Posted by Wittgensteinz on November 23, 2008, at 10:21:50
In reply to Humans must exist along a continuum of attachment, posted by seldomseen on November 23, 2008, at 7:27:31
Is it a question of: whether your difficulty/resistance to attachment/your solitary nature is indeed pathological OR if it is simply something that fits within the (normal) spectrum of human physiology?
I think the problem here is the 'normal'. The question of ones attachment style being normal or not surely depends on how you personally perceive yourself and your relationships. Diagnoses tend to rest on negative characteristics (the aspects of your personality/behaviour that lead to disfunction) rather than on neutral observations - the one exception that comes to mind is that of the overt schizoid personality disordered person - the person who does not attach to others but also has no desire, ever, to do so. A person with true overt SPD, which is a very narrow diagnosis, will have no reason to seek help for their mental health - one even has to wonder whether such people exist - this is in stark contrast with the person with covert SPD.
What I mean is - if you are a solitary person yet you are able to keep a job, look after yourself, live without the burden of intolerable sadness and anxiety, then there is nothing pathological about your attachment style. Another person might have the same attachment style but spend their days avoiding social situations, longing for the relationships they were unable to form etc. I don't think it is the attachment in itself and alone that constitutes mental health, it is the effects of that attachment style on the way that person functions (or fails to function) in society.
As for the question of why/how someone came to have a certain attachment style and not another - genetics and environment will both have a contribution. A person with a certain genetic make-up will be predisposed to X attachment style - if they then experience A, B and C in their early life, this might seal the disposition. This explains co-morbidity in many (if not all) mental illnesses between early childhood environment and onset of a given psychiatric pathology - each person might carry a certain disposition toward X but when extra factors are present that disposition is increased significantly. That's not to say that all those raised in abusive environments will go on to develop psychiatric pathologies or that all those with these pathologies had deficits in their early environment. There will also be those who didn't need those extra factors to be present in order to develop the same problems.
I think the question of whether or not your early environment is the 'cause' of your adult attachment style cannot be answered - it will likely be a combination of genetics and your experiences that will have contributed to who you are and how you attach. What is important is to ask yourself whether your psychotherapy is serving a purpose to you in your functioning in society. Do you long to be able to attach in a way you cannot? Does your attachment style cause you suffering/limitations? If this is the case, then it surely is pathological in nature? Even supposing your way of attaching is 100% genetics determined, fixed and unchangeable (which would give a rather bleak outlook and is at odds with the adaptable nature of human beings), there is still the question of addressing the way you feel about your attachments or lack of - even if you weren't able to change the way you attach.
I know I haven't posted on your earlier threads. Reading what you have written about the way your currently feel toward your therapist, it seems you have a lot of anger toward him. It is interesting that you are questioning psychology/psychiatric theory per se, when there is already all this going on in terms of you and your therapist. Are these two separate lines of thought or are they connected? On the one hand you write of the natural feeling of abandonment and hurt one would experience at being locked out and being forgotten triggered by your therapist's actions of late - and on the other you write of your skepticism of psychology in general - did one lead to the other?
From reading what you have written in the past, I always had the feeling that you have a good, strong attachment with your T. My feeling is that the answer you arrive at in regards to your questions about physiology and pathology should be explored once you have worked through the way your T's actions have made you feel lately, rather than as a grounds as to whether or not to terminate. There was something you said in an earlier thread about how your relationship with your T was pretty much emulating that you had with your parents - and it made me wonder whether your therapist's being open about his desires toward you was still something in need of further discussion/exploration.
I hope I haven't missed the point completely here and that this makes some sort of sense! I also hope I haven't stepped over the mark and if so, I'm sorry.
I really feel for you and what you're going through. Have you put these questions to your T?
Witti
poster:Wittgensteinz
thread:864830
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20081120/msgs/864844.html