[Depletion]

I'm not sure that this article reaches the best conclusion about Dependency in therapy, it all feels a little unfinished, and I was really hoping for a more radical point about the end, but I thought people here might enjoy discussing it. http://www.gisc.org/gestaltreview/do...chotherapy.pdf

One thing that I think that the article gets right is the fact that Dependency is so highly pathologized. I have often felt a great deal of shame in therapy for needing my therapist deeply, and I'm really stating to come around to the position that this kind of shaming is a larger cultural problem that that therapy perpetuates unknowingly. I'm not entirely sure what therapists should do differently, but I don't think that people should be made to feels so immature and wrong for needing so deeply. To me it seems that the more that we just push way these needs or try to correct them, the more alienated and isolated we become. Needs are a time to develop a real connection with another persons, and sometimes it seems that therapists deny this connection in the name of therapy.

I do however think that too much dependency can result in the loss of ourselves. But on the other hand not knowing that someone is there for us at the end of the day can make it damn near impossible to feel that it is safe enough to enter the world and develop our person. Maybe dependency should not be so much about discounting the patient form engaging in manipulative behaviors, but about meeting the deeper need that lies beneath the behaviors; namely, the need to know that someone is truly and undeniably there fore us.

[stopdog]

The first one I see has said I should be more dependent upon her (which is about as likely as pigs flying) and the second keeps encouraging contact out of appointment. I think they do not all have an agreement upon the subject.

It must be an individual thing. I don't see dependency as healthy or that it equals love and caring; actually, it's more of the opposite. Being dependent on someone makes it hard to see them for who they really are. It feels good to love and enjoy people without needing them.

I do understand that many (probably most) people crave that type of relationship, but I wouldn't pathologize them for it.

[Petra5ed]

Originally Posted by stopdog

The first one I see has said I should be more dependent upon her (which is about as likely as pigs flying) and the second keeps encouraging contact out of appointment. I think they do not all have an agreement upon the subject.

This is just IMO, but it's because you're not expressing any dependency toward them. I think they want to lure you to feel it and then to express it, and then they will shut you down to frustrate you and force you to analyze how dependent you feel.

When I started I was feeling very needy for my therapist, but I also was unable to contact him out of session because it felt too ridiculous to me... I knew he would immediately see through whatever text or email I sent and see it as me being needy, and that was too much for me. He found excuses to contact me, and subtly encouraged me in other ways, until I felt comfortable enough to engage in some minimal out of session contact. Then just as quick as it started he shuts it down, forgets to reply to my email, doesn't return my text, effectively leaving me frustrated and thinking about it. It's taken me a while but I am now confident this is a very common therapeutic technique, possibly it is the crux of therapy as I know it... they pull you in and then when you come in reluctant and frightened they push you out, tell you youre childish and force you to think about what just happened.

[stopdog]

Although I do believe they are wily, but I have a more firm belief I will not be lured into dependency upon either of them after 4 1/2 years. I have no idea why I would want to be dependent upon them. I have found a use for both, but I don't need either.
The first one has even branched out to try and convince me to depend upon people who are not her - I have no idea why she keeps on about it.

[Petra5ed]

Originally Posted by stopdog

Although I do believe they are wily, but I have a more firm belief I will not be lured into dependency upon either of them. I have no idea why I would want to be dependent upon them. I have found a use for both, but I don't need either.
The first one has even branched out to try and convince me to depend upon people who are not her - I have no idea why she keeps on about it.

I think the theory is that extreme independence isn't mentally healthy or efficient. That some people have maybe a bad childhood lets say so they never learn to have a safe dependency on anyone. So... again me just talking out of my ***... I think these therapists want to mimic a loving parent figure to get you feeling dependent, which supposedly all humans crave and need for a feeling of connectedness and mutuality... and then to gently push you away because being super dependent isn't cool either. The idea being some day you'll be able to go and feel dependent with someone and have that super connectedness and still be able to walk away and fend for yourself without curling up in a ball, like the so called "secure" adult is.

[stopdog]

I am not extremely independent. I have a partner and friends. But regardless of me, I think dependence is a concept therapists do not agree about. I am completely against any idea of a therapist as parent and would not continue to see one who spoke or believed in that around me.

