Pushing or certain kinds of confrontation are a part of some therapy methods, though not all. When done at the wrong time or for the wrong reason or with the wrong amount of force, they are at high risk for harm and have as an undercurrent some amount of power and aggression. So even if there is some sort of justification for their use, they still are not the safest ways to go about things.

As Leah pointed out, this differs from triggering, which is deliberately destabilizes the client. I can't see any reason at all that could justify doing that.

What connects these, besides the power implicit behind their use, is some degree of manipulation, an obviously loaded and tricky word and concept. While we are there to "undergo" a process, so in a way willingly "submit" to someone else, the way this is handled on both sides really matters and makes all the difference.

Some sorts of what has been called "pushing" I would not necessarily call that, but I understand. My therapist sometimes uses the analogy of being a midwife to describe his role. I mention it because a midwife does help someone "push," but it is entirely different from being pushed. Most people have a natural reflex to become resistant when pushed even if it is paradoxically with the knowledge that it gets them in the direction they want to go. It seems that it has the potential to make things more difficult than they already are or need to be.

An example that comes to mind, though I don't have a reference, is that confrontation with alcoholics often backfires and can even make things worse. But some approaches (I think it is motivational interviewing) deliberately avoid confronting that issue head on and pick up on other issues somewhat tied to problematic drinking. And the clients respond by stopping the problematic drinking without it being directly "pushed."