Posted by Tamar on June 20, 2005, at 5:03:02
In reply to Ch 5 - Transference, Not Just for Therapy Anymore, posted by Dinah on June 19, 2005, at 21:15:19
> That was my favorite message from this chapter. That transference is not a therapy limited phenomenon. By discussing how the same thing is at work in other relationships in our lives, it takes the idea out of that nasty place that therapists seem to place it when they dismiss our feelings as transference. (Especially if they just so happen to be uncomfortable or defensive at the moment.)
Yeah, I agree. It’s made me think quite a bit about where transference happens outside therapy. For example I’ve always said that when I met my husband it was love at first sight, and now I realise how much of that was transference (but he did turn out to be a honey!). And I can see how my students might be affected by transference towards me, which helps me a lot, particularly if they’re annoyed about something.
> I know that there are one or two personal characteristics that can turn me off a person entirely because I base my opinion about their entire personality on that. Totally unfair of me.
And yet those are real feelings. It’s not like you can just switch them off. Besides, transference can be quite useful in helping people judge which kinds of people they’re likely to get along with (or not). Despite its apparent shortcomings, transference can work quite well as shorthand when getting to know new people.
> My personal opinion is that human brains are programmed to respond in certain ways to certain types of relationships. And therapy mimics other relationships. Since we haven't had therapy for millenia, or long enough to develop ingrained responses to the therapeutic situation, our brains respond as they might to similar situations.
Yes, I agree. And if our brains start recognising the therapeutic relationship as distinctive, maybe it won’t be so therapeutic any more!
> So IMHO, a major cause for erotic transferences is the similarity of therapy to love relationships. There is increasing intimate disclosure (however one sided), acceptance, the listening and attentive posture most closely associated with a lover. I think it's sort of normal for erotic feelings to crop up in those circumstances because our brains are programmed to respond that way.
Yes, and I also think it might have a lot to do with the reasons we’re in therapy (maybe that’s what you mean by life circumstances below?). In my case perhaps it’s about erotic potential that’s been neglected… or something like that.
> It can also mimic a parental relationship in some ways. Especially in the lack of reciprocity. And we can respond in the ways that are programmed in us to respond as children to parents.
>
> Maybe our life circumstances can influence which of the ways we respond. My erotic potential is very stunted, so I would respond as a child to a parent.I wonder about this. I wonder if it could go either way. Either a person who doesn’t experience much erotic inclination for others would experience no erotic transference in therapy, or that person might find that the therapeutic relationship is the one place where erotic feelings could develop. I suppose the latter possibility depends on the idea that erotic feelings can be deeply repressed. What struck me about this chapter is that it’s so hard to pin down the reasons why a person might have a particular kind of transference in a particular therapeutic relationship!
> I'm not sure if I buy into the analytic transference models. It's possible I guess.
Do you mean all that oedipal and pre-oedipal stuff? I think I’m willing to accept that there may be some basis in truth there, but I think its significance has often been rather overstated.
I liked the chapter on transference because although I knew it was normal, it was very helpful to read about different ways it could work. And I was particularly glad to see Lott call for some serious scientific enquiry into transference.
poster:Tamar
thread:491935
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20050615/msgs/515870.html