when the bell tolls

This participation, however, is a way of being-with, not a formula for doing psychoanalysis. Where there was indifference, humiliation, rejection, shattering loss, and the like, compassionate psychoanalytic understanding does not simply replace or heal by intentionally providing new experience. Instead, when the analyst treats a person as endlessly worth understanding and his or her suffering as worth feeling-together, this attitude of compassion implicitly affirms the human worth of the patient. Instead of being preoccupied with the question of the patient’s recognition of the analyst as a subject, the psychoanalytic relationship accords to the patient, often for the first time, the dignity of being treated as the subject of one’s own experience (the reciprocity may come later). Because of their previous experience in life and in treatment, patients most often come to us expecting to be classified, judged, treated with rigidity, or exploited. If, however, we are not too intenton naming pathologies and defenses or with being right, but instead relentlessly seek to understand and accompany the sufferer, an implicitly interpretive system emerges. For me, close and compassionate listening is itself an important form of interpretation, dissolving the interpretation–gratification duality, and fully deserves to be considered psychoanalytic. It says to the analysand: “You are worth hearing and understanding.” This listening involves attention to the ways the patient’s experiential world has created suffering for the patient as well as for others in the patient’s life. Without leaving the patient’sside or becoming judgmental, we can understand how one could come to be so hurtful to oneself and to others. We can understand the simultaneous two-sided experience, so often dissociated, of being both hurt and hurtful. Recognizing context and complexity prevents reduction and judgmental attitudes and enables compassionate understanding. This may be a good moment to highlight a concept of accompanying the other that I believe important to fill out a concept of psychoanalytic compassion. Years ago, as I have mentioned, I wrote and spoke of witnessing outrageous mistreatment as an important aspect of the psychoanalytic profession. In recent years I have become more aware of the importance of simple accompanying that somewould contrast with proper “analytic” work and might disparage as“supportive” psychotherapy. Whether my patient suffers from anincurable, painful, and debilitating disease or from terminal cancer or lost a family member in the World Trade Center tragedy, I must not look for ways to see my patient as causing or even contributing to her own suffering; if I did so, I would be joining those who tell her just to accept it or get over it. There is no way to fix the situation or to“cure” the patient, so I must accept my own powerlessness to help. I must simply stay close to her experience, sorrowing and grieving and raging with my patient, even if this means that my practice feels very heavy to me. Even when the story is very complex—and it always is—a willingness to walk together into the deepest circles of the patient’s experiential hell characterizes the attitude of compassion (elsewhereI called this emotional availability [Orange, 1995]) that the process of psychoanalytic compassion requires.This psychoanalytic compassion, I repeat for emphasis, is not reducible to moral masochism on the part of the analyst, nor is it to be contrasted with properly psychoanalytic work, usually seen as explicitly interpretive. It is, instead, an implicitly interpretive process of giving lived meaning and dignity to a shattered person’s life by enabling integration of the pain as opposed to dissociation or fragmentation. A compassionate attitude says to every patient: your suffering is human suffering, and when the bell tolls for you, it also tolls for me.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:CjqMMVR63UMJ:www.psybc.com/pdfs/library/ijpsp_ForWhomTheBellTolls.pdf+"relational+psychoanalysis"+"self+psychology"+dissociation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=63&gl=au

_____________

sorry, i don't know how to shorten links :-(

Thank you so much for sharing this, Alex. It reminds me a lot of my relationship with my T, and how he has stressed that he is with me. Feeling what I am feeling. The different between empathy and sympathy-- to feel with, not for . It also makes me think about viewing the therapist as an object. Maybe it is not necessarily pathological, but perhaps I am not ready to see him as a person yet. It is quite possible that I am not able to accept that a human can be endlessly understading, compassionate, etc. And why should I? I have never encountered such a thing in life before.

hey. ((((pinksoil)))) 'pathological' is not a nice word. it implicitly contains a value judgement of 'it would be better not to be pathological'. i'm sorry i used it.

