Posted by Wittgensteinz on December 18, 2008, at 6:13:24
In reply to Is therapy just blowing smoke up our a*s?, posted by Looney Tunes on December 17, 2008, at 19:54:03
These are very difficult questions and ones I think many of us struggle with.
I don't think the strong feelings that we experience in therapy - the transference - should be seen as an unfortunate therapy side-effect, but rather as the catalyst for change within oneself. The problem is when these feelings, the transference, is so strong that it causes its own problems. Although in my own therapy there have been times I have really missed my therapist or felt hurt by him, for the most part, the transference I experience toward him does not cause me more pain than the underlying reasons I came into therapy. This transference has to take place in order for him to help me - or in order for him to mean enough to me to help me, I will inevitably experience transference toward him. It's central to the therapy - so maybe it could be seen as a curse and a blessing.
Perhaps the pain caused by the transference is directly a result of that underlying pain that brought you there in the first place. Often in dealing with very difficult things they have to first become raw and close and we have to go through a very painful phase before we can really recover from them.
I don't think it's 'fake' - we experience transference in EVERY relationship - not just the therapeutic one. Of course in therapy that transference is more marked as the therapist's own life, his own problems are far less present than those of other people in our lives. It is an unusual situation - an 'artificial' situation if you like but the feelings that emerge from it are in no way 'fake' or 'pretend'.
***Is it real to be sitting in a room with someone who only sees you 1-2 hours per week and blows smoke up your *ss trying to help improve your self-esteem and supporting you, when you know T also supports everyone else?
The thing is, I don't think my therapist does do these things - maybe it's to do with the type of therapy, but he doesn't, for example, bombard me with compliments or pleasant comments - I wouldn't even say he 'supports' me but rather he unconditionally accepts me. At one point the thought came to mind that had my mother gone to seen him instead of me - had she been the one sitting there in the chair he'd have a completely different view and would be 'on her side' instead. This felt distressing. This was triggered by his mentioning another of his patients (one whom he wrote a short book about), who one day confessed she would hate for him ever to see her mother in case he would sympathise with her instead. He asked whether I felt the same way - and made it clear he had no desire to ever meet my mother (I'm guessing not because of her per se but because seeing her would be damaging to me and my trust in him, and I am his patient).
The thing is, had my mother gone to see him, her therapy wouldn't be about whether I or her was 'right' but about her and her life, from her perspective - not about my mine. I can imagine a big part would be about her justifying her choices as a mother and maybe in a way he would console her with that, but it would be more about her coming to live with those choices and who she was and who she is now not about making an absolute judgment.
He said just the other day that it's not about sorting through empirical data. I said how guilty I felt about talking about the abuse, that it didn't make me feel any better. But he said the point is to work together to figure out my own history, to work until I have a perception of it that I can live with, that I can deal with in my life now. He serves as a witness to what I experienced - he listens intently, and often goes above and beyond his obligations as a therapist to help me. I'm sure he does the same for his other patients - in fact I hope he does. It's not about supporting someone regardless of who they are or about deserving support - if he was unable to provide a person with unconditional acceptance then he simply couldn't work with them - he would stop treating them. I think this is a responsibility of each therapist. It has to be genuine, it has to be truthful and dignified. I think this is a reason why therapists must experience their own therapy while in training. We bring to therapy something unique - we give them our utmost openness and honesty and in return we receive an integrity that we simply don't get in the outside world. We can take risks, we have to, and due to the way therapy is constructed, it is safe to do so.
Likewise, the 1 or 2 hours a week we spend with our therapists is a very different time than that spent with anyone else. It's highly intense and completely focused on us - how much time is spent this way with other people in our lives? Yes, our therapists can't be available to us 100% of the time, but the time we are with them is OUR time entirely - time we use specifically to work on ourselves - time hopefully without another person's issues creeping in.
You gave the scenario of a therapist seeing both a victim and a perpetrator. I think some (many) therapists would be unable to treat both a child abuser and a survivor of child abuse (particularly a person who was currently abusing his children), but I don't see how treating both would be incompatible or would somehow diminish the therapist's integrity to one party or the other. The fact is, in our lives many of us are both victims and perpertrators at certain points in one way or the other. Being abused can have a big effect on ones life and on ones personality BUT it isn't a person's identity, it isn't the whole person - and the therapist is treating the person as a whole, not just a person's being a victim. Likewise, with an abuser, it is a person who has done x, y and z, but they are NOT x, y and z. It's perfectly possible to accept a person while finding some of their actions unacceptable. People generally aren't all good or all bad - and maybe for some people who do really terrible things it's easier to see them as all bad. I don't think by seeing a person who had committed child abuse, a therapist is 'supporting child abusers'. I don't think any moral person could support such a thing. Likewise, a therapist can support (or better say 'accept') his patient without having to support things that he doesn't agree with.
I hope this reply doesn't come across as too strong - it isn't meant to be. These are questions I've thought about too but I feel comfortable with therapy now - it is a complex thing but I know my therapist has been there too, so I know he isn't 'laughing' at me when I leave the room or being dishonest to me in what he says. This is a difficult trust to develop - it was a struggle for me and still is.
Have you tried discussing this with your T? Maybe take in your post?
Witti
poster:Wittgensteinz
thread:869336
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20081205/msgs/869375.html