i can't remember if i've posted about this already. i think i have a bit but i wanted to post some more about it. it is something that i have been reading up on / learning about in my efforts to understand where my therapist is coming from (with respect to theoretical orientation). i really like the theory. it might help other people...

Kohut talks about three kinds of selfobject needs. the need for:
IDEALISING - to feel safe and secure and soothed and loved by the presence of a benevolent and powerful other.
MIRRORING - to feel special and important. to be appreciated as a unique and interesting individual.
TWINSHIP - to feel that other people are like oneself. to feel like a member of the human race. other people have similar idiosyncracies and quirks and thoughts and feelings to us.

The notion is that the above are human needs. We need each of these to be met throughout our lifespan. People are social beings. Initially our relations with our parents are supposed to meet our selfobject needs but over time our peers and lovers etc are supposed to meet our selfobject needs (if all goes well).

He talks about optimal responsiveness which is the notion that other people engage with us empathetically and that they are able to take the transference, which is to say they are able to respond appropriately so our selfobject needs are met. e.g., 'wow thats wonderful, i'm so happy for you (mirroring) or yeah, i can really relate to that i find that too (twinship) or yeah, i really love my work and seeing people for therapy (idealising). optimal responsiveness doesn't mean that they always meet our selfobject needs, however. it is about empathetic attunement (acknowledgement of the need) rather than solely about fulfulling that need.

He doesn't think that selfobject really are transferences (in the standard meaning of transferences). transference is thought to be when we relate to our t as though the object (the t) is another object (e.g., or parent). he doesn't think of these processes as involving object substitution (t treated as parent) so much as involving a process of the ego (a selfobject is an object that is incorporated as part of the self and this can be quite distinct from the realworld object. it is the perception of the object).

the notion is that there are times when the therapist can't fulfill the selfobject needs due to the nature of the needs or because people are incapable of being 100% empathetic all of the time. in these moments of 'optimal frustration' so long as the individual has had adequate experience of their selfobject needs being met their ego can fulfill the function and they can do that with their own ego resources. when this happens... this is what structural changes to the personality are supposed to consist in.

i think that is kinda cool :-)

it is very different from the notion of the therapist as being 'objective' or 'neutral' in the sense of NEVER meeting the needs and instead analysing the presumed object transferences all the time. it is also different in the sense that Kohut thinks these are needs that all people have throughout all of their lifetime.

it used to be thought (it still is thought by some schools) that one should never 'indulge' selfobject needs. one should always analyse the assumed transference e.g., 'why is it so important to you that i express approval'. the notion is that if one indulges them then the patient will never learn to meet the need with their own internal resources. Kohut thinks that one should empathise with the need and fulfill it if it is appropriate (i.e., if it doesn't involve a boundary violation such as sex or whatever). that it is meeting it that provides the patients with the internal resources to meet the need themself. he is also distinctive in the sense that he doesn't think the therapist needs to purposely try to frustrate the patients selfobject needs in order for progress to occur. instead, it is simply a fact of life that there will be moments of optimal frustration becaue the therapist can't be empathetic 100% of the time and because of the nature of the selfobject needs some will simply be unable to be fulfilled.

ipeople are supposed to exhibit all of these selfobject needs over time. people often have one of these needs more pronounced than the others, however, depending on their parents own needs (hence inability to meet the childs needs).

what do people think?

[Rapunzel]

The more I read about self psychology, the more I like it. I get to study it a little more in my next class coming up too, and also Linehan. I think I see an excuse to buy some of the books on my wish list.

As far as the needs, I can see therapists readily fulfilling needs for idealising and mirroring. Not usually twinship though, because that tends to involve self-disclosure, and therapists have to be careful with that. I do think that therapists should fulfill needs when appropriate, and not just analyse the needs. I think that it is okay to need approval, and that we all do. It's also okay to need attention (and it ticks me off when people say someone "just needs attention" therefore they ignore the person - I had roommates who did that, fortunately not a therapist). Transference exists, but not everything is transference and there are real needs.

