[BudFox]

The more I read and think about it, the more I am convinced that therapy which encourages a client to develop and express "transference" desires and longings for the therapist is inherently predatory and exploitive. I understand that going through this process might yield insights (could also traumatize). But IN ESSENCE how is this not a monumental manipulation and violation of a person's most basic needs?

I don't understand how this became accepted and why so many people tolerate it. Therapy seems to have developed its own bizarre and aberrant morality.

[BudFox]

To that end, the below except from an article. This is strong stuff and not for the faint of the heart. I find it reassuring though, because therapy left me with a lingering feeling of having been strangely violated. Anyone else feel this?

Possible trigger:

"Transference is psychological interference that can never be ethical. It is a calculated abuse. Sure, it addresses itself as a functional abuse, one that must be in some way didactic, but it is in the transference where one of a person's most precious gifts, i.e. the ability to love for instance (and of course often too the erotic fantasy that goes along with it) seems so often exploited, toyed with, humiliated. These transferential functions, considered along with the sexual disclosure that therapy seems to so often essentially require, give us grounds for wondering whether psychotherapy is itself, by virtue of its very form, sexually abusive... Given more space we could embark on a catalogue of all the therapists who've 'had to deal' with clients either falling in love with them, or having sexual fantasies about them."

[stopdog]

Well, certainly therapists manipulate language in their favor. But as a professor, I have had students with crushes on me and have witnessed students do the same with other teachers. I call it crushes because it also is not real - they don't want me but their idea of me. But if one called it crushes with therapists - then they might not be able to get paid quite as much.

[atisketatasket]

I imagine those in the biz would say that therapy itself doesn't encourage transference, but rather it is a natural consequence of being in therapy. And that exploring the transference relationship becomes a major tool of treatment...or something like that.

I don't buy that it's a natural consequence of being in therapy.

[atisketatasket]

Originally Posted by stopdog

Well, certainly therapists manipulate language in their favor. But as a professor, I have had students with crushes on me and have witnessed students do the same with other teachers. I call it crushes because it also is not real - they don't want me but their idea of me. But if one called it crushes with therapists - then they might not be able to get paid quite as much.

Student crushes in my experience tend to be aspirational - they want to be like the object of their crush. I'm not sure therapy crushes are the same type of crush.

[stopdog]

It does not matter, in my opinion, if they are all the same type - the part that would be relevant to is that it consists of the client's or student's imagination of what the other is, rather than the real other regardless of aspirational or not. And I do think the transference of some clients is aspirational in terms of aspiring to be a part of what the therapist's world is imagined to be or be like the therapist in terms of how personality (loving, calm, problemless etc) is perceived.

[BudFox]

Seems to me therapy is exponentially more intimate than professor-student or any other professional relationship, and that makes all the difference in the world. It is also invasive.

[stopdog]

Perhaps, I would not say exclusively - but my point is that transference or crushes or whatever other language one wants to use - happens in many types of situations. Therapists claim (or some schools of it) to use it for the benefit of clients and of course, therapists could be very wrong about that. But it is not a unique phenomena to therapy. People who openly become vulnerable are exploited by any number of other professionals as well. I don't think therapists necessarily cause transference any more than I cause it in my students (and I do not set out for it - it becomes annoying very quickly) - I think their folly lies in their belief they are immune to the effects of it at them.

[dphoto]

My therapist and I discuss transference and boundaries a lot - a very lot . And yes boundaries ,rightly so, I think helps with the transference

As far as aspirational I frequently (1/2) joke "I want to be mostly like you when I grow up". One part to leave latitude so I don't become mini-me, one part to acknowledge that with boundaries I'll never truly grock all her aspects and one part to remind me that it's my choice/responsibility to evolve into who I want to be

I don't know if any of this makes sense

Great topic thanka

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[feralkittymom]

Care to offer a citation for the quote?

[Argonautomobile]

Originally Posted by feralkittymom

Care to offer a citation for the quote?

If BF's quote, a quick google turns it up:

Confession 1

Paper presented at the First Annual Qualitative Methods Conference: "A spanner in the works of the factory of truth"
20 October 1995, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa

The psychological imperialism of psychotherapy
Sharonne Isack & Derek Hook

This thread should come with a trigger warning

Violated is a good word to describe what happens when therapy goes wrong. I've experienced it in minor forms a few times, and once in a major form. Bad therapy is soul crushing and psychologically shattering.

The part that got to me was quote about the dark impact on our ability to love. So true.

Lots to think about.

[Argonautomobile]

As for the topic at hand...Yeah, I've got to say that actively encouraging transference strikes me as kind of sick. Not that I know much about it--I'm certainly not in a position to argue the science, if there is any, or contradict anyone's personal experiences. If you've had that type of therapy and it worked--great. I myself have not.

