally, the facilitator may ask whether the [xxx] has a shape, color, texture, size, or other intangible qualities related to mood, attitudes, behaviors, or beliefs (Pole, 2017, p. 73).
- Question 6 focuses on the past, inviting the client to explore what precedes the issue.
- Question 7 helps identify either the origin of the issue or an internal resource.
- Question 8 addresses the dynamic development and potential resolution of the issue. It is recommended when the metaphor has already been sufficiently explored.
- Question 9 sheds light on the relationships between different internal symbols or experiences (Wilson, 2011).
3. Reflection of Words
The reflection of words is one of the core elements of Clean Language, as it supports the safe and “clean” exploration of the client’s inner experience. Its purpose is to preserve the authenticity of meaning as experienced and expressed by the client — free from the facilitator’s assumptions, beliefs, or projections.
During sessions, the facilitator reflects the client’s expressions word for word — including key words and non-verbal cues — without any modifications or paraphrasing. Through this process, the clarity of communication is preserved, and the client’s connection to their immediate, subjective experience is enhanced — without interference or interpretation from the therapist (Pole, 2017).
While reflecting, the facilitator selects and repeats the words that appear to hold the most emotional or semantic weight for the client, giving special attention to the final word or phrase the client utters — as this often indicates the focus point of their inner process. When the client uses extended descriptions, the facilitator identifies and reflects back the key words that carry the greatest meaning for the client (Wilson, 2017). This process provides structure to the client’s thinking, enhances embodied awareness, and fosters a safe space for inner exploration.
4. Tone and Rhythm of Voice
The tone and rhythm of the facilitator’s voice play a crucial role in Clean Language, as they help create an environment within the clients can connect with their experience deeply and safely. Clean Language questions are delivered at a pace approximately one-third slower than regular speech. This rhythm is shaped through intentional pauses, which Grove referred to as “response-inviting gaps” — spaces that invite a response. These pauses give the client time and space to process the question, without needing to wait for it to be fully asked before beginning to respond (Wilson, 2017, p. 26).
The tone of voice remains consistently neutral, calm, and supportive, reinforcing a sense of acceptance and creating a climate of non-judgmental presence. When certain words or phrases appear to hold particular emotional or symbolic significance for the client — those that “resonate” internally — they are spoken with a subtle, distinct emphasis. This serves as an invitation for deeper exploration and enhances the client’s awareness.
5. Syntax
The syntax of questions in Clean Language plays a decisive role in maintaining the “cleanliness” of the process and in fostering a safe and non-intrusive communicative framework. A characteristic feature of this syntax is the use of the conjunction “and” at the beginning of most questions — a linguistic structure that acts as a bridge between the client’s expression and the facilitator’s question (Wilson, 2017).
This connection keeps the flow of the conversation smooth, continuous, and effortless, avoiding abrupt or rapid shifts that could disrupt the client’s focus or emotional sense of safety. The addition of “and” makes the question less intrusive and more inviting, thereby reducing the likelihood of resistance or defensiveness. The choice of this syntax aligns with the principle of reflection and strengthens linguistic continuity, allowing the client to remain connected to the flow of their internal process without feeling pressured to “shift” or defend their thinking.
6. Intuition
David Grove used the term “intuition” to describe that deeper level of experience connected to the unconscious, as defined by Carl Jung, or otherwise to the subconscious and the individual’s “whole Self” (Wilson, 2017). It refers to an internal space where valuable knowledge, emotions, or inner truths are often stored — ones not readily accessible to conscious thought.
Clean Language questions aim directly at this intuitive space, bypassing logical mechanisms, mental biases, and habitual defensive strategies. In doing so, they create a spacious, safe inner environment in which the client can allow their inner wisdom to emerge — effortlessly, authentically, without filters, and free from the constraints of usual interpretations or the “ready-made answers” of the conscious mind. Intuition, within the framework of Clean Language, is not a ‘mystical’ function, but a non-linear form of bodily knowing that honors the holistic nature of human experience. It is the domain where embodied knowledge is given a voice.
Similarities
1. The Body as a Source of Wisdom and Embodied Knowledge
At the heart of both Focusing-oriented Psychotherapy and the Clean Language method lies the client’s connection with their own body and the recognition of the wisdom it holds. Both approaches encourage an inward turning of attention, so the client can attune to their bodily signals and give them form — through words, images, or metaphors — even if these have not yet been fully verbalized.