i don't think it is a bad thing to view your therapist as an object.

i'm viewing mine as an object too.

i... felt like an object a lot when i was a kid. couldn't accept my thoughts / feelings / behaviours / body etc because other people didn't seem to like me much. was always trying to be different. don't feel like anybody ever delighted in or had empathy for my subjectivity.

its hard to view people as subjects when we haven't been treated as subjects ourselves.

but...

yeah, i think that a more (i hate to say this) 'mature' mode of inter-relating is possible. what do i mean by 'mature'? one that is more fulfilling for us. for us. and for the objects/subjects in the vicinity too. but you know what? takes some time to get there. i really do believe. because... we are still trying to find ourselves as subjects, huh.

part of it... is about reciprocity. of course therapy is about us... but it is (eventually) about helping us find different (and more fulfilling) ways of inter-relating to others. starting with our therapists, i guess.

i guess i'm just thinking... i'd started to think that therapy was meant to be about me remembering the stuff from when i was a kid. remembering it in an emotionally connected way. but... what seems to be happening with my doing that is that i'm getting lost there. i'm kind of using it to justify / magnify treating him like i treated past figures. though that isn't quite it. i'm kind of... getting lost in it. thats the problem. i thought that that was what it was meant to be about.

but maybe... it doesn't have to be that way for me. i heard the term 'non liner systems theory' and kinda went '%#@&#!, i bet thats got math in it'. but... it doesn't. its just the idea that therapy doesn't need to follow a linear course of 'first this happens and then this happens and then the next thing happens' such that if things don't happen in that nice orderly fashion then the client and / or therapist are doing something wrong. it just means... that therapy is different for different therapist / client pairs... and... there isn't a right way or a wrong way there is just an unfolding in whatever direction the process takes them in. kinda liberating for me.

seeing someone as a person is hard. what does... what does 'seeing him as a person' mean to you? that... his understanding and compassion is limited. thats freaking hard. thats something that i've been facing over these last few weeks. what helps with that... is trying to muster understanding and compassion for him. kind of like how when i'm ranting about some idea i've had for my thesis and he seems happy and excited for me... i'm remembering the look on his face when he said about the time off. i mean he didn't look fully exctatic. he did look kinda sensitive to what was going on for me... but the excitement was there too. and i couldn't at the time... but now... remembering that... i feel kinda excited for him. and... it doesn't hurt so much.

(but then admittedly my physiology is all but burned out with being distressed about this and i'm starting to look forward to seeing him this friday)

:-)

(i want to be mature about this... i want that so much... not to deny my little kid feelings about this... but not to be angry with him or at least not angry with him to the point of wanting to make him feel bad).

i want to try.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:
hey. ((((pinksoil)))) 'pathological' is not a nice word. it implicitly contains a value judgement of 'it would be better not to be pathological'. i'm sorry i used it. i don't think it is a bad thing to view your therapist as an object. i'm viewing mine as an object too.

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

I'm glad that you did. Because it got me to thinking. To what extent should I view him as an object? Right now it's okay because it's working for me. But if I am still with him in a year, two years... and still viewing him as an object... I don't know if that's okay. For now he must be an object. At times, he is the object of an experiment. When there are emotions that I am afraid to relase in there, he has told me, "Why don't we just test it out?"

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
i... felt like an object a lot when i was a kid. couldn't accept my thoughts / feelings / behaviours / body etc because other people didn't seem to like me much. was always trying to be different. don't feel like anybody ever delighted in or had empathy for my subjectivity.