yeah. to start with i struggled to see the difference between mirroring and twinship. i think i get it now... my t attempts to meet my twinship needs by talking about other clients. not disclosing identifying information about them but by saying 'some of my clients have said that xxx' or 'quite a few of my clients have said that they found that xxx' or whatever. i was a little freaked about that to start with but i think i've figured that that is what he is trying to do with that. lol. i do think he is making up stories half the time with that lol. but i guess i get my twinship needs met on boards :-)

yes it is okay to need attention. everybody needs attention. and different people have different needs for attention. everybody needs more attention when they are feeling distressed. some people are more distressed than others, however. some peoples parents were good with respect to the idealising function too and they often soothed and expressed caring when the person needed that. as such the person is able to soothe and express caring for themself when they need it. that can help them feel less intensely distressed so they are better able to seek and receive soothing from other people irl. for people who never really soothed or given much attention as kids... people who never really had that idealising function met... people who were more distressed than usual due to abuse or whatever... the distress can be very intense and the person isn't able to soothe themself. instead they turn to the environment in such an intense state that... they need to turn to therapy in order to have the idealising function met adequately enough for them to internalise.

yes, this is very very very very very similar to Linehan's take. she uses a different langauge, however. she talks about 'skills' that people learn (she doesn't divide up the three different needs). some of the skills are related to emotion regulation (self soothing etc). she talks about how when we are little our parents teach us these skills and then once we have those skills practice with them makes them automatic. it is a similar idea i guess. Kohut thinks people develop the skills so long as the therapist can be empathetic and can accept the transferences, however, while Linehan thinks people develop the skills by way of attending skills training and being explicitly taught the skills and being cheerleaded into practicing them.

very similar in the sense that they focus on inadequate environments. very similar in their advocating the utility of a non-judgemental stance.

[sunrise]

from alexandra:</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
it used to be thought (it still is thought by some schools) that one should never 'indulge' selfobject needs. one should always analyse the assumed transference e.g., 'why is it so important to you that i express approval'.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">this is the style in some therapy orientations but not all. Thank God my therapist is not like that! I don't think I could handle being with someone who responded like that instead of authentically. I know some people prefer that approach, though.

Rapunzel wrote:</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
As far as the needs, I can see therapists readily fulfilling needs for idealising and mirroring. Not usually twinship though, because that tends to involve self-disclosure, and therapists have to be careful with that. I do think that therapists should fulfill needs when appropriate, and not just analyse the needs.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">I really agree with that last sentence, that the T is there to do more than just analyse. As for self-disclosure, my therapist does it. I asked him to. It's part of his skill set and has helped me immensely. It isn't necessarily a road to boundary violations, although boundary violations are usually preceded by self disclosure. But self-disclosure is common and accepted and considered therapeutic in some schools of psychotherapeutic thought. The psychodynamic approach tends to favor the therapist who is neutral and non-self disclosing. The humanist school favors authenticity and self-disclosure. CBT also often involves self-disclosure.

I read an interesting article a while back on self disclosure:
Re-examination of Therapist Self Disclosure

A couple of quotes from the article that I like:
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
“The therapist may disclose past experiences as part of the ethic of sharing. Such disclosure alleviates the patient's shame and embarrassment, provides positive modeling, normalizes the patient's experience, and provides hope.”

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
and
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Self-disclosure models tend to fall into two groups. Traditional psychodynamically oriented clinicians profess adherence to a model in which self-disclosure is largely discouraged and is limited to very specific situations. In contrast, "humanistic and eclectic" therapists favor free and open self-disclosure and emphasize that therapist anonymity is impossible.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

The issue of self disclosure is an interesting one. Does each of us know how important it is to us, personally? That question might be a key one to answer for oneself if looking for a new therapist. Because if you get a T out of synch with your stand on self-disclosure, you may not be happy in the relationship. It goes both ways. Some clients may desire very little self-disclosure and in fact would be put off or disturbed if the T offered it. Whereas people like me need it to feel the T is a partner in the therapeutic relationship--not being authentic or participating fully with me in therapy would make me clam up and not be able to trust or share. Of course, I am still the client and he is the T. It's not like we will ever be discussing his current problems in my therapy session at length. (Or I want my money back! )

Kohut talks about 'experience-near' modes of interacting and contrasts it with (something... i can't remember so i shall guess) 'experience-far'? modes of interacting.

