[CantExplain]

Hi guys!

It is certainly permitted that the patient should see the therapist as an opponent, whether through transference, frustration with progress or disagreement with the therapist's style. (Thinks: it might be very useful for both parties to work out which of these is the case.)

But it feels very wrong to me that the therapist should regard the patient as an opponent.

[here today]

Interesting point. I think I agree with you, though I think it would be OK for a therapist to, therapeutically, say something oppositional as long as it wasn't about the T's own stuff and reactive.

[unaluna]

I gave my t a copy of the new movie The Fly, where the Fly tears off a guy's arm in an arm wrestling contest in a bar. Now i see the symbolism.

Oh wait. NOW i see the symbolism!!

[atisketatasket]

I think all clients should oppose their therapists to some degree. It is a good way to learn how to stick up for yourself. As well as a good way of reminding the therapist who is in charge.

(I am not talking about clients simply dismissing every suggestion the therapist makes; I am talking about opposition in the service of maintaining the client's identity.)

[unaluna]

Well i think one starts where one is. I buy the school of thought that says your development is halted at the age where the caretaking relationship broke down? Like maybe you werent allowed to say no? Then youre still a two year old. Somebody asked me in my thirties why didnt i know about taking turns? Well two year olds arent there yet! And yes that was embarrassing. But enlightening.

[BayBrony]

Can you explain more about what you mean regarding viewing the client as opponent?

[stopdog]

I think therapy is set up to be an adversarial proceeding.

[Moment]

I think people walk into a therapy room bringing their own assumptions about people and approaches to relationships. So if a client treats others in "real life" as opponents, and acts like relationships are battles to be won or lost, then that's going to come out in the therapy relationship. So of course it's permitted. It's allowed. It's probably inevitable and potentially therapeutic--if it's examined and discussed.

As for the therapist...yes, the therapist should not regard the client as an opponent. It should not be a battle, where the therapist is like a battering ram, trying to get through the client's defenses, and force change. That's not going to work. Therapy should not feel like a fight. I agree with you that the therapist should not "regard" the client as an opponent.

However. If what you are saying is that the client can oppose and oppose and oppose and oppose, and the therapist can never feel frustration and never feel seriously annoyed, then I would disagree with you. Therapists are human. If a client continually disparages the therapist or treats the therapist with utter contempt, that's going to have a serious effect on any normal human being. The therapist has to contain all those personal countertransference feelings and analyze them and work with them. And probably some therapists are better at this than others. But part of the therapy process is to help inform people about the effect of their actions on others, to give them insight into their relationship troubles. I am not sure I am expressing myself well here, so I'll just shut up....

[itisnt]

Interesting topic. I know that I've been "oppositional" in therapy. I'm kind of an oppositional kind of person. But I agree that, although a T should sometimes take the opposite view, I don't think she should be so dug in and defensive in her oppositional view that you feel as though you're squaring off for a big argument with one person the winner and the other the loser.

My best trained and most compassionate and skilled T was a person who would almost immediately recognize when I had backed her into a corner and was looking for a fight. She learned not to get backed into that corner. She wasn't snarky or defensive in her refusal to be backed into that corner, she just didn't engage in my attempts to push her into that position so that I could win the argument. On the other hand, I've also worked for very short periods of time with Ts who were even more oppositional and determined to "win" than me! I could feel my hackles go up. And I also tried out a few Ts who were so whimpy and so into the "you poor thing" mentality that I knew nothing would ever get done in therapy. What I learned from all of them is my own style of interacting, and that helped me to interact better with people in my personal life.

The concept of "opponents" in therapy is a foreign concept to me. I can see how it can happen; it just has never been my experience. Personally, I wouldn't have seen a therapist I considered an "opponent" and certainly not one who treated me as an "opponent." I just don't do relationships that way, personal or professional. I have never found therapy to be adversarial; rather, I found it to be highly collaborative.

My therapy w current t is for the most part collaborative. Not to say we've never argued because we have but even when I've been my angriest at her, we've always talked it out so yeah. Collaborative. I hate confrontation so would not see a t very long that felt like we were opponents.