[Depletion]

Originally Posted by Petra5ed

I think the theory is that extreme independence isn't mentally healthy or efficient. That some people have maybe a bad childhood lets say so they never learn to have a safe dependency on anyone. So... again me just talking out of my ***... I think these therapists want to mimic a loving parent figure to get you feeling dependent, which supposedly all humans crave and need for a feeling of connectedness and mutuality... and then to gently push you away because being super dependent isn't cool either. The idea being some day you'll be able to go and feel dependent with someone and have that super connectedness and still be able to walk away and fend for yourself without curling up in a ball, like the so called "secure" adult is.

One of the things that I don't understand is why therapists don't think that their patients will get to a point where they feel secure enough that they can develop some independence. What it is it about the therapy process or the previous trauma that makes it so that the whole thing has to be manufactured. Can we just no longer go through the process of becoming attached and then feeling secure that we should have been able to go though as children. Does the brain change some how to prevent this, or is the therapy relationship simply to restricted to really prevent this process from occurring.

[Depletion]

Originally Posted by licketysplit

It must be an individual thing. I don't see dependency as healthy or that it equals love and caring; actually, it's more of the opposite. Being dependent on someone makes it hard to see them for who they really are. It feels good to love and enjoy people without needing them.

I do understand that many (probably most) people crave that type of relationship, but I wouldn't pathologize them for it.

But don't you think that we all need, rely, or depend on other people, isn't that what people do. To me it seems that humans need each other, and that is a matter of biology.

[Petra5ed]

Originally Posted by Depletion

One of the things that I don't understand is why therapists don't think that their patients will get to a point where they feel secure enough that they can develop some independence. What it is it about the therapy process or the previous trauma that makes it so that the whole thing has to be manufactured. Can we just no longer go through the process of becoming attached and then feeling secure that we should have been able to go though as children. Does the brain change some how to prevent this, or is the therapy relationship simply to restricted to really prevent this process from occurring.

Ah yes. This is funny timing because I have been thinking of this topic since my therapist pointed out we have a "business relationship", and I was devastatingly hurt, and started to see how manufactured our relationship is. Here I thought we had a genuine relatedness to each other, but I forgot he was just doing a job, a job to relate to me no matter what for $.

I am a fragile person, prone to be overly dependent, or fiercely, and to my own detriment, independent. So I am like easy prey. If he only encouraged dependence it would be a bit abusive of the fact I pay him for therapy to supposedly improve myself. I think there are two reasons they pull us in and then push us away... 1) When you're comfortable you're not changing. If my needs are being met and I'm happily dependent on new daddy therapist, I'm not growing up. and 2) If new daddy therapist allows this he is kind of taking advantage of me. Here I am a damaged person seeking help, and he is exploiting me for financial gain by keeping me dependent.

[Partless]

Thanks for the article, I skimmed the first few pages and I mostly agree with what the author says. I think culturally we have come to value independence way above dependence.

I quite often get a sense of disquiet when I read how therapists write about the therapy they do to clients. In this article the author suggests that the therapist start having one approach to dependency and then at some point shift. At no point does the therapist contemplate that the client may be a conscious thinking person who senses this shift and may be confused by it and that the therapist should be open about what they are doing.

[Depletion]

Originally Posted by Brown Owl

I quite often get a sense of disquiet when I read how therapists write about the therapy they do to clients. In this article the author suggests that the therapist start having one approach to dependency and then at some point shift. At no point does the therapist contemplate that the client may be a conscious thinking person who senses this shift and may be confused by it and that the therapist should be open about what they are doing.

I totally agree. I don't quite know what to make of the article. It seems so unsurprising to me that the patient would have such deep and uncontrollable needs after the death of a parent. Why was so much suddenly taken from her in this time of need? It seems so unfair. Why didn't the T work with her on the acting out. It seemed to me that she was trying to communicate how much she needed to know that the other people who were there for her in caring role would really be there for her. Sometimes I think that T's just need to understand the communication, and not be so punitive.

[Partless]

Originally Posted by Brown Owl

I quite often get a sense of disquiet when I read how therapists write about the therapy they do to clients. In this article the author suggests that the therapist start having one approach to dependency and then at some point shift. At no point does the therapist contemplate that the client may be a conscious thinking person who senses this shift and may be confused by it and that the therapist should be open about what they are doing.

