Therapy reparenting (Scott Peck)

Was reading something from a well known psychiatrist (Scott Peck) wherein he asserts that love is the essential ingredient in therapy. And therapy amounts to reparenting. Give the client the love they lacked in childhood. Further, he says that mental illness stems from this missing or defective love in childhood.

What he does not talk about is what happens if this reparenting fails. As with other authors I've read, it's not even mentioned! Presumably if a person with some sort of latent or sub-clinical mental illness goes through this failure, they would become mentally ill, or if already actively mentally ill their illness would be exacerbated. And perhaps their chances of healing this would be greatly diminished. (Not saying I believe in the concept of mental "illness" as espoused by the MH profession, but I use this term for convenience.)

If mental illness is caused by social and relational and familial problems, and therapy becomes a dysfunctional and damaging social relationship that replicates or reenacts familial and other toxic relationships, then clearly it can lead to so-called mental illness.

If therapists are in fact in the business of attempting reparenting, reversing or inducing mental illness, providing love… seems very serious business indeed. But most therapists, in my experience, enter into this process casually (and without consent) and are not even capable of speaking intelligently about it. What's wrong with this picture?

Also, all of this is completely at odds with the idea of professional distance, the therapist as consultant or adviser, providing a service. Peck acts as if it's entirely normal to pay a total stranger to love you and reparent you. How did this process ever get off the ground?

In this interview, you might be glad to hear what Scott Peck said about bad therapy.

M Scott Peck | David SheffDavid Sheff

Peck's idea of love in therapy seems much different than how some talk about here; different than how you are framing it in this thread.

Scott Peck was a pop, almost cult-ish, psychiatrist. Most of his theories, which are largely religion-based, were grounded in his own experience as a psychiatrist and his ideas haven't been supported by research.

---

Why do you assume that most therapist use this model? I would bargain that they majority of therapist do not seek to replace love that was never received during childhood, but rather to help a person to cope and deal with the their past/present/future by self re-parenting and knowing that they do not have to be stuck in a generational pattern of maladaptive coping.

Now, how is that achieved? For some, especially those who have a Rogerian therapist, it tends to be through unconditional positive regard, which with the common definition does not equal unconditional love or does not even have to involve love at all.

"Playboy: Psychology and psychiatry are not exact sciences, so it’s difficult to determine what effect they have. How can you tell if you’ve helped a patient?

Peck: There was one study in which researchers took one group of people and put them into therapy, while refusing therapy to a control group. Three or four years later, they found that the patients who hadn’t had therapy were just as healthy as those who had. However, about ten years after the study, somebody decided to look again. They found that there was a remarkable difference between the treated group and the untreated group. The group that had had therapy had more variability. Some were far more healthy, and some were far more unhealthy than they had been.

Playboy: What do you conclude?

Peck: Well, they traced it further to particular therapists. Good therapists made people better. Bad therapists made people worse."
-----

This strikes me as nonsensical. There are far too many confounding variables, especially over the course of years. Every therapy patient has a unique set of life circumstances. They are not living in laboratory where variables can be controlled. His rationalization about good vs bad therapists is ridiculous. He's trying to defend his profession by segregating the "bad" ones. And who made the classification of good vs bad? That's a completely subjective value judgement. Everything he describes is totally unscientific.

And in the "treated" group, what was the breakdown of more healthy vs less healthy?

As the article linked above says, he was America's "all-time best-selling psychiatrist". So not like he was obscure.

I dont know that most therapists subscribe to this model explicitly, and probably would not use the language Peck uses, but if they are not doing essentially what he advocated, what are they doing?

Unconditional positive regard is a logical impossibility. If a therapist claims to offer this, they are manipulating the client. I do agree that some therapists would not claim to offer love in any form, but the re-parenting things seems almost universal.

Yes, he was a best-selling author in 1992--doesn't mean that his theories are valuable to the field or considered valid. Ron Hubbard is a best-selling author, would I trust him with my psychological well-being? Probably not.

Unconditional positive regard in the world of psychology does not mean that the therapist always loves their client's actions or that they like their clients. It when the therapist respects the client's autonomy and ability to make their own decisions. That is the Rogerian definition of unconditional positive regard. It is possible to give without manipulation of the client.