"Invasive" and "violating" are not words I'd use to describe my therapy experiences. In fact, I've found therapy to be among the least intrusive interactions I've ever had with a healthcare professional (if you count therapists in that group.) My therapist has never even used the word 'transference,' let alone invited or encouraged it. Even imagining him doing so grosses me out.

[BayBrony]

Originally Posted by atisketatasket

I imagine those in the biz would say that therapy itself doesn't encourage transference, but rather it is a natural consequence of being in therapy. And that exploring the transference relationship becomes a major tool of treatment...or something like that.

I don't buy that it's a natural consequence of being in therapy.

It may depend on the reason you are in therapy. For me, with my childhood issues, very hard for me to be in a caretaking relationship and NOT develop maternal transference. Hell I developed it in plenty of outside IRL relationships where it was dangerous and destructive.

Transference in therapy has really been safer for me. Its exposed for what it is, discussed, there is literature about it and its expected in the context.

I suppose if you have a different background you may be able to do therapy without transference. And possibly with a different background transference in therapy would be more destructive than in other relationshipa.

For me it was the opposite. Therapy contained and expressed/explored that deep deep longing for a mother. In turn that has allowed me to recognize the reaction is other relationships and control it before it hurts me.

ETA: I can't say my T ever encouraged or promoted transference. She certainly has encouraged and promoted loving attachment between us as normal ( because attaching was terrifying for me). But she has also always been the first to gently explain what she is or is not and can or cannot be, and how some of the needs I have must be filled by myself or in other relationships. So the transference was helpful but I guess she has never promoted it

[Argonautomobile]

Originally Posted by BayBrony

It may depend on the reason you are in therapy. For me, with my childhood issues, very hard for me to be in a caretaking relationship and NOT develop maternal transference. Hell I developed it in plenty of outside IRL relationships where it was dangerous and destructive.

Transference in therapy has really been safer for me. Its exposed for what it is, discussed, there is literature about it and its expected in the context.

I suppose if you have a different background you may be able to do therapy without transference. And possibly with a different background transference in therapy would be more destructive than in other relationshipa.

For me it was the opposite. Therapy contained and expressed/explored that deep deep longing for a mother. In turn that has allowed me to recognize the reaction is other relationships and control it before it hurts me.

ETA: I can't say my T ever encouraged or promoted transference. She certainly has encouraged and promoted loving attachment between us as normal ( because attaching was terrifying for me). But she has also always been the first to gently explain what she is or is not and can or cannot be, and how some of the needs I have must be filled by myself or in other relationships. So the transference was helpful but I guess she has never promoted it

Thank you for this. It makes a lot of sense, the way you describe the issue. I can see how working with transference--if/when it comes up on its own--could be very beneficial.

Do you mind if I ask how she encouraged/promoted that loving attachment? Like, what specific things she said/did?

[feralkittymom]

Well--there's a good 40 minutes of my life that I'll never get back.

It's been a good 35 years since I studied Derrida, along with Foucault and Lacan, and deconstruction and postmodernism; in fact, I've rarely heard any of them referred to academically in at least 20 years (in the US--maybe different in S Africa). But the authors admit they really aren't looking at the practice of therapy, but rather the cultural paradigm of the institution of therapy. And they choose to examine it within the discourse structure of therapy as rape. I've heard similar analyses of other cultural institutions through the lens of rape discourse: education, banking, marriage, medicine, etc.

While the article may hold interest (it's truly a slog to get through), I don't think its ideas can be meaningfully extracted from the context in which they're presented--which is, ironically, a very deconstructivist thing to say.

[BayBrony]

Originally Posted by Argonautomobile

Thank you for this. It makes a lot of sense, the way you describe the issue. I can see how working with transference--if/when it comes up on its own--could be very beneficial.

Do you mind if I ask how she encouraged/promoted that loving attachment? Like, what specific things she said/did?

She repeatedly told me it was normal to have powerful feelings about our relationship. She encouraged me to check in when/how I needed to, call for extra sessions etc. She never promised to respond to all of it or whatever but she gave me the space to do it. She was the first to use the word "love" ( I'd described it as 'not love but maybe something close") in regards to our relationship. She has given me transitional objects, reassured me many many many times that its OK for me to.miss her, long for her attention, feel needy, etc and that these feelings will become less intense as I learn to internalize love. She has told me that she is always on my side. She hugs me, rubs my back, etc, basically treats even my most intense needs as normal. Hopefully that explains it.

[BudFox]

People who openly become vulnerable are exploited by any number of other professionals as well.

No question, but i see therapy as uniquely positioned to exploit. In other scenarios you don't typically have the vulnerable person disclosing personal and intimate material nearly continuously, while the therapist reveals little or nothing, and also observes, scrutinizes, diagnoses, instructs, interprets. Also the privacy and seclusion is basically absolute.