Can you tell me which paragraph this shift happen?

[Depletion]

Originally Posted by Partless

Can you tell me which paragraph this shift happen?

It's at the end in the case study, the patient is called Mary, I think. He really doesn't discuss it enough by any means, it's really bizarre.

[Partless]

Originally Posted by Depletion

It's at the end in the case study, the patient is called Mary, I think. He really doesn't discuss it enough by any means, it's really bizarre.

Okay, I had only skimmed the first section. I looked at the case study just now and personally I don't see the shift as disrespectful of the client as a conscious human being. It seems that Mary was in a crisis and none of the previous methods were working and the therapist ran out of ideas, so he decided to consult another therapist to try a new method:

"I called in a consultant, a close colleague who had often seen Mary during my vacations. We told Mary that we were committed to resolving the impasse, and were going to change the structure of her psychotherapy to do so."

The writer then admits that Mary was "horribly wounded" as a result of this but that agrees that the changes "have been extremely helpful, perhaps even lifesaving. Her therapy has stabilized, we all agree that she is doing extremely productive work in session, and her life seems to be stabilizing as well."

Originally Posted by Depletion

But don't you think that we all need, rely, or depend on other people, isn't that what people do. To me it seems that humans need each other, and that is a matter of biology.

I think this is so individual that it becomes meaningless to talk about humans as a group and whether they need other people or not. It would very difficult to live a life that did not depend on others for at least some of our food and shelter and other necessities. I agree with you to that extent, about biological necessity. But emotional dependence is not as straightforward and I am convinced that it can be possible to get to a point where we do not need emotional support from others - provided, of course, that we want to reach that point. I am not saying that it is something that fits everybody but I don't think it is unhealthy or unnatural.

[edited to add: Maybe this is simply wishful thinking on my behalf, but I do hope I'm right.]

Originally Posted by Depletion

But don't you think that we all need, rely, or depend on other people, isn't that what people do. To me it seems that humans need each other, and that is a matter of biology.

I think connection is vital, and so is community and belonging. I just don't see it as polarized--dependency vs independence. There is also interdependence, which is probably more where I fall. I love and care about people (and animals), and it feels much better when I don't feel dependent on reciprocal behavior. If they do reciprocate, that's wonderful. If they don't, that's fine too. It's all in flux. I have less stress when I do life this way.

The important thing is not to make anyone feel there is something wrong them because of what works for them in relationship to others. As for therapy, it makes it harder to find that good match.

[NowhereUSA]

I'm always surprised when I read what some people put up with from their Ts. I have no problem saying I need *a* T. Now, I happen to work with one I respect and have affection for but the day he starts treating me in a manner that I find disrespectful, I will walk out that door. Yes, it will suck because I'm attached and at the same time, it ain't nothing I haven't done before.

I like my T because he's open with me. The few times I thought he was playing a mind game, I called him on it and... he wasn't. He just didn't realize he'd done X or it was a situation that I'd misinterpreted because I have trust issues (not his words, this was my realization).

So I don't know. Do I need my T? Yes. I need him to do what I pay him to do and I'm okay with that. Just like I need my husband (and ideally he needs me). My T doesn't need me per se (I'm sure someone else would fill his hour) but I know he finds me pleasant to work with... usually

[Depletion]

Originally Posted by licketysplit

I think connection is vital, and so is community and belonging. I just don't see it as polarized--dependency vs independence. There is also interdependence, which is probably more where I fall. I love and care about people (and animals), and it feels much better when I don't feel dependent on reciprocal behavior. If they do reciprocate, that's wonderful. If they don't, that's fine too. It's all in flux. I have less stress when I do life this way.

The important thing is not to make anyone feel there is something wrong them because of what works for them in relationship to others. As for therapy, it makes it harder to find that good match.

But I'm not sure that all relationships can be balanced, some relationships, like the therapy relationship are inherently unequal. Does interdependence required a level playing field? It seems to me that a relationship where the power is not very equal dependency is likely to occur, even if there is some exchange with in the relationship.

