What does the therapist get out of the "therapeutic relationship"?

Respect for a client's autonomy is one of the fundamental ethical principles listed in the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy's ethical framework.

I am sure they all claim it. Doing it is a whole other matter.

Any personal motives I think fall under the category of job satisfaction and are no different from the personal motives that dictate satisfaction in any career. Whether they come from "wounded" feelings or intellectual abilities, it's all highly individual and only relevant to the recipient of the action to the degree that it impacts the quality of the service rendered.

A teacher who is content knowledgeable and creative pedagogically may deliver a higher quality of service for some students. But how the teacher experiences that reception of quality doesn't really matter for the student. But it may very well impact the teacher.

When I have a class of engaged and responsive students, I recognize that and use that energy to be my best self. In that sense, the relationship dynamic matters. When faced with apathetic or hostile students (thankfully a rarity!), I would like to think it wouldn't affect me, but it does because my pedagogy is very student-centered. If my task were simply to deliver lectures, with no interaction, perhaps it wouldn't affect me. Do I take it out on those students? I certainly do my best not to because that would violate my standards of professionalism and sense of moral fairness. And part of that is keeping my reservations and reactions to myself. I don't shift that responsibility to my students. I recognize the students' essential autonomy.

But therapy happens within a context that observes different standards. While client autonomy should be respected, there is also an often implicit expectation across modalities that the invisible will be made visible, the unspoken made audible. If engaged in without judgement or emotional attachment, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. It can even be refreshing and supportive of learning and growth. But it can also be mishandled and counter productive. The relationship in context, the practitioner's skill, and the client's intended goals determine which it is.

I remember my T once commenting on my hypervigilence (a common consequence of trauma--no blame) and how it left him feeling uncomfortable and almost paralyzed in some moments. This seems similar to the "eggshells" comment. My first response was to feel criticized, experiencing it as my mother often dismissing my reality by claiming I was "making a mountain out of a molehill." But there was no emotional intention behind his words at all. It was simply an observation--making the invisible visible-- of a behavioral exchange in the moment. Our overall relationship was solid enough to be able to support the divergent experiences/interpretations through the process of reconciliation of our perspectives. That made it not a transgression or blunder on his part, but rather a valuable opportunity of growth for me.

So how the T envisions their emotional place in the relationship I think is defined by expectations and assessments that are quite different from in other social relationships (and vary a bit acc to theoretical mode of practice).

Im sorry you felt i was out of line - i wasnt TRYING to be outrageous or anything. And im sorry i didnt answer the question you asked; youre right, i answered a different question.

I did not mean to imply you NEVER treat others like humans. But we dont get points for casting our pearls before swine, of which i am also guilty. And if im guilty of something, yeah i get pokey about it i definitely treated my t like a vending machine. Soooo many ways, so many times. Truly not human.

I will always be grateful that you started acknowledging my posts the way you did. It changed my pc life, my irl.

So, to answer the thread question - its more a means to an end. Its like asking, what does an orchestra conductor get out of the woodwinds section?

I'd agree that there's probably an element for some in the intellectual aspect of psychotherapy. I'm considering moving toward school psychology. A large part of that is because the part of my job that I love is the eligibility piece. Why is a child doing the things they do? How can I measure that? How can I help?

And I'll also co-sign for compartmentalization. My quality of life improved when I stopped bringing stuff home from school.

If a therapist acts out to get needs met, it does become a problem. If a therapist naturally gets needs fulfilled (eg need to not be alone/to be with people all the time) by being a therapist, likely not a problem. Key is to not act it out.

Random example says a million words-an angry surgeon acting out anger on patients. Damaging!

This can go the other way-people who have a need to not upset others may feel like they are walking on eggshells around someone who isn't easily appeased. This doesn't necessarily mean it's about you-it can be about them. Feeling like walking on eggshells around someone doesn't mean they are abusive, it can be quite the opposite. An abusive, controlling person can feel like they are walking on eggshells around someone who isn't easily controlled.
"I feel like I am walking on eggshells around you" (which I have also heard from them and which I find really offensive because it is typically how therapists describe abusive relationships).

