SAWE that's an interesting question (there's been a few of them in this forum lately!)

I suspect there's probably a fine line between a T just sitting and giving the therapy over entirely to the client who can then get mightily stuck in old defences and ways of being that militate against change, no matter how motivated client might be - and a T who is a tad too directional and making it plain that it's not really ok for the client to just 'be' in therapy. Perhaps ideally is the combination of total acceptance within a framework of actively encouraging change (isn't that the basis of the dialectic in DBT?)

Sounds good on paper but how does that translate in reality? It's horses for courses isn't it - what might work for one client at a specific stage might be anathema for another at the same stage. What I do think is that a T who refuses to continue working with a client who seems unable or apparently unwilling to change is not doing them any favours - in fact is probably enacting past scenarios. Unfortunately in time limited and state funded therapy that probably happens more often than it should.

Lol just reread what I wrote and of course I'm speaking entirely from my own personal view, I expect there are clients who might even be motivated if their T turned around and said no change, no more therapy, get your act together. The longer I'm in therapy and the more I hear about other people's therapy the more I realize I don't really know much at all except for my own experience, and even then sometimes I don't think I know anything either .

SAWE I wonder why this comment struck you - do you feel that you might be stuck or were you thinking of other people you know who seem unwilling to change in therapy? Just curious as you haven't elaborated on your own thoughts about this .

Torn