As Nick Pole characteristically states:
Clean questions can take us to the edge of what can say in words, and sometimes beyond that, inviting us to step into wordless space. (Pole, 2017, p. 23)
This “wordless” space is precisely where the client’s felt sense begins to emerge.
2. The Importance of Personal Language and Metaphors
Both approaches show profound respect for the client’s personal language. Key words and personal metaphors are preserved exactly as expressed, as they serve as crucial points of access to, and maintenance of, the client’s connection with their inner experience. Symbolization through language enhances understanding and allows the client to engage with deeper levels of their embodied experience.
3. The Role of Silence and Rhythm
The pauses (response-inviting gaps) found in the Clean Language method correspond to the silence that occurs during a Focusing therapeutic session. These are meaningful intervals during which the client is given space and time to turn inward and attune to the felt sense of their entire situation.
The tone and pace of the therapist’s or facilitator’s voice are adjusted not only to reflect the client’s emotion but also to encourage the continuation of the process, while honoring the client’s personal rhythm.
4. The Use of Nonverbal Expressions
The observation of the client’s nonverbal expressions — such as facial gestures, body movements, sounds, repetitive gestures, or interactions with objects (e.g., playing with jewelry) — is integrated into the therapeutic process. (Tompkins and Lawley, 1999)
These signals are either incorporated into the question (in the Clean Language method) or mirrored by the therapist in Focusing as equivalents of verbal expressions.
Example:
During a session, I made a facial gesture with my lips, pursing them inward, accompanied by a slight backward movement of my head. My therapist asked:
“And that… (mimicking the gesture) is like what? As if something needs to stay quiet?”
In a similar Clean Language context, the facilitator might say:
“And (replicates the same gesture and head movement) is like what?”
5. The Role of the Therapist and the Facilitator
There is neither guidance nor imposition of meaning in neither of the two approaches. The therapist in Focusing and the facilitator in Clean Language act as gentle companions, accompanying the client without directing the process. The clean, non-directive questions of the Clean Language method and the empathic presence in Focusing both encourage the client to deepen into their experience, free from external interpretations or interventions.
6. Respect for the Uniqueness of Experience – Phenomenological Elements
Non-directiveness and respect for the wisdom of the client’s inner experience are fundamental principles in both approaches. The framework is adapted to the individual’s own pace and needs.
Focusing-oriented Psychotherapy, like Clean Language, honors the uniqueness of each person’s subjective experience. Everyone perceives the world through a personal and unrepeatable lens that constitutes their inner reality — and only they can fully understand it in all its depth and complexity.6
Through conditions of empathy and unconditional positive regard, the therapist is invited to set aside their own value system and enter the client’s world without interpretation or judgment. Similarly, in the Clean Language method, the facilitator’s “clean questions” ensure the “cleanliness” of the process and are posed with deep respect for the client’s inner world, without introducing assumptions, expectations, or biases. All of the above clearly demonstrate that both Focusing-oriented Psychotherapy and the Clean Language method are grounded in a phenomenological approach to human experience.
The shared goal of both approaches is to create a safe therapeutic space in which the client can come into meaningful contact with their inner world — to get acquainted with it, to understand it, and ultimately to accept it. Through this process, space is also offered for the client to recognize and accept not only their own uniqueness, but that of others as well.
Differences
1. Origin and Purpose of the Process
Focusing-Oriented Psychotherapy was developed by Eugene Gendlin, based on clinical practice and psychotherapeutic research. Its aim is to help the client connect with the felt sense — a holistic, bodily sense of an issue that inherently carries the potential for resolution. The goal of the process is the emergence and symbolization of the client’s felt sense. When this inner sense is successfully symbolized, it leads to a felt shift — a change that is often accompanied by relief or deeper understanding, marking progress in the therapeutic process.
In contrast, Clean Language was developed by David Grove as a method of formulating questions that allows the client to safely explore their inner world through their own language, metaphors, mental imagery, and personal symbols. The emphasis is not so much on the bodily felt sense as it is on metaphor and the mapping of an internal landscape, which serves as a “bridge” toward self-awareness and transformation.
2. The Role of Words and Bodily Experience
In Focusing-Oriented Psychotherapy, the body is the primary carrier of experience, and the process centers on “listening” to the felt sense. Words serve a supportive function, helping to recognize and symbolize this inner experience.
In contrast, in Clean Language, the client’s own language is the main guide. Metaphors and images play a central role, and the focus lies in how language shapes the inner world. In Clean Language, the client can choose to focus on anything—from exploring bodily sensations such as pain or discomfort to any problem they are currently facing.