And I'm not sure if it is really possible to always be ok regardless of weather or not someone reciprocates. There certain situations where the other person not reciprocation would not be ok under any circumstance. For example, I bought my husband a number of Christmas gifts. If it was Christmas morning and I found out that he hadn't gotten me anything I really would not be ok with that, or able to accept him just not reciprocating.

[Depletion]

Originally Posted by Mastodon

I think this is so individual that it becomes meaningless to talk about humans as a group and whether they need other people or not. It would very difficult to live a life that did not depend on others for at least some of our food and shelter and other necessities. I agree with you to that extent, about biological necessity. But emotional dependence is not as straightforward and I am convinced that it can be possible to get to a point where we do not need emotional support from others - provided, of course, that we want to reach that point. I am not saying that it is something that fits everybody but I don't think it is unhealthy or unnatural.

[edited to add: Maybe this is simply wishful thinking on my behalf, but I do hope I'm right.]

To me the fact that people who are neglected develop large psychological problems is a pretty good indication that people need each other. Also things like oxytocin release, and the fact that brain mapping reveals that large parts of the brain are dedicated to empathy, suggest that people are reliant upon one another. I don't think that means, however, that all people must be extremely social, but I do think that everyone needs human contact, love, support, and understanding. And that without those things people suffer tremendously.

Originally Posted by Depletion

But I'm not sure that all relationships can be balanced, some relationships, like the therapy relationship are inherently unequal. Does interdependence required a level playing field? It seems to me that a relationship where the power is not very equal dependency is likely to occur, even if there is some exchange with in the relationship.

And I'm not sure if it is really possible to always be ok regardless of weather or not someone reciprocates. There certain situations where the other person not reciprocation would not be ok under any circumstance. For example, I bought my husband a number of Christmas gifts. If it was Christmas morning and I found out that he hadn't gotten me anything I really would not be ok with that, or able to accept him just not reciprocating.

I don't think that most relationships are balanced, which is why I find it less stressful to expect that X is going to come from such and such a person. I'm not saying the way I live is how you should or vice versa. I, personally, would not find it helpful or healthy to depend on my therapist emotionally. I like her a lot. She's good for me.

Anyway, people are different. I don't see it as a black and white issue.

Originally Posted by Depletion

To me the fact that people who are neglected develop large psychological problems is a pretty good indication that people need each other. Also things like oxytocin release, and the fact that brain mapping reveals that large parts of the brain are dedicated to empathy, suggest that people are reliant upon one another. I don't think that means, however, that all people must be extremely social, but I do think that everyone needs human contact, love, support, and understanding. And that without those things people suffer tremendously.

I just think we have to be extremely careful about generalising.

And for my own sake I really, really hope that you are wrong. If it is not possible to live a full and "healthy" life (whatever that means) without support and understanding from others, I might just as well give up right now, and I don't plan to do that.

[Depletion]

Originally Posted by Mastodon

I just think we have to be extremely careful about generalising.

And for my own sake I really, really hope that you are wrong. If it is not possible to live a full and "healthy" life (whatever that means) without support and understanding from others, I might just as well give up right now, and I don't plan to do that.

Well, I don't mean to suggest that you give up, but I do think that humans are ideally meant to be there for one another.

[Partless]

Originally Posted by Mastodon

I just think we have to be extremely careful about generalising.

And for my own sake I really, really hope that you are wrong. If it is not possible to live a full and "healthy" life (whatever that means) without support and understanding from others, I might just as well give up right now, and I don't plan to do that.

Personally I have come to see "dependence" in a much more positive light, but it says nothing about my long and ongoing journey. Let's say that for a long time, I had associated "dependence" with fear, weakness, pain, suffering, shame, incompetence, femininity (which again for me was weakness), childishness, lack of autonomy, vulnerability....everywhere I looked it was the idea that true men are independent, they never rely or depend on anybody, that dependence is this terrible thing that we do only when we are little.

Given that sometimes when I did depend on others, I got badly hurt (parental abuse, traumatized by a therapist), I thought there was logic to hating dependence like poison. I still find the word triggering. I don't know your personal struggles but just wanted to sympathize with feelings of anybody who for whatever reason, prefers to never depend (or need to depend) on anybody for anything.