---

I've NEVER had a therapist that attempts to re-parent me. Re-parenting means that the therapist is encouraging a sort of regression to childhood in order to resolve a problem or to have a need met that wasn't. I believe it is more common to have the client self-parent which is when the client themselves learn to fulfill the needs that weren't met.

--

I realize that you dislike or have a distrust of the field of therapy, and it is definitely within your right to do so. But I feel like if I were to give you a list of what therapist are doing, you'd find a reason as to why that isn't possible.

Anyway, what are most effective therapist doing? Trying to empower their client to make changes in their life by providing a space where they can feel safe to talk about their issues or experiences. Therapist don't have to provide love to their client to do this.

My one therapist who acknowledged this called it limited reparenting. He was very clear with me that it does not replace a happy childhood. It can help reduce some of the damage. I really do think the difference is having an ethical well trained therapist over having a badly trained or outright irresponsible therapist. I don't think psychology and psychiatry are evil they are just still in the dark ages. No one has mastered the workings of the brain.

I realize unconditional positive regard does not equal loving or liking the client. It's an attempt to present a nonjudgmental, accepting face to the client, unconditionally. But since nobody can do that, it has to be artifice (to paraphrase Masson). That then is a manipulation.

I've never had a therapist who said they would reparent me. But the very nature of therapy induces parent-child dynamics. It's automatic. With the last one, she never said any such thing and did not encourage it overtly, but I regressed for sure. Clearly this was the underlying thing.

Regarding empowering clients, I found it profoundly disempowering. But also the idea that a client becomes empowered or autonomous by entering therapy suggests that the therapist grants this power and autonomy, which means the client is actually powerless and dependent, for without the therapist presumably they would be lost.

I don't disagree that self-parenting is the goal. But I suspect the client learns this partly by seeing the therapist model empathy, acceptance, and advocacy for damaged / younger parts of the client. At least, it was so in my case. Even while the goal was for me to learn to take care of all that myself, there was still a period of dependency when I was learning to do this because my T was doing it. He was modeling it. This worked for me, but I can recognize the danger involved if I'd had a lesser T or if the process had for some reason been cut short by termination. I would have had the regression piece, but not yet the self-parenting skills. Hope this makes sense.

Scott Peck was a self help author and pop psychologist. He may have had plenty of followers at the time since his books were bestsellers, but his influence was on pop culture, not psychological theory or training. It's unlikely you'd find Ts saying they follow the work of Scott Peck.

They quote him, refer his books to clients and refer to his ideas. I have seen his books on therapist's bookshelves.
examples of therapists quoting or referring to him:

https://therapists.psychologytoday.c...tr=ResultsName

http://www.westlakevillagetherapist.com

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-less-traveled

http://therapysj.com/bio/

Like Growlycat said, I happen to believe that incompetent therapists are the source of the damage. My point was that there are some in the industry who do recognize the harm of therapeutic failures. Sure, that's not enough, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

There were some wise words in the interview where i got the quote from. I read less than half of Peck's 2 books mentioned here, but I interpret his view of reparenting and love in therapy as being about finding one's own truth and authentic self, maybe like a spiritual awakening to some, and that appeals to me. He defines love as a verb; a choice, not feelings or romance or affection. He promotes autonomy, not dependency, but thinks people have to first recognize, process, feel, and accept feelings of dependency that come from the authentic self, once layered in reality distorting defenses constructed for protection but impediments to choice and autonomy.

Older theories aren't necessarily less credible than the newer ones. I often find newer theories to be regurgitations of older theories, such as some of Peck's which I think are useful and insightful; some, if not many, hold true today. Delayed gratification and self-discipline were central themes of his work. Some forty years later, a landmark New Zealand study (the Dunedin Study) that followed over 1,000 children from youth to adulthood starting in 1975, found impulse control to be the ONE determining factor of the quality of their future. The children with low self-control had poorer health (including many preventable problems, eg, from smoking), criminal histories, financial problems, etc. They also looked at over 500 pairs of twins to verify this finding.