I think so much of our individual experiences with therapy are colored by the therapist themselves and by how the relationship plays out.

My most damaging experience involved a therapist who presented himself in one way (emotionally seductive, soft fatherly voice, loving looks), then turned it off almost instantly when he triggered my anger in trauma work and I challenged him. By turned off I mean yelled at me and made it very clear that despite what he had been saying to me, he really thought and felt very differently about me. Everything I thought I loved him for was an act and a very convincing one at that. Then he dumped me unceremoniously and I was left to patch myself up. He knew everything about me - my dreams, my fears, my secrets and childhood - and the rejection felt like he was rejecting the very essence of who I was as a person. Violating was an understatement.

Many years later, I went on to have one of the best therapy experiences with someone who was genuine, kind and unshakeable. I've had a few excellent therapists since, though my process has not been without relationship pains of other kinds.

No surprise that people on this board have had wildly different experiences.

[divine1966]

I agree that encouraging and cultivating transference in clients could be abusive and exploitative. Especially romantic sexual type. And no I don't believe it's something naturally has to happen. Or that it's required for good therapy whatsoever. It's understandable some people might develop some desire for a therapist but it is appalling for a t to encourage a client. I see a lot of very damaging consequences of such transference on this board. Devastating.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[unaluna]

Originally Posted by feralkittymom

Well--there's a good 40 minutes of my life that I'll never get back.

It's been a good 35 years since I studied Derrida, along with Foucault and Lacan, and deconstruction and postmodernism; in fact, I've rarely heard any of them referred to academically in at least 20 years (in the US--maybe different in S Africa). But the authors admit they really aren't looking at the practice of therapy, but rather the cultural paradigm of the institution of therapy. And they choose to examine it within the discourse structure of therapy as rape. I've heard similar analyses of other cultural institutions through the lens of rape discourse: education, banking, marriage, medicine, etc.

While the article may hold interest (it's truly a slog to get through), I don't think its ideas can be meaningfully extracted from the context in which they're presented--which is, ironically, a very deconstructivist thing to say.

Yeah - and then the guy went on to become a psychologist so wtf?

Originally Posted by BudFox

The more I read and think about it, the more I am convinced that therapy which encourages a client to develop and express "transference" desires and longings for the therapist is inherently predatory and exploitive. I understand that going through this process might yield insights (could also traumatize). But IN ESSENCE how is this not a monumental manipulation and violation of a person's most basic needs?

I don't understand how this became accepted and why so many people tolerate it. Therapy seems to have developed its own bizarre and aberrant morality.

I agree. Therapy that encourages "transference" is abusive. I think most therapy could be categorized as abusive.

"Transference" wasn't something I struggled with although I briefly wished he had been my father. ICK. That ended quickly when I began to realize he wasn't a very good father. He came across as controlling and abusive. I should have listened to the red flags and ended the therapy long before he did. It's such a weird dynamic though. I really believed he was going to figure out how to help me heal.

[divine1966]

Originally Posted by BudFox

Seems to me therapy is exponentially more intimate than professor-student or any other professional relationship, and that makes all the difference in the world. It is also invasive.

I am not sure why it's invasive? Unless it is court ordered, therapy is a choice. If one doesn't want to share they don't have to. I share what I want in therapy or what I feel that pertains to topic at hand. My t never invades anything. In what sense it is invasive? They don't force you to share what you don't want to?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Argonautomobile]

Originally Posted by divine1966

I am not sure why it's invasive? Unless it is court ordered, therapy is a choice. If one doesn't want to share they don't have to. I share what I want in therapy or what I feel that pertains to topic at hand. My t never invades anything. In what sense it is invasive? They don't force you to share what you don't want to?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it's quite possible to find therapy, voluntary or not, quite invasive. I'm not sure what you'd call therapy abuse if not 'invasive.' But even experiences that don't cross the line into abuse by any objective standard (if one is comfortable making that distinction--malpractice panels sure are) can be invasive, yeah.

Many therapists are in a unique position of emotional intimacy. They assume the role of confidant, encourage the role of confidant, ask personal or invasive questions. I've certainly had the experience of being asked a question that I did not like. I could have not answered the question--it was voluntary, after all, but because I could not quite articulate what was wrong with the question at the time, because I figured this person in authority must know what they're doing, and because I did not want to be difficult, I answered.

I think autonomy is a little more nuanced than "voluntary" vs "court-ordered." There are subtle tactics of coercion, subtle pressures exerted by everyone from the therapist to your family to the parts of your own damn brain that don't trust what the other parts are saying.

[unaluna]

Argonaot, youre right, its as invasive as surgery, only its mental, not physical.

Whats to keep a surgeon from slicing willy-nilly, or being incompetent?

If you dont want surgery, dont see a surgeon. But other people may accept the risk.