Quote:
Originally Posted by nothingtolivefor
Have you ever sensed in therapy that the careful wording of your therapist tends to insulate them from failure while exposing you to the detriment thereof?
My therapist told me once that I was being resistant. I pointed out that I was merely being cautious. My therapist asked, "Why is it more important to use the word cautious rather than resistant?"
I simply argued that if we were in a court of law, the word 'resistant' would have a negative connotation to it and would not be supportive of me. In that setting, the word would be more supportive of you. The use of that word insulates you from failure and garners "White Coat Syndrome" support. Especially, when judges are very well acquainted with the idea of what it means to resist.
However, if the word 'Cautious' was used to describe my approach to therapy in that same court setting, it would provide a positive connotation in Association with my attitude. I could see the word being used to more positively support me.
If I am the one in this room who is the vulnerable one, I would appreciate language that bespeaks that.
My therapist still uses the word resistant.
I don't like language that insulates the one using it from failure, while exposing the person they are speaking with to the detriment thereof.
Has anyone else sensed this subtle nuance in therapy? If so, any examples?
|
I'm totally with you. I think. Maybe a somewhat different perspective. I don't think it matters if you are resistant or cautious, although I'm totally wiht you not wanting your therapist to be the "decider." Resistance isn't something that an be reduced by pressure, without forcing or breaking something. Labeling you, especially with something you don't agree with, doesn't breed trust and openness and curiosity, or safety, although it may (in some people) breed compliance. But complaince isn't trust, and compliance for acceptance isn't therapeutic. I've had something similar, and my stance looked a lot like yours.