3. The Use of Questions
In Focusing-Oriented Psychotherapy, the therapist does not follow predetermined questions. Instead, they use reflection of feelings and brief, supportive therapeutic responses — whose function we will explore further below. The process is guided by the client’s felt sense and the therapist’s implicit, embodied understanding.
In contrast, questions play a central and structured role in Clean Language. They are standardized and designed to encourage exploration of the client’s experience without any interpretive intervention. The client’s own vocabulary is preserved intact, creating a safe space for personal exploration. Through a series of specifically formulated, neutral questions, the facilitator aims to elicit the client’s internal metaphors and imagery — always using the client’s own language, without interpretations or intrusions.
The Therapeutic Attitude and the Role of the Professional in Focusing-Oriented Psychotherapy and the Clean Language Approach
Focusing-Oriented Psychotherapy places great emphasis on the relationship between therapist and client. This relationship is grounded in empathy, authenticity, and unconditional positive regard — core conditions of the person-centered approach as first formulated in the field of psychotherapy by Carl Rogers.7
Through these conditions, a therapeutic framework is created that allows the client to connect with their experiential process: to explore how their experiences are registered in the body, how they perceive various situations, how they relate to themselves, to others, and to the world.
The foundation of Focusing-Oriented Psychotherapy is client-centered, while Clean Language is, according to Harland (2012, p. 128), “client information-centered”, meaning that it focuses on the client’s information. As Pole notes:
The primary focus of the Clean approach is not the therapeutic relationship between the client and the practitioner, but the relationship between the client and with their own inner landscape. In technical terms, it is not client-centered, but that client information-centered, and the practitioner’s role is not primarily to help the client understand or come to terms with their past, nor even to understand the client at all but to help them build a rich and dynamic model of their internal landscape, discover its hidden resources, and make the connections that create in -the-moment insight and the healing power that brings. (Pole, 2017, p. 286)
In contrast to the relational nature of the therapeutic response in Focusing-oriented psychotherapy — where the therapist brings her implicit knowledge and experience and may appropriately draw upon them — Clean Language promotes a neutral and discreet presence from the facilitator, a linguistically “clean” presence. The facilitator’s personality and emotional responses are deliberately set aside in order to keep the client’s inner experiential space “clean” and free from external influence.
Through the skillful and neutral use of Clean Questions, the facilitator avoids imposing assumptions, judgments, advice, personal interpretations, or emotional reactions. Instead, she acts more like a mirror — attuned but not directive — supporting a form of non-intrusive accompaniment.
However, for the client to be able to respond to the questions and explore their metaphors, it is essential that they experience what Pole (2017, p. 159) describes as:
The stable and compassionate presence of a fellow mammal.
The Focusing-Oriented Psychotherapy therapist also relates to the person; not only to his/hers experiencing process, but to the person who is attending toward to his/hers experiencing process. On the other side of the therapeutic relationship, it is the therapist’s felt sense of the therapeutic situation that determines how he/she responds, and to which aspect of his/hers own experience and knowledge he/she can best draw upon. (Purton, 2007, p. 60) (Karali & Zarogiannis, 2014)
As Purton (2016, p. 148) points out:
Certainly, in person-centered therapy, the aim of the therapist is not to deeply understand the client. Rather, the aim is to interact with the client in a way that helps the client to promote their own life.
The therapist’s response plays a central role, acting as a catalyst for the formation and exploration of the client’s felt sense. The Focusing-oriented response, rooted in the deep tradition of emotional reflection — a fundamental element of Carl Rogers’ person-centered approach — is not a sterile or mechanical technique, nor is it limited to a simple repetition of the client’s words. The therapist does not merely reflect the client’s emotions as labeled, discrete feelings. Instead, she contributes to the emergence of the client’s felt sense of a situation — a complex inner experience containing the richness and intricacy of their lived reality.
The therapist acts as a mirror to the client’s experience, conveying with authenticity, sensitivity, and empathy the meaning that the client reveals.
As Rogers (1986) characteristically states:
Each of my responses implicitly contains the unspoken question,” Is this the way it is in you? Am I catching just the color, and texture, and flavor of the personal meaning you are experiencing right now? … It is important that the therapist’s understanding be so sensitive and accurate that the ‘mirror image’ offered is clear and undistorted. This requires setting aside our own judgments and values in order to capture, with delicate accuracy, the exact meaning of the experience the client is living.