the latter is the neutrality that the traditional Freudian analysts aimed for. the notion was that if the therapist was an objective listener who didn't indulge the patients transferences then this provided the neutrality required for projections / transferences. I think Freud said this in an attempt to motivate that view: If the client doesn't know that i'm married then that gives them projection / transference options and possibilities that are ruled out by their knowledge that i'm married. for example, they are less able to fantisise / wonder whether i'm really involved in a steamy homosexual affair.

the former is Kohut's invention, basically. the notion that the therapist can fulfill the self-object needs and that optimal frustrations (ie inability to fulfill all of them) are the mechanism of change.

a problem with the Freudian neutrality is that it was often said that only certain kinds of patients were suitable for Freudian analysis. some people didn't have the 'ego strength' to cope with the experience-distant mode of interaction. some peoples paranoia (that the therapist doesn't like them or responds to them with disgust) will only intensify as they don't have sufficient ego strength to work through the transference. it was thought that if the therapist 'gave in' and reassured the patient then that was a block to the patients being provided the opportunity to work through the transference. the notion seems to be that the therapists neutrality is one of the necessary mechanisms for structural changes to the personality.

there was some stuff on how Kohut's self psychology was a form of supportive therapy rather than true psychoanalysis because it didn't provide the neutrality required for patients to work through their transferences. people have argued on his behalf that it IS true psychoanalysis because you don't need neutrality for patients to work through their transferences. Kohut said that he struggled for a long time with the discrepancy between what patients seemed to need (and what he wanted to provide for them) and what his training said he should do. some people have argued that Freud actually wasn't as neutral as his writings suggested. Kohut thought that the neutrality was unnecessarily... and was unnecessarily... cruel (not quite the word). painful. Kohut's version expands the scope of patients who are suitable for analysis. instead of only being an option for people who have the ego strength to tolerate the therapists neutrality those who couldn't tolerate the therapists neutrality are able to be analysed by way of the experience-near mode of interaction.

i'm not a great fan of self-disclosure. i don't want to know anything about my therapist. an exception to this is strategic disclosure of the therapists thoughts / feelings / emotional responses to me, however. sometimes... i already know more about my therapist than i wanted to know. i see why he has disclosed what he has, however. i think the reality check is quite good for me. i do have the temptation to go lalalalalalala more than i needed to know, however. some people think that self disclosure prevents / weakens transferences. modes of therapy that don't think transference is required for theraputic change often advocate strategic use of self-disclosure. things get a lot more controversial with modes that require transference for meaningful theraputic change, however.

Maybe the idea is that self-disclosure does moderate (lessen) transference. that can be useful with respect to clients prone to intense transference who have had some fairly bad experiences. It might be useful to moderate some clients transference by strategic use of self disclosure. especially clients who are in danger of being lost in the past... self disclosure can be a useful reality check. for clients who find it harder to feel attached / to experience transference then maybe less self disclosure is better. though i do think... that the experience near empathetic stance is more likely to foster attachment than neutrality

[sunrise]

deleted (double post)

[sunrise]

I have found transference and self disclosure not to be mutually exclusive. For example, I experience transference with my T despite his self disclosure and I don't think it's that unusual, despite what pure theory may say (often not in tune with reality). I remember I was kind of thrilled the first time T made transference interpretations. I remember thinking, heeee, I know what you're doing! I make them myself now sometimes too. I don't always need him to recognize the transference for me. Our entire last session was pretty much a major transference-fest. So in my sessions, we use both self disclosure and the transference to achieve therapeutic change. I like how T borrows from the different therapy orientations to use what is best for each client. It's kind of a unique "stew" for each person. That too makes me feel valued and appreciated, that he doesn't just use a "one size fits all" therapy approach on me. I guess that would be meeting my MIRRORING need.

