[someone321]

Today we were discussing my e-mail to T in which I wrote:

"... I guess, I was just angry with you for the whole week without any particular reason, you could call it transference (sorry that not the positive one) if you'd like to but I guess it is just much easier to be angry with you than with any other person."

And T said that the word "transference" is very commonly used and sometimes it really takes place but sometimes it is just used by some therapists against clients, like it is T's weapon which they can use whenever a client is angry (or any other feeling) at their therapists. While often a client is angry with a therapist because of the therapist and not because of something what happened 30 years earlier... - that's what my T said, do you agree with it? I think I do, but I know that on this forum the word "transference" is very often used so I'm curious about your opinions...

My T said that she'll rather say that she triggered me (which could also be both positive and negative) than say that I just experience transference... Has any other T suggested something like that?

[granite1]

I think it takes a good T to be able to figure out what is going on if the client is unable to. I think both can be the case . I believe if I told my T I was angry with her all week .as soon as she woke up from passing out she would want to help me figure out why and if there was a reason for it that she could work on or if it was transference. I do think some T often run straight to the transference . I would hope any T would be willing to explore if there may be a reason other then transference that has gotten you angry. your T sounds very wise

[UnderRugSwept]

Both of my Ts (I see 2) have said that the word transference is overused...neither have said that a T uses it against a client sometimes, but I totally get what your T means.

That idea especially makes sense to me in the example you provide...a therapist who isn't ready to deal with a client's anger towards them might brush it off and just call it transference rather than dealing with the negative feelings in the present moment.

[HazelGirl]

I believe either one can happen.

Transference is where we take emotions from our past and put them on people in the present. Often, the emotions are out of proportion to the situation. If that's not happening, it's not transference.

[someone321]

Originally Posted by HazelGirl

I believe either one can happen.

Transference is where we take emotions from our past and put them on people in the present. Often, the emotions are out of proportion to the situation. If that's not happening, it's not transference.

Yes, of course both can happen, but I think that it is also true that we (at least I) react based on our experiences but at the same time it doesn't necessarily mean that all my reactions are just because of the transference...

And what do you think (if I can ask of course) about using "transference" by therapists? Is it actually necessarily to talk about it and "label" somehow the client or would it be enough just to explore the reasons why someone thinks/feels something without getting into details if it is actually the transference or not? I also started being curious if we - clients (or e.g. I) do not use this word as an excuse, that we don't have to take the responsibility for our feelings (okay I know, we cannot be responsible for it but I hope you know what I mean) as we always can "blame" transference...

I don't know just some thoughts on Thursday afternoon...

[HazelGirl]

Originally Posted by someone321

Yes, of course both can happen, but I think that it is also true that we (at least I) react based on our experiences but at the same time it doesn't necessarily mean that all my reactions are just because of the transference...

And what do you think (if I can ask of course) about using "transference" by therapists? Is it actually necessarily to talk about it and "label" somehow the client or would it be enough just to explore the reasons why someone thinks/feels something without getting into details if it is actually the transference or not? I also started being curious if we - clients (or e.g. I) do not use this word as an excuse, that we don't have to take the responsibility for our feelings (okay I know, we cannot be responsible for it but I hope you know what I mean) as we always can "blame" transference...

I don't know just some thoughts on Thursday afternoon...

I don't think a label is necessary, but as long as it's used properly (and not as a defense against a client's criticism), it can help to have a label. The client can sometimes feel crazy or illogical if they know that their feelings don't match up with the situation, or they can feel embarrassed at the intensity. It can help to know you're not the only one going through it and that there's a name for it.

[stopdog]

I think it is very common for therapists and psychiatrists to use their labeling and language as weapons against clients

I think if my T wanted to use something as a weapon against me, she'd have a whole lot of more ammunition than transference from the **** I've told her and stupid stuff I've done like hanging up on her that one time. I can't imagine her ever wanting to.

[someone321]

Originally Posted by artemis-within

I think if my T wanted to use something as a weapon against me, she'd have a whole lot of more ammunition than transference from the **** I've told her and stupid stuff I've done like hanging up on her that one time. I can't imagine her ever wanting to.

