I was reading a post and didn't want to hijack it, but I wanted to write my opinion about therapists giving interpretations. My brain has ceased to function properly, so instead of going on my memory of what I have read, i have used the book cited below to state my opinion to save the one brain cell I have left.

I'm not a fan of interpretations, because they may be designed to help the patient understand herself, but the process of interpretation from a therapist is bound to be a function of his own feelings, thoughts, beliefs, understanding of psychology from his training, and possible existing/dissociative self-states.

Example:
Say that during one session the therapist gives the patient an interpretation of something the patient did, and the patient takes it well and leaves feeling fine. Then at the next session, the patient comes in enraged/angry or otherwise emotional and the therapist interprets this behavior as resistance. In my opinion, what this shows is that the patient's self state that is now present (the enraged part) existed as a dissociated part during the "good" session. The now present self-state is enraged because it wasn't included, and then feels as if it was dismissed, of no value, and invalidated because the therapist has named it a "defense".

This part becomes enraged, and both the therapist and the part of the patient that the therapist likes best are now being attacked as having participated in a terrible session - the session where those parts colluded to exclude the nonworthy self-state. I guess one could say that the therapist was helping the healthy part of the patient while also helping the patient take care of the bad part, but I disagree with this.

Now, what is the crime that an analyst and the patient's "healthy" self have committed? It is the crime of having compromised the seamlessness, and perhaps even the integrity of the patient's dissociative and mental structure. When this fail-safe dissociative protective system is softened by a moment of self-reflectiveness, the parts of the self that are the guardians of affective stability become outraged, and the part that holds the unprocessed affect of developmental trauma caused by attachment failure becomes fearful, depressed, or both, causing distress to all parts - for which the therapist's idea of "success" is then blamed. The already existing shame is then reinforced, and the split between the parts is hardened if not torn further apart.

The dynamic of inconsistency of the patient from session to session may be seen and interpreted by the therapist, but to the patient who has a dissociative structure, there is no mental construct for consistency, thus rendering whatever interpretation that is posited null. The implication to the therapist may be that the patient is "speaking out of both sides of her mouth." However, only one "side of the patient's mouth" can exist experientially at any given time, turning the analyst's well-meaning use of conflict language into a suddenly bewildering attack on her affective stability that threatens her highly vulnerable, attachment organized core sense of self. The patient's struggle to contain hyperarousal affect in the here and now relational experience increases her use of dissociation at that point so as to prevent a complete rupture of attachment, and her capacity to think clearly is often compromised.

The Shadow of the Tsunami, Dr. Bromberg

This really describes my position as far as my termination goes. This is my belief, this is who I am, and it is what happened to me. I know for a fact that the description of the self-states are accurate. I have struggled to separate my beliefs from my xT's beliefs, which were different. I have questioned myself, not believed in myself, but I do (on this point anyway) now. He can disagree with me, but he can't tell me who I am or what I need. I still care about him and wish him happiness and peace. I hope I see him someday at least once. But If not, then I will work to accept that.