I'm thinking back to my previous therapist. She was very CBT. We couldn't get anything meaningful done, although she helped me with some outer symptoms of my condition. There was no transference. I also remember very little self disclosure from her. On the other hand, I didn't ask her for any, either. It just didn't seem to fit, so why request it? Basically, she was very uncreative, and missed out on opportunities I gave her to delve beneath the surface. (I classify her more as a counselor than a therapist, if that makes sense.) I find it interesting that I had to "learn" on her what worked for me in therapy (CBT and other "surface" therapies are not a good fit for me), at least to some extent, so that I could pick a better matched T the next time.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Kohut talks about 'experience-near' modes of interacting and contrasts it with (something... i can't remember so i shall guess) 'experience-far'? modes of interacting.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">That reminds me of Martin Buber's two modes of interacting, "I-You" and "I-It." I strive for "I-You" as much as I can in therapy but I don't beat myself up about it when we slip into "I-It." An important feature for Buber was true dialog between two people, and I like to think my T and I have that, at least in our best and shining moments.

I'm wondering whether there might be different kinds of self disclosure. I'm also wondering whether experience-nearness and neutrality (in Freud's sense) might be a different (or at least seperable) distinction too.

For example, it seems perfectly possible that a therapist could be experience-near in their mode of interacting without self disclosing at all. While neutrality might rule out self disclosure I don't think that experience-nearness implies anything about self disclosure one way or the other.

With respect to self disclosure I guess there is at least a distinction between a therapist disclosing their responses to the client (thoughts and feelings) and a therapist disclosing details about their life (marital status etc). it would seem to me that a therapist could make one of these kinds of self disclosures but not the other.

I guess 'transference' is a theory laden term... How should we characterise that... I guess the mark of a transference response is that it is intense and the transference response can either be positive (attachment) or negative (anger or dislike).

I guess it would depend on the patient but I would guess that neutrality would be more likely to leave the patient feeling frustrated (hence negative transference) whereas experience-nearness would be more likely to facilitate attachment (hence positive transference). i wonder if the theorists who emphasise neutrality are the same theorists who posit such things as destructive drives and the inevitability of anger / rage / frustration etc...

Sometimes philosophers talk about there being a space of possibilities and knowledge restricts the space of possibilities by homing in on actualities and ruling out other possibilities. I guess that when a therapist self discloses it rules out possibilities by providing actualities and that was what Freud was getting at with respect to how certain kinds of projections / transferences are ruled out if the therapist self discloses. I'm not sure how much this interfeares with the theraputic process / mechanisms of theraputic change, however. Depends on the specific situation most likely. I would think that if one moves out of experience nearness when one refuses to answer a question (and stays there) then that would be likely to prompt frustration / negative transference, however.

I've had trouble with CBT therapists too. Mostly because I was seeing them in the public service and they were under considerable pressure to have evidence of change in 6-12 sessions I suppose. They were so focused on educating me out of my symptoms that they never really listened to me or got to know me or anything. With councellors it is harder to say what went wrong. Maybe what went wrong was that I didn't have faith that they knew how / were capable of helping me. I feel bad for that because some of them were very caring individuals who were really very good at listening. Part of it was that we had very different world views. They tended to be more into feminism and social critique of reality type stuff and i found it hard to understand where they were coming from so i could relate to them in a way where i really felt like they understood me.

That was nice about dialogue. I had a therapist who took Linehan a little too literally and tried a Socratic dialogue with me once. She asked me what happiness was (one of my goals was to be happier) and I said I didn't know. She kept on at me until I gave her something... Then she showed how that wasn't right. So I (reluctantly) tried again. Then she showed how that wasn't right. That went on for a bit until I brought the whole thing around to the first definition (like Socrates tends to elicit from his interlocuter). She went 'hey you can't do that!!! now you have gone in a...' Then she got it. I miss her. But yeah, little moments of genuine emotion are priceless. They should do a credit card ad on that lol.

[(JD)]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
MIRRORING - to feel special and important. to be appreciated as a unique and interesting individual.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I have found transference and self disclosure not to be mutually exclusive.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

[Rapunzel]

On self disclosure, Alexandra, I think you got what the difference is when you said that you want the kind that is your T's responses and reactions to you, but you don't want to know a lot about him. One kind of self disclosure is how the therapist feels and reacts in response to you, and that is an essential part of therapy, IMO. That is different from shifting the focus and the therapist telling you all about their own life. The focus should stay on the client and on helping the client. I tend to like self-disclosure, and have learned a general rule of thumb for determining when it is appropriate. Appropriate self-disclosure is for the client, to help them in a specific way. If it is for the therapist's benefit, then it's not appropriate.