It's still true today that deeply rooted defense mechanisms, while formerly protective, cause distortions and problems in life. He gives us examples of how people's extreme use of them are 'evil'. His examples resonate with me because they match people who have caused trauma and other hurts in my life. These people (eg, mother) are only dealing with their own pain, as hurt people hurt others. In that case, I don't like the use of the word 'evil', but I think of it more like a powerful psychological force that is used by some to maintain a reality that holds the (false) sense of self together.

One example in one of the 2 books mentioned here talks about a depressed boy he was treating. The parents could not 'see' their role in his development and would rationalize everything as coming from outside of them. For example, This story was absolutely heartbreaking. The parents just kept rationalizing what good parents they were.

I am not a religious person, but I find the concepts to not be rooted in religion despite some of the terms he uses. I think what he means by evil, is that these people truly don't intend to harm anyone; so it's like a 'force'. The parent's actually think they are being good parents. Their own defenses keep them from seeing the truth about how their actions and behaviors and decisions were affecting their children as their minds worked to control their reality, to uphold the image of themselves that they were good, loving parents. Thus, evil being a powerful force beyond a person's control as there is no will involved in using unconscious defenses that one doesn't know exists.

I came across a quote of his that really left a mark on me tonight:

This made me really think about my depression, its impact on my life, and how to get out of this stuck place. Life passes by too quickly to not live it fully. I don't want to look back on my life 20 years from now and think I could have done something even when I was feeling hopeless.

If my concentration cooperates, I think I'll finish reading those 2 books, so thanks for bringing this up. It's just philosophy-different ways of looking at the same thing to find or recognize the truth. I think there's some really good stuff in his writings; wise words. Like the gem of a quote above.

[QUOTE=Skies;5334806]. . .

I came across a quote of his that really left a mark on me tonight: "Until you value yourself, you won't value your time. Until you value your time, you will not do anything with it." . . . QUOTE]

Thank you for that quote. I too found that very profound and helpful.

Which would raise the question: so if his pop culture status means that therapists don't actually follow his work, and their appeal is to the masses, then don't his books serve as an advertisement for therapy, leading clients entering therapy to have unrealistic expectations of it, of unconditional love or reparenting or whatever? Also a problem.

I wonder who thinks his work is pop (aside from some here)? The APA gave him an award, which kind of conflicts with that notion.

Peck was a psychoanalyst back when psychiatrists learned a lot about psychology, and his work is based on depth psychology rather than pop psychology.

Biography

I always felt Peck was creepy and the whole reparenting idea creepy.

A therapist's fake paid "love" is going to heal the pain, fear, anger, loneliness, isolation from formative experiences? Paleez. He/she could get transferred, close their practice, take a leave to teach, or, yes, get sick or injured and die.

One shrink explained to me that he thought there was no such thing as unconditional love. Maybe that was as close to re-parenting as I got because the insight of that truly floored me. I was studying Buddhism at the time and my therapist practiced Zen...so I guess you could say this idea of relativity with regards to love was actually a great comfort to me, and continues to be. **** happens. A parent or partner gets Alzheimers and completely forgets their child or spouse. Where does the love go? **** happens in the brain and poof. Love gone.

I had to read Peck's book in grad school and I considered it a piece of garbage but the process people loved it. Different strokes.

Trauma wrecks innocence about love. When my brother returned from Vietnam he made a piece of art for me. It was a quote he made up -- words sort of exploding out of a pair of combat boots. It said, "Cars love Shell. How can I say I love you when Cars love Shell?" At the time that was Shell's slogan. When my brother returned after the war he found the idea of unconditional love a trivial and impossible notion, but he was and remains one of the most caring, considerate people I know.

The therapist: "You pay me to speak to you. How can I say I love you when you pay me to speak to you?"

Needless to say, I am not in therapy. If I found a good CBT person I'd go...but the last time I spent a lot of money on a so-called counselor who knew **** about CBT so it made me therapy shy.

The phrase unconditional positive regard came from Buddhism. It was meant to address a person's BuddhaNature or soul, not their karmic and flawed "body body" --- In Buddhism there really is no word for love. There is lust, yes. Friendship like agape, yes. But not love as we westerners use it. The love of a mother for her child is used a lot...but Buddhist scholars would call this more instinct than pure love, and definitely not unconditional. Because it is rooted in biology.

