Quote:
Originally Posted by feralkittymom
To me she feels a bit uncomfortable in herself and a bit out of her depth doing psycho-dynamic therapy. You mentioned that she was really good with the anxiety disorder stuff in the first couple of years. But she seems to run a bit hot and cold in the relationship department. Maybe her strengths simply lie in more directive therapy modalities.
But she also seems very much embedded in a clinical psych orientation: viewing emotions expressed through behaviors as "normal" or "not normal" through the lens of "illness." It can go hand in hand with a belief that by changing the behaviors, the emotions will follow.
I prefer an orientation more embedded in a counseling psych orientation which views emotions and behaviors as reflective of developmental issues; and that any resulting illness--like depression, etc--derives from developmental gaps (which can also include a biological component.). So whatever led to the gap--unmet needs, etc--is normalized and remedied rather than pathologized.
This isn't to say that all Ts with a clinical psych or counseling psych background conduct therapy in only particular ways, but they are philosophical orientations that infuse their practices.
|
Interesting...The "counseling psych" definition sounds more like my marriage counselor, since he tends to relate things back to my childhood, talking about schemas and things like that. T has said before that one of MC's things is object relations theory, which, from what I've read, also ties things back to childhood and relationships with caregivers. Which I feel like is addressing the cause rather than the symptoms, which to me would ultimately be more healing. And, yeah, the normalizing and remedying vs. pathologizing thing. He's a Ph.D. though, so probably more trained in clinical, but he was saying last session how he doesn't follow the "blank slate" sort of training he received.
T is a clinical social worker, so I presume her training is a bit different. That came up a bit in session last week, and she said they would have received similar training. I just think she chooses to follow a different approach. And now that I can see those approaches side by side, I can tell which one is helping me. Like, maybe I would need to be temporarily more needy again to process all the childhood stuff, but ultimately, it would help me be independent. I see it sort of as MC fixing the faulty wiring I got in childhood, like he's replacing those more negative messages with more positive ones (while still focusing on current stuff in our marriage and things). While I guess T is trying to focus more on now and how I can handle things cognitively and behaviorally? She's mixed modality rather than CBT though.
Anyway, thanks for giving me your perspective--it's helped me think!