[awkwardlyyours]

I don't know if it's necessarily wrong for the therapist to treat (not so much regard) the client as an opponent.

Current T has pointed out a couple of times that I seem to find it incredibly frustrating that she doesn't argue with me. Much to my further frustration, she's right.

Her tactic when I get angry is to try (in ways that I think are utterly feeble) a few times to get me to see past it and when that fails to just leave me alone until I am somewhat calmer and willing to engage again.

Until very recently, I took her tactic of leaving me be (when I'm angry) as disguised hostility -- viewing me secretly as an opponent but not actually overtly treating me as such -- but then when I saw that she's gone out of her way to accommodate me when I calmed down (and even after I'd told her some truly horrid and vicious things), I realized that it was in part her seeing through my attempts to get her to tangle with me and also likely in part, her general non-confrontational style.

In all honesty, I would greatly prefer if she could display overt hostility and then we could have a knockdown dragout fight to clear the air and move on. Because, else, here I am stuck with a lot of rage that I don't quite know what to do with.

To sum up, I guess the answer is that it depends -- different clients may need different things and then the T may or may not think that it's appropriate to engage certain clients in certain ways.

[satsuma]

For me, therapy is collaborative, as Lolagrace said. It would certainly be very uncomfortable to see my T as "opposed" to me rather than working on my team.
In schema therapy the concept of lifetraps means that the client can distance themselves from unhelpful thoughts and behaviours by labelling them as lifetraps. Then the T joins WITH the client to attack the lifetrap. It's important because it means the T and the client are on the same team, and it clarifies that fighting against a particular thought or behaviour does NOT mean opposing the client. I think that distinction is very important.

[stopdog]

I don't see people in real life as opponents - other than in my professional life where we are actually adversaries - and usually attorneys are acting - we (attorneys) mostly get along with each other - our clients are the ones who are adversaries.

Therapy is, to me, extremely adversarial because those people rarely - if ever- are clear and direct about what they are doing, how therapy works, and what they mean by "process."
I don't see that I am or need a team - certainly not with a therapist. I have no idea what people mean when they say it.

[satsuma]

Originally Posted by stopdog

I don't see people in real life as opponents - other than in my professional life where we are actually adversaries - and usually attorneys are acting - we (attorneys) mostly get along with each other - our clients are the ones who are adversaries.

Therapy is, to me, extremely adversarial because those people rarely - if ever- are clear and direct about what they are doing, how therapy works, and what they mean by "process."
I don't see that I am or need a team - certainly not with a therapist. I have no idea what people mean when they say it.

I think it's fine for different people to feel differently regarding therapy, people being in a team, or other things. Not clear whether you were asking for an explanation of why I see it that way, or just commenting that it's different for you?

[atisketatasket]

I think any relationship into which one party enters with the presumption that something is wrong with them and the other party will fix it is adversarial.

I would be worried to hear about a therapeutic relationship that has no opposition. Opposition in the right dose causes a relationship to grow and a person to develop. (Think teenagers and their parents.) The presence of collaboration does not exclude the presence of opposition.

I think the OP's definition of opposition was not meant to be taken as the therapist is your enemy. (Some are, of course.)

[satsuma]

Originally Posted by atisketatasket

I think any relationship into which one party enters with the presumption that something is wrong with them and the other party will fix it is adversarial.

I would be worried to hear about a therapeutic relationship that has no opposition. Opposition in the right dose causes a relationship to grow and a person to develop. (Think teenagers and their parents.) The presence of collaboration does not exclude the presence of opposition.

I think the OP's definition of opposition was not meant to be taken as the therapist is your enemy.

It's hard to understand that for people who had extremely abusive parents.

I would not participate in any therapy if I or the therapist saw things the way you have described.