According to Purton (2016), the therapist, through her responses, aims to show that she understands the meaning something holds for the client, helping them to fully experience it while also maintaining both the therapeutic relationship and the connection with their own inner experiencing.
To facilitate a successful experiential process, the therapist is called to adopt an attitude of waiting toward what has not yet been said. It requires receptivity to what has not yet taken form, and a gentle listening marked by trust in the body’s wisdom, supporting the client in listening to the messages of their inner self and in finding appropriate symbols through which the experience can be transformed into deeper meaning. (Leijssen, 2016)
Gendlin (1984, pp. 83–84) describes the therapeutic attitude as “the client of the client,” meaning that the felt sense emerging within the client is the “client” of the client himself/herself, while the person serves as his/hers own psychotherapist. The therapist’s goal is to facilitate this connection so that the felt sense may emerge, become symbolized, and be carried forward. As Leijssen emphasizes:
The essentially interactive nature of forming a bodily felt sense in the client is exactly what Rogers pointed to when he maintained that the client must, to some degree, perceive the therapist’s empathy, authenticity, and unconditional positive regard. The inner process is always a function of the interpersonal process.8 (Leijssen, 2016)
The Contribution of Clean Language Questions to Focusing-Oriented Experiential Psychotherapy
Although Focusing and Clean Language differ in terms of therapeutic stance and the role of the practitioner, it is possible — and valuable — to explore the potential for their fruitful integration and complementary use. Despite their theoretical differences, Clean Language questions can be effectively employed within the Focusing process, supporting a deeper connection to the felt sense.
Clean Language questions can serve as a supportive tool during a Focusing session by facilitating:
- the emergence of the felt sense,
- its symbolization,
and the development of a dialogue with it.
The Clean Language question “And what are you drawn to?” can be used after the creation of an inner, open space. With this question—often also posed by the therapist—the client is invited to decide which issue they would like to focus on at that particular moment.
In cases where the client struggles to connect with a felt sense, Gendlin’s phrase:
“This problem is completely resolved now… isn’t it?” (Gendlin, 2016, p. 131)
can serve as a bridge, helping the individual access their felt sense in relation to the issue at hand.
At the same time, the Clean Language outcome question “What would you like to have happen?” facilitates the client in accessing their overall sense of the problem and forming a different, internally felt frame of reference. As it is aptly described:
“The client gives a live demonstration of how the problem affects them and how they relate to it. (Pole, 2017)
In addition, this process enables the client to reconnect with how life was before the problem emerged, as well as with how they would ideally like to live.
As Nick Pole (2017) notes, the client can shift from being problem-focused to entering a state of curiosity and internal exploration about what would truly feel right and supportive for them. This process transforms not only the client’s relationship with their symptoms, but also with themselves, the therapist, and the therapeutic process itself.
Other Clean Language questions that can be used to facilitate the emergence of the felt sense, its symbolization, and the re-establishment of the client’s connection with it include:
And where is the [xxx]?”
(This facilitates the identification or reconnection with the felt sense, either within the body or outside of it.9)
“And does the [xxx] have a shape, color, mood, or size?”
(This helps with the symbolization of the felt sense.)
“What kind of [xxx] is that?”
(This expands the exploration of the qualities of the felt sense.)
As Nick Pole writes:
You become increasingly aware that words, by themselves, are just labels — and they serve as a reminder to you, the practitioner, not to assume that you know what those particular words mean for the client, and not to assume that the client knows either. (Pole, 2017, pp. 73–74)
Thus, Clean Language questions become tools for deepening the felt experience, without imposing external interpretation, honoring the uniqueness of the client’s inner world.
Excerpt from a Focusing session informed by Clean Language questions
The session10 began with a guided body scan, inviting the client to gently bring her attention to various parts of her body, starting from her feet. Toward the end of the exercise, she gently shifted her awareness to the area of her breath. She was invited to set aside any thoughts occupying her mind, by imagining them in a way that felt right to her — perhaps like items on a shopping list or balloons floating into the air.
She visualized three balloons gently floating at a distance, each symbolizing an area in her life that currently holds emotional weight: her relationship, her parents, and her work.
(For clarity in reporting, I will use “T.” to denote the trainee and “C” for the client.)
C: I feel this tightness in my chest.
T: And when you feel tightness in your chest, that tightness is like what?
C: It’s like a stormy sea…
T: And is there anything else about the stormy sea?
C: I feel sadness.
T: And when stormy sea and feel sadness… what would you like to happen?