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

I never thought about being an object myself. Makes sense though. Tend to lack emotionality in situations in which it would be obviously appropriate. I've had other objects in my life besides my T.... I definitely selected men as objects before I got married-- I was only concerned for myself when I was with them, and I used them to get exactly what I needed-- then discarded them on my terms. However, I never really got what I needed.... it was what I thought I needed at the time... I guess I am comfortable having 'objects' in my life, although T is a much better one.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
but...
yeah, i think that a more (i hate to say this) 'mature' mode of inter-relating is possible. what do i mean by 'mature'? one that is more fulfilling for us. for us. and for the objects/subjects in the vicinity too. but you know what? takes some time to get there. i really do believe. because... we are still trying to find ourselves as subjects, huh.

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

I agree with you. I think at times I do the object thing with my husband-- I project and throw everything of myself onto him, and at time, completely lack compassion and understanding for him.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
part of it... is about reciprocity. of course therapy is about us... but it is (eventually) about helping us find different (and more fulfilling) ways of inter-relating to others. starting with our therapists, i guess.

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

I am still impressed in regards to how you said you felt excitement and understanding towards your therapist. That's an amazing step to take. I'm not sure how to do this. Especially since I don't know a thing about him. He is so object-like to me.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
i guess i'm just thinking... i'd started to think that therapy was meant to be about me remembering the stuff from when i was a kid. remembering it in an emotionally connected way. but... what seems to be happening with my doing that is that i'm getting lost there. i'm kind of using it to justify / magnify treating him like i treated past figures. though that isn't quite it. i'm kind of... getting lost in it. thats the problem. i thought that that was what it was meant to be about.

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

I always though the goal of therapy was to 'get better,' reduction of symptoms, and all that. I have abandoned that theory in favor of a greater understanding of myself and the way I relate.... To experience the uniqueness of the relationship in the here and now... and hopefully at some point even when he's not right in front of me. I would like to learn object constancy.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
but maybe... it doesn't have to be that way for me. i heard the term 'non liner systems theory' and kinda went '%#@&#!, i bet thats got math in it'. but... it doesn't. its just the idea that therapy doesn't need to follow a linear course of 'first this happens and then this happens and then the next thing happens' such that if things don't happen in that nice orderly fashion then the client and / or therapist are doing something wrong. it just means... that therapy is different for different therapist / client pairs... and... there isn't a right way or a wrong way there is just an unfolding in whatever direction the process takes them in. kinda liberating for me.

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

I remember when I realized this. I was spending session after session obsessing over how I wasn't accomplishing anything, nothing made sense, and I didn't know where I wanted to go with it. I was reading him a poem that I wrote about a dream that I had, so it was somewhat double-non linear, if you know what I mean. He commented on how we should make a habit of starting out the sessions with a poem or a dream, or a poem about a dream. He said it was because it was a push into free association-- because poems (at least mine) and dreams are not linear. And therapy does not have to be linear or congruent... because in reality our thoughts are not linear and our unconscious does not behave in a congruent fashion.... so why try to force it to be that way in therapy?

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
seeing someone as a person is hard. what does... what does 'seeing him as a person' mean to you? that... his understanding and compassion is limited. thats freaking hard. thats something that i've been facing over these last few weeks.

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

Yes. This got me. Seeing him as a person means that he would have a limited withstanding of all that I project onto him. A 'person' wouldn't be able to handle having insults hurled at them, handle my intensity and weakness at their strongest extremes, feel my pain with me, not for me... I see no limits to what he can withstand. I mean, he only has to withstand it 1 hr. per week, but still... It's extraordinary, and I (suspect) he has other clients, lol.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
what helps with that... is trying to muster understanding and compassion for him...

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

To project a feeling that one would only project onto another human.... to make him human... I'm not sure how to do this. I don't know anything about him. The only feelings I hold towards him are the raw of my emotions. The idealism, the hatred, the wonder, the anger.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
(i want to be mature about this... i want that so much... not to deny my little kid feelings about this... but not to be angry with him or at least not angry with him to the point of wanting to make him feel bad).
i want to try.