That's a good point...

On the other hand (at least with my previous T) there was a difference when I dared to criticize him at all.. Then, he was always very defensive and insisting that it is my problem that I think that I should talk about the therapy or him while I should only focus about myself... Like he couldn't use my words against myself as he was ethical but he couldn't even imagine that he could do something not great...

Sorry new like your T needs to go back to T sch. By not linking the past to the present, the client misses out on gaining knowledge that will be useful for them.

[someone321]

Originally Posted by _Mouse

Sorry new like your T needs to go back to T sch. By not linking the past to the present, the client misses out on gaining knowledge that will be useful for them.

I've already changed T but this previous one is in practice > 30 years already so I doubt he would be willing to go back to school He's from old psychoanalysis school and according to him clients should pretend that T is not around (however, he still was arguing with me) so there can be nothing about T - only about the client. I guess for some people it works pretty well, his approach just didn't work for me...

[Lauliza]

Originally Posted by _Mouse

Sorry new like your T needs to go back to T sch. By not linking the past to the present, the client misses out on gaining knowledge that will be useful for them.

Sorry I don't agree with this. Some Ts (including mine) don't use the term much if at all and I do believe it can be over used. I understand it has its place and can be effectively used in therapy. But it's also an easy way for a T to put anger that is legit back onto the client to avoid the possibility of having been wrong or of making an error.

[someone321]

Originally Posted by _Mouse

Sorry new like your T needs to go back to T sch. By not linking the past to the present, the client misses out on gaining knowledge that will be useful for them.

Originally Posted by Lauliza

Sorry I don't agree with this. Some Ts (including mine) don't use the term much if at all and I do believe it can be over used. I understand it has its place and can be effectively used in therapy. But it's also an easy way for a T to put anger that is legit back onto the client to avoid the possibility of having been wrong or of making an error.

Aaa, Mouse you meant that the new T not the previous one should go back to school - sorry I misunderstood this... Thanks Lauliza for the clarification In this case I guess I wasn't very clear. My current T of course links the past to the presence as we work on the childhood trauma it wouldn't be possible to ignore the past... But my current T doesn't use the word "transference" so often as it isn't necessarily true that if I am angry with my T, it means that I am just angry with her because 20 years ago someone did something and that's why I am angry now... It is still possible that my T could simply screw up

[Petra5ed]

Originally Posted by someone321

Has any other T suggested something like that?

No, but I don't think transference has ever come up except by me. It sounds like your therapist was apologizing.

[msxyz]

I object to the notion that a therapist knows better what I feel than I do.

[healed84]

I guess I would agree on both instances. Your anger at him could have noooothing to do with him at all, but you have transferred feelings from a relationship like your father and put it on him. Which, is totally plausible. In that case, it would be worth looking at.

The other side is true... You could truly be pissed of at your t and you two need to take the time to look at what it was that pissed you off and see if there are things that the both of you or he or just you need to work on. Any T is "good" would be willing to examine both situations and work through it with you.

Originally Posted by Lauliza

Sorry I don't agree with this. Some Ts (including mine) don't use the term much if at all and I do believe it can be over used. I understand it has its place and can be effectively used in therapy. But it's also an easy way for a T to put anger that is legit back onto the client to avoid the possibility of having been wrong or of making an error.

Than a T who cannot admit to being, wrong, needs to go back to T sch.
If a therapist is wrong, which thank god they can be, a client's reaction rather than response can give insight into how they felt when someone in their past was wrong.
Or else we'd just discuss the therapist being wrong. Why the reactive reaction????

[peaches100]

My t never uses the word "transference," but I think she is very quick to assume that my reactions toward her as based on it (as she calls it, "old stuff.") While my t is often right - I DO tend to have many transference reactions -- sometimes my t says or does something unintentionally that triggers my transference reactions and feels hurtful. At those times, we have discussed it until I felt she understood where I was coming from. On occasion, after discussing it with me, my t has realized that SHE made a mistake that triggered me, and she has apologized. But I think her first reaction is to suspect transference. I do not think she has ever used it as a "weapon" though. I don't think she has ever hurt me on purpose.