last session was a weird one again... at one point i said that i thought i was being contrary. he disagreed... i didn't really know what was going on at the time... but i've concluded i really AM being contrary.

'In normal development, the stronger the bond between a mother and her developing infant, the greater the tension during the developing toddler's self-individuation. Much of the tension of the 'terrible twos' results from the toddler's need to assert individuality yet maintain a human connection. Mothers of healthy 2 year olds report feeling overwhelmed, as if they are being overrun by ruthless monsters. Even so, they admire and take pride in their children's budding self-assertiveness and individuality.

A mother wants to help her distressed child, but often finds herself in a no-win position. If she is calm and soothing, the child may become tyrannical; if she is firm, the child may feel betrayed and unloved. Her task at such times is to survive and to stay connected to her child without feeling destroyed by the child or retaliating and destroying the child. If she can manage to get through the year, a wonderful change takes place at age 3. The 'terrible two' transforms into a 'tender three'. Similar struggles are experienced between parents and normal adolescents.

Because some parents must have compliance, a child may be deprived of the opportunity to be a normal 2 year old. A mother might give the message that she is hurt or damaged by the child's pulling away, and the child comes to believe that self-assertion will destroy or irreperably harm the mother. The mother might feel overwhelmed and become punative towards the child, and the child comes to believe that self-assertion results in retaliatory violence. These children learn at a very early age either to be compliant, to be 'good' and do what is expected, or to withdraw and keep their distance. As a result, much of their self-assertiveness and self-individuation is lost.

In their analyses as adults, these patients will try to engage the analyst at this point in their development and to use the analyst to provide the experience of a benignly opposing force that supports active opposition and confirms a sense of individuality. Wolf calls this an adversarial selfobject function. In other words, these patients relive the 'terrible twos', and during this phase of an analysis, sessions are stormy; analysts struggle to keep their balance. The task of the analyst during this phase is, like the parent of the 2 year old, to survive and not be destroyed by the patient, and not to make retaliatory interpretations that make the patient feel destroyed.

Patients who were deprived of the opportunity to be a 'terrible two' also report painful experiences, such as humiliation, neglect, isolation, or physical abuse, that leave them constantly feeling small, weak, helpless, and afraid. Compounding their trauma is a lack of the attuned responsiveness from caregivers necessary to help the child process and overcome the painful feelings.

In their analyses as adults, these patients will subject the analyst to tests. Identifying with traumatising parents, these patients will sense the analysts areas of vulnerability and subtly provoke the analyst into feeling small, weak, helpless, humiliated, and ashamed. An example is the patient who, sensing my need to be helpful, started complaining that I was making her worse, not better. As a girl she felt abused and unappreciated by her mother, and now I began to feel abused and unappreciated by her. My feeling abused, however, did not lead to helplessness, but became an opportunity for analytic work...

No involved adult, in my opinion, can remain calm and understanding in the face of a healthy child's provocative behaviour, such as that of a normal 2 year old or a vigorous adolescent. And no matter how understanding analysts are, at some point they will become angry at their patients, and they will feel hopeless and defeated by them. It is too much to ask of analysts that they always remain calm and objective in the face of these provocations.

The successful analyst is one who can survive the onslaught. The temptation is to either be defensive and explain or justify one's position, or to make interpretations and explain the patient's motivations. Either tactic may lead to a disruption. Being defensive may make the patient feel anxious; explaining the patient's behaviour may make the patient feel criticises or guilty. Doing neither and weathering the storm, feeling hurt by the patient or angry at the patient and getting over it without feeling guilty or blaming the patient, sets the recovery process in motion.

Patients become able to allow themselves, in identification with their analysts, more leeway in experiencing a broad range of affects. They begin overcoming those identifications with their overwhelmed, traumatising parents and start identifying with their analyst's strengths. Patients realise that their analysts can get upset and recover by themselves without making the patient responsible, and these patients come to believe there is hope for them, too. They consider the possibility of being hurt and of recovering without having to feel small, helpless, and vulnerable. They can complain, express their painful feelings, and count on being understood and taken seriously. These new experiences help them to begin integrating and overcoming early traumatic experiences and to begin developing new organising principles.

Analysts who can survive these assults without either feeling destroyed or making interpretations that leave the patient feeling destroyed can use their countertransference feelings as opportunities for furthering the analytic process. In the past I saw these assults on me as evidence of underlying instinctual wishes needing to be tamed or neutralised. Now I see these behaviours as attempts to use me to complete an arrested phase of development and to master early traumatic experiences. In time the patient may become curious about these behaviours, and I will make an interpretation and explain my understanding of the process, but some patients will feel stronger and move on to new areas without needing an interpretation.

The analyst who is patient and understanding will sometimes become frightening to these patients once a bond has been established. As patients feel closer and safer, they may feel vulnerable to loss and disappointment. The more understanding the analyst is, the more anxious these patients become. They believe unconsciously that no pain means no connection. If they can experience the analyst as abusive, they feel hurt, but safe.

What can you do when your patient experiences you as abusive? Theoretically you remain objective and investigate your patient's experience, but practically, that does not work. Your patient knows you too well, and there will be some element of truth in your patient's perception of you.

http://www.amazon.com/Talking-Patien.../dp/1568215983

________________

I think its about... If I let him in... To fulfill the self-object functions... Then when he leaves it will feel like part of me has been ripped away. It will hurt too much. So I need to be seperate from him. He is not me. He is not. I don't need him.