Looking for books on this

The therapist told me something today that I do not understand. She said I could let her be the good mother. I have absolutely no idea what this means. It came up at the end and I did not understand what little she said about it plus she does not exactly shine at explaining things. It sounds horrible in general and what I know about good mother stuff does not seem like a good plan. More like a seriously bad plan. I would like to read up on using a therapist for something like this (I frankly get neither part of the equation - what I would need a good mother for at this point, I think my own mother was not good enough, or how it is for a therapist to be such a thing even supposing I learned what good the idea was). Does anyone know of a book or treatise or article on the use of a therapist like this? I am looking for something that would explain to me what the therapist would have to do with any of this.

The Emotionally Absent Mother by Jasmin Lee Cori mentions 'the good mother' a LOT.

You'll hate it

I have heard of the "good enough mother". This is from attachment theorist Donald Winnicott. I think it means that in order for a healthy relationship to develop between the mother and child, there has to be some degree of attunement, but it doesn't have to be perfect. If there is some attunement some of the time, it can be "good enough" and the child can grow up with a secure attachment. By extrapolation to therapists, it has been said that they need not be perfect to help the client, just good enough.

I am not sure if what your T meant by "good mother" is the same as "good enough mother" though. Maybe she can provide a good reference for you to learn more.

You know the greatest minds are not appreciated in their own time!

Yes - I don't think she did, but she may have thrown "enough" in there at some point. I have read Winnecott. I know there are things out there on the good enough mother
The part I am trying to read up on and figure out is what the therapist would have to do with it. I would rather have info on the general concept before the next appointment where I will inquire about what the one I see meant specifically.

Yeah, can't see this theory flying with you to be honest lol and that book is a horrible heartbreaking book to read if you've missed out in good enough parenting growing up. I struggled. It may have been thrown across the room a few times!

I may be way reaching out here and connecting these two since I'm not very knowledgable on either. However, you might look at "limited re-parenting"

The best background info I've read that informs this idea is from Object Relations theory. But some of the materials out there are hideously confusing. The T role is essentially to provide the sort of persona and experiences psychologically that the child should have received at the stage that resulted in whatever the psychological problem is. It's a developmental approach. While it may have some connection to re-parenting in schema therapy, I don't think it necessarily is so technique driven.

I don't know, but it sounds kind of weird. You know I'm more touchy-feely than you, and we are often on different planes of thinking. However, the therapist as a mother and any type of reparenting concept is odd to me. It's simply "not my thing" nor is my T into that. Also, my T is only 10 years older than than me. I never get a parental vibe from her...perhaps a wiser older sister vibe? Cousin vibe?

Anyway, good luck with that....

This therapist is supposed to be psychodynamic. The limited reparenting stuff I have read about is not for me.
At all.
Nor is the idea of the therapist as a mother.
It was extremely odd of her to say such a thing. So I thought if I could read up on it I might see that the words she used (her and mother and me) meant something else that really did not mean the therapist entered into it.

If she's psychodynamic in orientation, my guess is that she is thinking more about how you can see her role, or use her role therapeutically. Not see her, as an individual, as a mother, but as representing a mother role for the purposes of exploring issues, feelings, or for support.

Now that we've both been on pc a while, how would you visualize therapy? Have any of my or other people's descriptions or metaphors struck you? Like my 4 people metaphor, or the 3 little pigs metaphor, where t is trying to build a brick house cuz what we have from our FOO is just straw? Or is this still what you're trying to figure out?

Yes this is more the thing and she does keep going on about support but I can't figure out why. I just cannot find a book on this that answers the questions I have and thought others might have book or article suggestions.

[QUOTE=hankster;? Have any of my or other people's descriptions or metaphors struck you? Like my 4 people metaphor, or the 3 little pigs metaphor, where t is trying to build a brick house cuz what we have from our FOO is just straw?[/QUOTE]

Not really. I don't see the metaphors that you do.

What are the questions you have? Like i always thought diet books were missing something between the beginning and the end. I think I finally figured out what THAT was - time and work. I dont mean to bug you - just to articulate what you're looking for right now.

