transference as violation

Sorry should have erred on the side of caution. I added the trigger warning to the post with the quote, but not sure how to flag the thread.

Yes agree, soul crushing and psychological shattering. Ability to love yes, but for me also ability to trust, ability to engage in intimate disclosure and be vulnerable, ability to regulate emotions and physiology, and much more.

I think all therapy encourages it, even if passively in some cases. Just following accepted protocol and behavior is enough it seems. It also seems that some therapists just don't know what they're doing, what they're unleashing. A child playing with matches.

I've had therapy experiences that also were not overtly this way at all. But in looking back, I can acknowledge that the basic framework was exploitive and invasive, but they didn't pass the point on the continuum where it become harmful.

My therapist has told me that he explicitly works to discourage transference. He didn't go into great detail but he mentioned something about bringing more of his authentic self into the session. It's not a big issue for me so we didn't discuss it much, but he also really works to avoid taking on any kind of position of power in our relationship. I am pretty sensitive to feeling invaded, and he is really good at not making me feel like that.

The authors of the article make the point that it is not outcomes they are focusing on. See quote below. They are attempting to deconstruct the fundamental nature of the therapy relationship. Even something that is basically exploitive or invasive or unethical can produce positive results. But these outcomes do not legitimize or alter the basic structure. And for every experience like yours, which seemingly transcends therapy as a system, there are how many that end like mine? Nobody really knows.

"Our intent is less to deny that any practical interpersonal productivity can come of therapy, but rather to assert that the proposed eventual outcome, the proposed 'therapeutic' value posed by therapy, is by no means ethically validated by its prior manipulations, dissentions, condescensions, appropriations and exploitations."

BTW, regarding outcomes, I think the ultimate measure is the long term impact on the client, measured some months or years following the cessation of formal therapy sessions.

Thank god somebody is looking at the cultural paradigm. Why does that in any way detract from their ideas or assertions? Therapy culture has so permeated wider culture that I think we need this sort of deconstruction and unflinching examination of its basic assumptions. Most writing is lost in therapy minutiae and superficial debates about modalities. If some of the many therapists I saw in the aftermath of destructive therapy had dared to suggest any of these ideas or framing, I'd have found it helpful and enlightening and it would have reduced my suffering some. They did not, of course, because their allegiance is to the system first, me second. As for rape, that is hardly the central theme of the article.

I disagree. I posted a particular quote that for me is very relevant. I think the quote speaks for itself and does not require context to have meaning or relevance, or to be the basis for discussion or reflection. I think the article is uneven, strangely written, incoherent in parts, but makes some crucially important points that are not diminished by its obscure references or weird writing.

Yeah I get they aren't focusing on outcomes in the article.

But to say someone's experience is violative when they don't experience violation I think is no different or better than what they paint therapists as doing. That's a very patriarchal denial of the clients experience. My experience is NOT subject to the thoughts or beliefs of any other person, academic or otherwise.

ETA: again for me transference was happening whether I was in T or not. I needed a mother so badly all my life. I could never escape that need. It is the single most powerful need I have ever experienced. The most profound pain. I sought closeness and mothering in friendships, romantic relationships, mentor relationships. In some cases my need destroyed those relationships for good. And I didn't understand what was happening

So to paint transference in therapy as dangerous or violative makes little sense to me ( unless the therapist is deliberately evoking erotic responses or something). My transference in real life was horrible and dangerous. My transference in T was life saving.

Oh I agree that therapy "abuse" is invasive. I never said it is not. I was replying to a poster who said "therapy is invasive". There was no mentioning of abuse. I don't consider therapy invasive at all. Sure it is different when it becomes abusive. But it's not what I commented on. It is all very individual here.

I seeked therapy for couple of different things in my life.

Right now my main topic my moms advanced cancer and me and my brother freaking out and my dad makes us crazy because he isn't coping well, neither is my brother. My mother is not a moping person so she wants us to act as nothing going on but we have hard time doing so. My fiancée is a great support but he lost his mom to cancer so he is freaking out here and he doesn't know how to help because he is upset for and worried and struggling with emotions about it. He is also a medical professional so he isn't neutral here. Neither are my friends. Neither is my daughter who is close to my mom.

My t is the only neutral person here who can listen without jumping into moping mode or giving suggestions if I am not asking. What is invasive or violated in this? I don't feel invaded or violated whatsoever.

That's what I am saying. Some therapy might be invasive for some people. It's not universal truth

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For me therapy is nothing if not intrusive and invasive. It's systematic one-way exposure and unmasking. The client is revealed in the same proportion that the therapist is concealed. Every therapist I have been to urged me to confess more and more, always more. And the therapist isn't just passively observing. They are interpreting and shaping the client's thoughts and feelings. The goal is change or correction. The client's pathology must first be revealed and then excised.

As the article says: "Therapy never demands we tell all, it just continually compels it".

My exT acknowledged that the process was like being taken apart surgically. She claimed that she had put me back together by the end, which is pure fiction.

How though is this different from when people (therapists/ many posters on this site) want to label something and insist on abuse when the speaker says it did not seem abusive to them the one who actually experienced it.

That's awful. I'm about 20 months in, and my therapist still won't do more than listen and offer some thoughts when I bring things up. She doesn't push or press for anything and is not even all that eager to delve into things I share--apparently, my life is too chaotic and triggering to process the origin of things, so I have frustration on the opposite end of this with a therapist who extra careful. Until recently, I thought this was not going to work, and we had an argument about it, but now I see the value in going slow, not being pushed, getting things in place to create more safety or relief, and I appreciate the approach.