[ListenMoreTalkLess]

I have found some sparring in therapy to be helpful to me. This works for me because I am not afraid of my T and feel quite safe trying out new moves and taking risks about what I think. It feels like a good workout where I can go further and (sometimes) faster than I could before. Other times it is more like stretching and I become more limber and flexible emotionally.

Sometimes my sparring just looks like opposition, where I say things like "I see it differently" or correct her interpretation of something or make a finer distinction than she seems willing to. Therapy is a place that allows me to be more extreme than perhaps I really am just to try it on and see how it fits me.

So while I might term T as my opponent in this process, it's really more like she is a playmate, as she has no desire to have me be any different than I am in the moment. Sort of like how I play chess with one of my kids when they are learning-- I don't just let them win, but I don't crush them with a checkmate move right away.

I have never felt my T is trying to thwart me in some way, as a true opponent might, or serve her own needs. It seems more like we are on the same team or collaborating on a common goal, which is to allow me to explore whatever I want to. It seems like she is more accompanying me, like a piano does a singer, than playing her own tune.

[Pennster]

Originally Posted by atisketatasket

I think any relationship into which one party enters with the presumption that something is wrong with them and the other party will fix it is adversarial.

I would be worried to hear about a therapeutic relationship that has no opposition. Opposition in the right dose causes a relationship to grow and a person to develop. (Think teenagers and their parents.) The presence of collaboration does not exclude the presence of opposition.

I think the OP's definition of opposition was not meant to be taken as the therapist is your enemy. (Some are, of course.)

I think this is a really interesting idea, because it's so different from my experience. I don't see opposition in my therapy. I am not sure what we would be opposing in each other? I feel like we tend to be on the same page regarding where I want to go, and if he were opposing me in this I wouldn't see it as helpful to me. He's kind of a big ball of mush as far as what I should be doing- neither of us see it as his role to drive me in a particular direction.

But I'm curious as to how you see it! What kinds of ways do you see therapists usefully opposing people, and vice versa?

Actually, now that I think about it, I remember reading something he wrote once about ways to reduce conflict in therapy, that had something to do with therapists holding on to everything very lightly- their own interpretations and thoughts, for example. He seems really deliberately non-oppositional to me, in the service of allowing me as much space as I need for whatever.

[atisketatasket]

Originally Posted by Pennster

I think this is a really interesting idea, because it's so different from my experience. I don't see opposition in my therapy. I am not sure what we would be opposing in each other? I feel like we tend to be on the same page regarding where I want to go, and if he were opposing me in this I wouldn't see it as helpful to me. He's kind of a big ball of mush as far as what I should be doing- neither of us see it as his role to drive me in a particular direction.

But I'm curious as to how you see it! What kinds of ways do you see therapists usefully opposing people, and vice versa?

Actually, now that I think about it, I remember reading something he wrote once about ways to reduce conflict in therapy, that had something to do with therapists holding on to everything very lightly- their own interpretations and thoughts, for example. He seems really deliberately non-oppositional to me, in the service of allowing me as much space as I need for whatever.

I am not saying the opposition is deliberate, but that it is innate and inevitable. People, especially in a relationship that is as emotionally one-sided as therapy, are going to have differences. Maybe due to the factors the OP mentions like transference or a bad fit, or maybe like me they hate the whole set-up. If you're dating someone and oppositions come up, whether or not they are resolved and how they are resolved are really key: do the partners talk things out and compromise? Does one always give way? Do they constantly struggle for dominance? Do they break up?

So I think I am kind of saying the same thing as those who say that ruptures in therapy should be resolved in order for the client to deal with their larger issues. It's from the oppositions that greater collaboration can arise. Out of adversity cometh happiness etc.

My current therapist and No. 3, like yours, really keep their opinions out of the room and don't offer opposition (though they might ask a challenging question). I think such an approach tacitly recognizes the possibility of opposition by the therapist and is an attempt to avoid it. (I don't think therapists should actively oppose clients.). But like you suggest it also allows the client space to find their own voice and identity in the room. And part of that is going to be defining their role in the relationship and how they differ from the therapist.