Excactly.... and this is why she said it ( IMO)

Books or articles on the subject of how and why is what I am looking for.

By support, I would think she means providing a neutral and non-judgmental space in which it is safe to talk about thoughts and feelings, as well as express thoughts and feelings. Her role as good mother is probably more about eliciting the thoughts and feelings directly, rather than through an intellectual filter. I suppose psychologically it might be about expressing whatever to the good mother that the child could not express in reality to the bad mother.

As far as Object Relations, this is one of the most readable sources I've found to give a mostly clear explanation of the theory, and how it can inform practice: Object-Relations & Self-Psychology: A User-Friendly Primer - Barry Joseph Weber, David L. Downer, David I Downing - Google ƒuƒbƒNƒX

I will check out the book.

It was such an odd thing for the woman to say.

Just wanted to say I would probably feel sick if my current psychodynamic T said this to me...an ex-T (who was psychodynamic also) always wanted me to see him as a type of mother figure, which just freaked me out. I told him he couldn't force me to have transference that wasn't there.
Good luck with the book.

Imo growing up once is enough and your therapist is playing dumb. That t knows evetything about it and doesn't care about the outcomes it produces for you.
My former t did some of this to me.
You could become ultra critical of women.

This is going to sound crazy...
But you would be better off if your t was a contract killer and kidnapped your real mother and tied her up in an abandoned warehouse...then brought you there to to make the decision of mercy or justice.
Once the decision is made...no more of this good enough or not good enough crap...
Once your decision is made which I'm guessing she'll be shown mercy, then your mother comes face to face with the idea that YOU rescued HER from YOU and the effect she had on you.

This is just fantasy you understand.
The idea is to see the possible outcome of your toyal and full empowerment juxtaposing your therapist impairing that empowerment with assuming a powrr role you've already experienced.

Better to see ypur therapist as a hitman and yourself as the head of the five families.

Just make sure you don't belong on someone elses hitlist when your decision is made.

Definitely read up on Winnicott-- good enough mothers, the holding environment, optimal frustration etc.

To be honest, I expect this whole concept will make you go "yuck"--it doesn't seem your style Stopdog.

found this:

GOOD-ENOUGH

Donald W. Winnicott (1896-1971) formulated and developed the idea of the "good-enough" mother. It stands in contrast with the "perfect" mother who satisfies all the needs of the infant on the spot, thus preventing him from developing. Instead, the good-enough mother tries to provide what the infant needs, but she instinctively leaves a time lag between the demands and their satisfaction and progressively increases it. Faced with expressions of infantile rage, she waits a while, then she contains the rage gently but firmly. Her fundamentally warm, loving attitude remains in place whatever the infant does, and even when she herself experiences irritation, annoyance, or anger. She never retaliates, never takes revenge on her child. Her basic attitude overrides any mistake she makes and is bound to make. She is a master in handling negative reactions in a constructive, healing fashion. The good-enough mother's behaviour can be described with another Winnicottian concept, namely "graduated failure of adaptation". Her failure to satisfy the infant need's immediately induces the latter to compensate for the temporary deprivation by mental activity and by understanding. Thus, the infant learns to tolerate for increasingly longer periods both his ego needs and instinctual tensions. (Winnicott, 1977, p. 246).

The idea of the good-enough mother is important for the psychotherapist at least in two respects. First, it constitutes a basic model for the therapist's healthy attitude towards the patient. Second, but not less important, when trying to understand the patient and his troubles in the assessment interview or later on, she also attempts to build up a mental picture of the mother who took care of him from the beginning. The therapist tries to find out how far and in which direction did sthe patient's mother deviate from the ideal of a good-enough mother.

One more side note...when we are the ones in power we discover, usually, that the greatest demonstration of that power is found in restraint rather than fulfillment of vengence because we want those that hurt us to live in the awareness of the hurt they caused.
If they're not around to have time to consider and opportunity to change somehow the hurt they caused then vengence is empty and leaves us voided.