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

I think it is wonderful that you are trying to find the balance between the reciprocity of the relationship while still holding him as an object.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
when the analyst treats a person as endlessly worth understanding and his or her suffering as worth feeling-together, this attitude of compassion implicitly affirms the human worth of the patient.... If, however, we are not too intenton naming pathologies and defenses or with being right, but instead relentlessly seek to understand and accompany the sufferer, an implicitly interpretive system emerges. For me, close and compassionate listening is itself an important form of interpretation....

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
Sounds like the approach of a humanistic psychologist to me! If nothing else, it's very eclectic if this person considers herself to be an analyst. I love when people are willing to go outside of their box.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
its just the idea that therapy doesn't need to follow a linear course of 'first this happens and then this happens and then the next thing happens' such that if things don't happen in that nice orderly fashion then the client and / or therapist are doing something wrong. it just means... that therapy is different for different therapist / client pairs... and... there isn't a right way or a wrong way there is just an unfolding in whatever direction the process takes them in

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
It's kind of interesting to me that anyone would think therapy would follow a linear course. That had not occurred to me. My therapy has not been linear and I didn't expect it to be. My therapist has shown no expectation for linearity either. (But he is a "systems" guy.) Now I'm really curious--do some people's therapists expect therapy to be linear?

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
but now... remembering that... i feel kinda excited for him. and... it doesn't hurt so much

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
Whoa, alexandra_k!!! I have never seen you say anything like that before. Woo hoo! I think things are happening for you during this long break from your T.

I think the difference between viewing someone as an object and viewing someone as a subject is a matter of the complexity of our representation of them. I guess there is a huge literature with 'subject' and 'object' terminology and people use the terms in quite different ways. I guess I see it as a matter of degree, though. A matter of complexity of representation.

> It is quite possible that I am not able to accept that a human can be endlessly understading, compassionate, etc.

I don't think humans are endlessly understanding, compassionate, etc. Human beings get sick sometimes and at times like that they can become absorbed in their own misery / distress. Human beings can care about things and become distressed when something happens to the things they care about etc.

I don't think that we need endless understanding and compassion.

Just a great deal more of it than we have had so far.

To represent your therapist in a more complex way doesn't take anything away from him. It is kind of about... Representing him in a way that is more realistic. So there is less likely to be hurt and disappointment and the like. It is hard though. I really think that interpersonal relationships are the hardest thing that human beings have to negotiate.

> it's very eclectic if this person considers herself to be an analyst.

relational systems theory. i think that there are about as many theories as their are theorists. some theories are fairly broad in scope (they have something to say about a variety of topics) and others are more limited in scope. i guess relational systems theory can be plugged into other (broader) theories. i guess it is a fairly natural mesh with Self Psychology. the humanist theorists were most often trained as analysts (i think). they just developed their own theory and (because of politics) were ostracised from the analytic community (which was very loyal to freud). i guess that these days the majority of theorists are fairly eclectic. i think that eclecticism comes in varying degrees of theoretical sophistication. sometimes the eclecticism amounts to using whatever strategies seem to work (which isn't to be sneezed at). somtimes the eclecticism amounts to attempting to integrate various aspects of different theories into ones own point of view. but yeah, it does seem to sit well with humanistic theories too.

> It's kind of interesting to me that anyone would think therapy would follow a linear course.

freud thought that analysis progressed in a linear fashion (and if it didn't progress in such a way then either the analyst was doing something wrong or the analysand wasn't suitable for analysis after all). i think that ego psychologists (which is a kind of more modern take on freud) also think that therapy progresses in a linear fashion. transference emerges then becomes a transference neurosis. apparently there have been papers written on what to do if the transference neurosis doesn't develop. it was thought (is thought?) to be necessary for a successful course of analysis that there is a successful working through of the transference neurosis. hence, if transference neurosis doesn't develop there cannot be a successful working through. then i think the notion was to reveal your secrets (memories / fantasies) and eventually the process would bottom out on resolution of the oedipus complex.