C: Calmness, serenity.
T: And when calmness, serenity, then what happens?
C: The next step in my relationship… the next step…
T: And calm, serenity, and the next step… and where could calm and serenity come from?
C: I could offer it safety and care.
T: And can you offer it that safety and care?
C: Yes… it needs a routine.
T: And what kind of routine is that routine?
At the end of the session, the client shared that she was surprised to realize she had been waiting for her partner to provide what she could begin to offer herself. This marked a shift toward increased self-agency and responsibility for her own emotional care.
Conclusion
Throughout this paper, a creative and deeply meaningful dialogue has emerged between Focusing Experiential Psychotherapy and the Clean Language approach. Although these are two distinct modalities with different theoretical foundations and therapeutic attitudes, they converge on a shared core: respect for the uniqueness of each individual’s inner experience and trust in the body’s inherent wisdom, as well as the symbolic expression of experience through language.
Through my personal experience, both as a trainee and as an evolving professional, it became evident that the clean questions of Clean Language can harmoniously coexist with the Focusing process, creating an enhanced capacity for embodied presence, dialogue with the felt sense, and the emergence of further steps.
The therapeutic attitude of acceptance, empathy, and authenticity of the Focusing approach meets the discreet, non-directive precision of the Clean Language approach, offering a space where the client can safely turn inward — with curiosity and respect. In a world dominated by haste and directiveness, these approaches serve as a powerful reminder of the therapeutic value of silence, body awareness, and subtle accompaniment.
By recognizing the strengths and limitations of each, we can envision a synthesis that does not dilute, but rather honors and strengthens the core of both: the truth of lived experience and the power of being truly present — with the other and with ourselves.
Clean Language and the Focusing experiential approach can function complementarily. Despite their differences, they coexist in fertile synergy and can significantly support the client’s connection to the body’s knowledge, the unity of body and mind, and a respectful engagement with the complexity of their own and others’ experiential world.
Notes
1. Nick Pole is a professional Shiatsu practitioner and trainer with over 25 years of experience. He has been trained in Clean Language since 1992, which he integrates into his Shiatsu practice. In 2012, he qualified as a teacher of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT). For ten years, he served as the coordinator of London Mindful Practitioners, a non-profit support group for professionals applying mindfulness in their work. In this context, he organized presentations by practitioners on a range of topics, including working with psychosis, mindful nutrition, and trauma-informed mindfulness for refugees. He currently runs his own therapy practice in London. Nick Pole | Mindfulness, Shiatsu and Clean Language nickpole.com
2. Throughout the three sessions, Nick Pole worked exclusively with Clean Language.
3. The term facilitator is used within the context of Clean Language to describe the professional who accompanies the client in their process of internal exploration, without guiding or intervening in the content of their responses. Alternatively, the term practitioner is also used
4. Where xxx and yyy represents the client’s own words. For example:
Client: I feel a kind of tightness in my arm.
Facilitator: And that kind of tightness in your arm is like what?
5. The Clean Language questions are numbered for reference only. The numbers and not meant to suggest a sequence to asking the questions.
6. The very same view was supported by the founder of the Person-Centered Approach — from which Focusing-Oriented Therapy (FOT) later emerged — Carl Rogers, through the 19 propositions that form the basis of his theory of personality. Specifically, in Proposition 1: “Each person exists in a continually changing world of experience of which he is the center.” (Rogers, 1951).
7. In his famous work, The Necessary and Sufficient Conditions of Therapeutic Personality Change (Rogers, 1957), Carl Rogers outlines the core conditions required for meaningful therapeutic change.
8. Leijssen, M. (n.d.). Manuscript from the Open Online Course on the EdX platform, “From the Interpersonal to the Intrapersonal”. Full version published in: Leijssen, M. (1998). Experiential Therapy: Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Conditions of Growth. In B. Thorne & E. Lambers (Eds.), Person-Centred Therapy: A European Perspective (pp. 131–158). London: Sage Publications.
9. In his book Words That Touch (pp. 30–31), Nick Pole describes how a client experienced a sensation of headache that was not located in the head, but outside of it.
10. The excerpt is part of a real session in which some of the therapist’s responses are modified and incorporated Clean Language questions.