I recently paid a psychiatrist $300 out-of-pocket to assess me. He refused to give me a diagnosis or medication. He said I was lonely and socially isolated and that is why I was anxious and depressed. OMG, it was so shocking to be given the responsibility to heal myself. Does that include self-parenting ? I think, yes. I figure this psychiatrist was telling me to go forth and reparent myself. Reclaim myself. Re-socialize myself. How he figured out I had the resources to do this in a one hour session I will never know. I probably shouldn't add this but in that hour we laughed. A lot. Genuinely. I liked the guy and I trusted him and I feel like he said, go free yourself. How to do that is the path of life, I guess. I actually feel much stronger since that one-hour session two months ago. That's a pretty potent healer.

A lot of people think psychoanalytic ideas are junk...
I just don't think Peck's ideas match what is being said here.

I'm a great fan of Scott Peck. He describes the narcissisic/psychopathic parent perfectly.
Like the heartbreaking story of the lad who got a shootgun as a present for his birthday (he'd asked for a tennis racket) Scott describes the parents as 'evil' and he is correct.
They were evil ie: without empathy, therefore very destructive parents so much so they caused their other son to despair so much he shot himself.
There are people such as psychopaths who are evil, without conscience.
Without the ability to feel others pain there is no brake on behaviour.
IMO truth is some people are born unable to process empathy a malfuntion in the brain, a fault in the Amagala were emotions are processed. The brain is ultimely just another organ and like any other can be faulty and malfuntion.
Psychopaths brains look very different compared a non psychopaths.

Two of my favorite books 'A Road Less Travelled' and 'The People Of The Lie'
True, half way through 'The People Of The Lie' he loses the plot and gets all religious but other than that he's right (I'm not religious by the way)

This: Further, he says that mental illness stems from this missing or defective love in childhood. (Scott Peck)
He is correct. No love in childhood is one of the biggest causes of mental ill health. Thats what caused mine anyway. No one gave a ####

I don't know about all the 're-parenting' therapy stuff as I've never had therapy, rare to have a therapist in the UK though if I'd had a good one as a young teen I think it would have helped.

Well, I think BudFox started the thread and talked about Peck with regards to reparenting. I think BudFox reads a lot...and...you know...it tweaks his brain...he thinks of something else...weaves it all together...and posts. I appreciate BudFox's brain.

I think he was thinking of the ethics involved in having a therapist do this reparenting work. Not only therapists (unskilled) try it, but it is systemic in religious cults, and I mean cults in the scholarly way...any religion with a figurehead or authority or guru. Especially with the guru, sometimes they get forced into the big mommy or big daddy role, and sometimes they encourage it. In Buddhist communities this is often a problem, and ironically, since the Buddha supposedly told his disciples, "Be a lamp unto yourself."

Yes, now I remember Peck's whole thing about evil. I think that's why I called him creepy. At the time I was studying Buddhism which has a whole different take on wrong doing and wrong doers.

The point is...should a therapist be given the task of reparenting someone in therapy? I say no.

This is why I would never do psychoanalytical (do I know what this means?) therapy. I don't want the therapist doing anything but helping me get a clear vision about steps I need to take to move into a healthier future. If there is something like insight therapy that would be for me. Is there such a thing? I don't mean CBT but insight...

I tried reading a book by Peck once and could not get past the first couple of chapters. I found it went back and forth between the obvious and the twaddle

Hmm. Twaddle. Interesting word. I must put that one into my working vocabulary.

I get what you're saying and previously I would have considered this a reasonable supposition or concept. But after unwittingly trying this in a way and having it go badly, and then investigating further, it now seems nuts.

If the goal is to re-parent myself (whatever that means), then I can't see how an engineered, paid relationship serves as an appropriate or healthy model. To me it matters whether I am purchasing a contrived form of empathy or acceptance and not the real thing. I've been in the position of thinking there was something genuine and healthy developing, only to find out later it was not what it seemed.

Is reparenting twaddle?

I consider it hokum.
Others seem to find it useful.