In retrospect, the other--plunging in with all the confessions--would have been dangerous. In fact, it did end in a medical emergency (and later, termination) with a previous therapist who--like yours--pressed for more and more disclosure. That one never once said she was in over her head or that it wasn't my fault, so it added insult to injury that even now--a decade later--I still feel the effects of her bungling around in my brain.

Agree. Then to answer stopdog's question about how this differs from abuse / who gets to call it abuse: when a child is involved, the child does not get to decide. Thats one difference. And when the child grows up? The adult-child can "decide" however they want, but the abuse usually damages a child such that their psychological growth is stopped at the stage of development the child was at when the abuse occurred, so the adult is then decision-making at child's level. No matter how mad it makes the adult-child to hear this. Its why we are all here. Except for the speshul snowflakes.

And with adults?
I don't buy the adult-child thing - I know it is a theory some find useful - I do not. I do believe that one can not have found an experience abusive as a child and have it really not be abuse even where another might find it so.

But say just adults. What would the reasoning there be?

I ditto BayBronys post. For me that longing, yearning, wishing, acting out etc has always been there, gnawing away at me and my relationships. I too am hoping that using this in a setting that is somewhat designed for it may be far more beneficial to me. I see it starting and I hope it continues. I know it isn't the same for everyone though.

I think the primary difference is that one is an adult assessment of an adult experience, while the other is usually an adult assessment of a child/self's experience. Since a child's experience happened before the child reached full cognitive development, the child-as-adult's assessment is partially influenced by the cognitive limits. Adults looking at someone else's child experience don't share the same experience and its cognitive influences.

Oh--well, then I guess you deny the overwhelming research in cognitive science (not just as it relates to trauma.) Not sure where to go from there.

With adults, assuming the adult is free from any serious and debilitating psychopathology, I think their self-assessments need to be honored as their truth.

My t never ever urged or press or push me to confess anything whatsoever. T that I saw years ago didn't either. That's a shame some people end up with bad therapists who force things. It's also sad if it lets them believe that every t is this way. Sad.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, that explains it, thank you. I'm glad you found your T; she sounds like a good one.

For me, it would not make a difference how a therapist labeled the situation. I have no reason to believe a therapist who wants to say something is normal or not. The therapist's determination of it would not carry weight if I was concerned about it.

I sometimes call it "channeling my inner stopdog" when I want to not worry about what someone else thinks. For me, because I spent so much of my childhood and young adulthood being told I was damaged, defective and a freak, being reassured my feelings are normal is very helpful for me.

There have been times I have felt I am just too different to every be happy or have relationships. So works for me when T calls my feelings normal.

Then you get into whether or not it is consensual. Like when they made it a law that if the police were called for domestic violence, SOMEBODY was getting arrested. But if a friend of mine kept showing up with a black eye or broken bones? Well im not particularly close to anyone, but that might cause some distance, yes. Its more than my little brain or psyche can handle right now.

I have no idea what we're talking about anymore, so I'm just going to grab onto a word unaluna used and ask:

Is therapy consensual? Is it only consensual in the initial choice to go to therapy? Or is it consensual all the way through the process? Or is it consensual in some parts of the process and not others? (Not referring to courts getting involved here, just to what the client agrees to, verbally or nonverbally.)

On the abuse parallel, it is well-studied and argued that adult victims of domestic abuse often have reasons - kids, shame, finances, and so on - for continuing to endure the abuse. This is not considered consensual. So is it the same in therapy?

Eta: as a cynical academic, I'm suspicious of anything that discusses the dynamics of imperialism, if an actual empire is not being discussed. It tends to mean that the work in question will have big, grandiose statements and not be very strong on nuances or practical experience.

I don't know. I struggle with this because for a long time I denied I was abused by my mother because I felt deserving of the abuse....but then, I would have agreed that had anyone see experienced what I didi t would be abusive.

On the other hand my father did many.things my T and others might find abusive ( abandoning me in the woods, knocking me out with alcohol instead of getting Me medical treatment etc) but I did not and don't perceive as abuse persay. I do think my dad was an immature asshat who should not have been in charge of small people's well being. But I guess-- he treated everyone that way
He was selfish and petty with everyone. He also abandoned my stepmother on a hike when she couldn't keep up. He made my brother wait 3 days to get a large second degree burn treated because my dad didn't want to miss the good fishing, etc.
And it was never intended to.hurt or humiliate you. My dad just didn't have time for anyone who might spoil his fun.
So to me it was neglectful *** hattery but not abuse. Plus when he wasn't being like that he treated me like I was a perfectly capable human and let me do everything adults did.
So I can see it from both sides.
Ultimately I guess that is a very personal.conclusion.

Eta: also a kid with a less independent bold nature might have been badly traumatized. I know several childhood friends were scared away from ever coming on another fishing trip with us by my dad's lack of concern for safety or comfort

While the quote may resonate for you, I don't think that's reflective of the authors' intention. They make a point of placing their theory and intentions in the tradition of Derrida, and as he wrote: there is no out of context (or without context)--"il n'y a pas de hors texte." So your interpretation of the quote is yours, not theirs. If you want to find justification for yourself through your interpretation, feel free.

I'm talking largely about subtle and implicit urgings to disclose and confess, rather than aggressive or coercive ones. Has nothing to do with bad therapists. Are you saying that simply being a client in therapy does not involve an expectation that you will reveal sensitive and possibly painful material, which is then interpreted and shaped (or at least influenced) by the therapist?

I don't have anything particularly helpful to add in response to what you've said, but I did want to point out that I think it's super-awesome that you used "grok" to talk about understanding your therapist's abilities. Perfectly said.

I guess I can relate, though, because I also feel this way about my therapist. And about a professor I came to know and love in my five years at university. Incredible and difficult feelings to have.