References
Gendlin, E.T. (1964) A theory of personality change. In P. Worchel & D. Byrne (eds.), Personality change, pp. 100-148. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Gendlin, E.T. (1968). The experiential response. In E. Hammer (Ed.), Use of interpretation in treatment, pp. 208-227. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Gendlin, E.T. (1973). Experiential psychotherapy. In R. Corsini (Ed.), Current psychotherapies (pp. 317-352). Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Gendlin, E. T. (1984). The client’s client: The edge of awareness. In F. R. Levant & J. M. Shlien (Eds.), Client-centered therapy and the person-centered approach: New directions in theory, research and practice (pp. 76-107). New York: Praeger.
Gendlin, E.T. (1990). The small steps of the therapy process: How they come and how to help them come. In G. Lietaer, J. Rombauts & R. Van Balen (Eds.), Client-centered and experiential psychotherapy in the nineties, pp. 205-224. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Gendlin, E. T. (1996). Focusing-oriented psychotherapy: a manual of the experiential method. New York: Guilford Press.
Gendlin, E. T. (2006) Διαδικασία Εστίασης (Focusing) Αθήνα. Εκδόσεις Παρισιάνου
Gendlin, E. T. (1996) Focusing -Oriented Psychotherapy. A manual of the experiential method. New York Guilford.
Gendlin, E. T. (2006) Διαδικασία Εστίασης (Focusing) Εκδόσεις Παρισιάνου
Grove, David J. & B I Panzer, Resolving Traumatic Memories: Metaphors and Symbols in Psychotherapy, Irvington, New York, 1989.
Harland P., (2012) Trust Me, I’m The Patient. London, Wayfinder Press.
Karali A. and Zarogiannis P. (2014) The FOT View of Change: What is Therapeutic about Therapy? In Greg Madison Theory and Practice of Focusing-Oriented Psychotherapy: Beyond the Talking Cure. London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers pp.36-51
Leijssen M. Focusing in Steps (Manuscript 2016 MOOC) (714.pdf) Massive Open Online Course in Edx platform. Existential Well-being Counseling: A Person-centered Experiential Approach.
Leijssen, M. (1998). Focusing microprocesses. In L. Greenberg, G. Lietaer & J. Watson (Eds.), Handbook of Experiential Psychotherapy (pp. 121–154). New York: Guilford Press
Leijssen M. (1998) Experiential Therapy: interpersonal and intrapersonal conditions of growth. Chapter Published in: B. Thorne & E. Lambers (eds). (1998). Person-Centred Therapy: A European Perspective. 131-158, London, Sage Publications.
Pole N., (2017) Words that touch. Singing Dragon (imprint of Jessica Kingsley Publishers) London, UK
Purton, C. (2016). Person-Centered Therapy: The Focusing-Oriented Approach. Athens: Hellenic Focusing Centre. (In Greek)
Rogers, C. R. (1951) “Client-Centered Therapy. Its current practice, implications, and theory” Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, C. R. (1957) The Necessary and Sufficient Conditions of Therapeutic Personality Change. Journal of Consulting Psychology. Vol. 21, pp. 95–103.
Rogers C. R. (1986) Reflection of Feelings. Center for Studies of the Person. Person-centered Review, vol. I No.4, Sage Publications, lnc.
Sullivan W. & Rees J. (2008) Clean Language: Revealing Metaphors and Opening Minds. Crown House Publishing Ltd. Carmarthen U.K.
Tompkins P. & Lawley J., (1997) Less is More … The Art of Clean Language. Rapport, journal of The Association for NLP (UK), Issue 35, February
Tompkins P. & Lawley J., (1999) Clean Language Without Words. Rapport, journal of the Association for NLP (UK) Issue 43.
Wilson, C. (2017) The Work and Life of David Grove, Clean Language and Emergent Knowledge. Troubador Publishing Ltd. Leicestershire. U.K.
Hellenic Focusing Centre (2019). Study Guide. Educational Program in Person-Centered and Focusing-Oriented Counseling and Psychotherapy. Athens. Unpublished training manual.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor, Reveka Rodopoulou, for her insightful guidance, thoughtful support, and gentle accompaniment throughout my training as a Person-Centred and Focusing-Oriented therapist. I am also deeply grateful to Nick Pole for his warm encouragement, and to James Lawley for his invaluable and detailed feedback. I’m especially thankful to my client for their openness and courage, and to my husband and little son for their patience and support throughout this journey.
Eleni Kokosi is a trainee psychotherapist based in Athens, Greece, with a background in education and special needs support across various educational settings in both Greece and the UK. She is currently completing her training in Person-Centred Therapy and Focusing at the Hellenic Focusing Center and offers individual therapy sessions in Greek and English. 🌐 elenikokosi.carrd.co