[awkwardlyyours]

Originally Posted by atisketatasket

My current therapist and No. 3, like yours, really keep their opinions out of the room

This is interesting.

I'm not sure if we're referring to the same thing but if I'm reading this correctly, I find that current T takes it to an extreme. A ridiculous example (but which is symptomatic of so much else that she does) -- we were talking about some random stuff and she said that she watched CNN before going to bed.

My instinctive reaction (and my serious apologies to CNN fans) was to make a face (I find most TV channels, including the liberal ones, to be rather idiotic) and say something that I think came across as combative (but is really just my usual way of expressing myself) -- "You actually like watching CNN?".

She immediately corrected herself and said that she finds it too confrontational and then when I kept staring at her, switched to saying that she liked the BBC (she assumed I preferred the BBC).

I found it so ridiculous that I laughed out loud and said "It's okay for us to have different opinions!".

She's done the same thing with other stuff -- I'd playfully asked her if she'd selected the new (now not so new) couch in her office (she shares her office with another T). She'd gone into this long explanation on how they'd both picked it out etc.

Recently, we were talking about something else and I just randomly commented that I hate the couch (it's a hideous color and not terribly comfortable) -- she immediately told me that she'd had no choice in the matter and that the other T had picked it out and then gave me a long explanation about it.

She's done the same when I've bugged her about the logistics of my sessions -- given me multiple different explanations at different times.

The multiple white lies -- or basically not knowing the truth simply because she's decided to avoid conflict with me at all costs -- really irritates the crap out of me.

I would much rather have someone willing to head on face opposition and deal with it rather than trying to avoid it at all costs.

If she weren't otherwise pretty solid in reading and understanding me, just this stuff would've had me walking out the door real quick.

[atisketatasket]

AY - I don't think it is quite the same. Your therapist seems to be doing pacification/placation in an oddly social way - white lies greasing the wheels of your exchanges so that she looks good or gets herself off the hook, etc.

An example would be this exchange with CW (early conversation on the Smaug episode):

CW: I think you reacted as you did because it triggered an earlier life experience.
ATAT: That's possible, but you know, just because an event does that, doesn't mean the event isn't horrible in and of itself.
CW: Oh, no. Of course not.
(And then we go on to talk about how I feel about the whole episode.)

So she sees the possibility of a confrontation and although she doesn't retract her opinion or make excuses for herself or any attempt at conciliation (in fact I know she still holds that opinion), she stops pushing it.

Maybe Pennster has a better example.

The BBC... Want me to bop her for you?

[awkwardlyyours]

Originally Posted by atisketatasket

AY - I don't think it is quite the same. Your therapist seems to be doing pacification/placation in an oddly social way - white lies greasing the wheels of your exchanges so that she looks good or gets herself off the hook, etc.

An example would be this exchange with CW (early conversation on the Smaug episode):

CW: I think you reacted as you did because it triggered an earlier life experience.
ATAT: That's possible, but you know, just because an event does that, doesn't mean the event isn't horrible in and of itself.
CW: Oh, no. Of course not.
(And then we go on to talk about how I feel about the whole episode.)

So she sees the possibility of a confrontation and although she doesn't retract her opinion or make excuses for herself or any attempt at conciliation (in fact I know she still holds that opinion), she stops pushing it.

Maybe Pennster has a better example.

The BBC... Want me to bop her for you?

Ah, that makes sense. And, in your example, I can actually see why CW would consider it a valid strategy to not push (considering that it was the Smaug episode) -- it would be interesting to see if she adopts the same strategy for significantly less distressing stuff?

Yeah, you're bang on -- I have picked up on current T being weirdly social but didn't know if my radar was going off mostly because I'm so anti-social myself.

Umm.......don't bop me but if it came down to my life depending on picking a channel, I'd pick the BBC.

If a therapist views their client as an opponent then something is very wrong with the therapist and they should consider another profession. Why would anyone see a therapist who was adversarial?

[unaluna]

I know, i know!

Therapy is about resolving the conflicts within OURSELVES that we get stuck at.