Oh, this is so interesting!
I think I see now where my therapy went awry. Something he said after about 6 months meeting with me-- "I can't hold your hand, mandy"..... has stuck with me for the last 2 1/2 years I struggled to stay in therapy... To me he meant-- I'm on my own just like when I was little, to soothe myself in any way I can figure out... and to dicipher what should be upsetting and what isn't, all on my own. (which I'm so bad at due to non-responses in childhood when traumatized)

I've struggled all my adult life to "feel" and know just what is an upsetting situation. Was denied learning that as a child.....

the idea of "Idealising" makes very good sense to me.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
for people who never really soothed or given much attention as kids... people who never really had that idealising function met... people who were more distressed than usual due to abuse or whatever... the distress can be very intense and the person isn't able to soothe themself. instead they turn to the environment in such an intense state that... they need to turn to therapy in order to have the idealising function met adequately enough for them to internalise.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
I handled things by numbing and/or dissociating....I missed so much--

Yes, this all makes sense to me--thank you for sharing all this. Maybe the fact I quit therapy wasn't ALL my fault after all, I was thinking it was.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
it used to be thought (it still is thought by some schools) that one should never 'indulge' selfobject needs

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
this is JUST how my T. would be towards me-- at least it seemed as soon as he figured out something I needed, that's when it was withheld-- well that's how I felt anyway-- whether or not that was something he did on purpose-- I'll probably never know-- but it sure gave me a feeling that he was cold and indifferent towards me-- just like my parents--
I once told him-- "it's like we're dancing together but to different music with different steps"-- very awkward. (maybe I shouldn't have said that-- I might have pushed him away by saying it )

thank you, thank you, for posting this!

mandy

[Perna]

Mirroring to me is copying the other because of the positive identification of idealizing and twinship is seeing the other is like you. I have a single good example of both in one day from my therapy.

I loved the "look" of my T's hands, especially her wedding ring on her warm, darker-skinned fingers (she's Filipina). I have a picture of my mother holding me in my baptismal gown when I was 6 months old and I notice her hands/arms holding me and their "strength." Anyway, I don't wear my wedding ring because it's slightly too small (I've gained weight :-) but I decided to wear it for therapy because it made me feel like it would remind me I wanted to be like my T (ideation and mirroring). So, I wore it one day to work from which I would leave to go to therapy.

I was helping another woman at work and she suddenly exclaimed, "Perna, I've never noticed your wedding ring!" and I almost said, "That's because I only wear it on Fridays" only I thought about that in the split second before I spoke and started to laugh. It struck me as so ridiculous and funny I told my coworker what had happened, the whole story including about my T and how I idealized her, what I was thinking, (twinning, so the coworker could enjoy and laugh too and she did) and then told my T the whole story again when I went to see her. She and I both laughed at the joke (twinship) and my T further commented on how if I'd actually said that to someone they'd have thought I was a member of some sort of bizarre club or something :-) We enjoyed the laugh together and it was all because I was trying to mirror her.

Mirroring (to me) is basically how an infant with no words learns from its mother; it's the little girl with her little broom following her mother around and "helping," copying doing what the mother does or the little boy with his toy tools/lawn mower, etc. Emotionally it's my T being "calm" and quiet and my wanting to be like that. We can pick up feelings and ways of responding from others and T's try to be "good" examples. T's can mirror us though too; mine would use the words I used (English was not her native language and I often got to teach her words like "ornery" which she tried to use only it came out "ordinary" and I laughed and explained I was lots of things but "ordinary" wasn't one of them) and they might mirror our expressions or postures (so we can see how others see us).

[sunrise]

Perna, I really like your post with all of its concrete examples. I can just imagine what someone would think if you told them you only wear your wedding ring on Fridays!

I like your insights into Mirroring. I think my T sometimes mirrors me in his self disclosure to make me feel "not alone" and like he can relate to what I have just shared with him. You know, like he might say "hey, once such and such happened to me (just like it did to you)." It is definitely done with therapeutic intent. It makes me feel like he really understands what I just said on a personal level, rather than only intellectually. And that helps us build trust, strengthen our therapeutic relationship, and encourages me to share more in the future--all good things in my book.