Sorry, I'm all over the place with this, just feeling disorganized right now.

Today, in the context of talking about something else, MC said that therapists often get into this line of work to avoid their own problems. I was like, "But don't you have to go through therapy yourself?" He said technically only psychoanalysts have to, but that good T's will realize they should get their own therapy. I was like, "To understand clients better?" He said, "That, or because they realize they're nuts." He said again how therapists do get to avoid their own issues though because they spend all day talking about other people's issues.

Made me think of this thread when he said that. I do know he's been through his own therapy, since he's talked about it a bit. But the perspective that T's might be hiding from their own problems by going into the field was an interesting one.

In the US it doesn't seem to be a requirement of therapist schools that students go through their own therapy. At least not a universal one.

Also I would imagine that therapists might get things in therapy - like love or gratitude from clients - that fulfill their own unmet inner needs. It's not merely a distraction by means of talking about other people's issues.

And even if a therapist has been through/is in therapy, it's no guarantee they have managed to deal with their own stuff.

Oh I agree with both of your second points. Pretty sure MC might still be dealing with stuff (if not from his past, at least due to his wife's passing). Just reporting what was said by an actual therapist that was kinda related. Curious as to what his answer would be if I had actually asked him this question...probably just something about helping people, I imagine.

It's not a universal requirement in the UK either, though it is generally required. I very much believe that it should be a universal requirement.

There is also a strong emphasis, particularly on humanistic courses, on self-development and self-awareness - we have a Personal Development group, which is basically an encounter group, and we write self-reflective essays and journals - for example.

I agree with MC that some people go into this line of work to avoid their own problems - and many others for worse reasons than that - there is a lot in the training though, as I've experienced it, that should serve to weed some of those people out. Not that it always does.

I'm not sure what the process is like in the US.

For me, unfortunately, part of the process has been having it slowly dawn on me that I'm completely f***ed up. But hey, at least I'm aware of it.

I work at making sure the woman gets nothing but payment for the rent of space each week out of the encounters with me.
The fact that the profession attracts the people it does, is of great concern to me - and fun to ask about in court - those guys get really worked up at that and being told they don't care about the client but about controlling the client. It is a good day when I get them to weep or get angry at me while testifying. (Today I got both - I love my job). There needs to be a bar of you have to be X sane to be near clients -sadly that does not appear to be the case. It is why I am always so surprised when people imagine the ones they hire to be some sort of role model or good person.

I think discussions like this, especially when people can be in the throes of all sorts of transference feelings and unmet needs, have a tendency to evoke "Romantic" (as in The Romantics, not erotic love stuff) projections. It reminds me of Jr High Literature classes when a youngish male teacher presents Romantic poetry and a percentage of the girls conclude that the teacher truly must be a "tortured soul"--and so irresistible. (Or the corollary of young female teachers inspiring fantasies in teen boys?) Maybe it's what's referred to as the "Heathcliff" syndrome?

There are certainly incompetent, frankly unintelligent, and unskilled Ts for sure. And a small % of truly pathological Ts. And there are stars, extraordinarily skilled, insightful, and compassionate Ts. But in the middle are the vast majority: reasonably competent Ts who are not wounded and do not need saving. The same sort of spectrum one finds in every profession, imo.

I do not believe the vast majority of those people are in the middle reasonably competent who are not wounded. I believe the vast majority are wounded because I do not believe someone would want to be a therapist without that. I don't believe those people need saving as a general rule. I believe they greatly need to be admired and loved and to feel like they helped someone - those people, in my opinion, have a great need to be needed.

I think the need to be needed isn't any greater than in any other "helping" profession. But somehow we don't characterize--let alone idolize--most MDs as suffering from illnesses who are driven to practice to cure themselves (more likely to see them as torturers with a license!) Nor do we feel compelled to characterize teachers as inherently learning disabled driven to teach to convince themselves they've conquered their challenges. But somehow, Ts "must" be driven to heal themselves through others?

I think the "wounds" are a projection for some because it gives confidence and trust that they will be understood. And I think Ts are willing to repeat the myth because the very clients who inquire are also the ones who gain security from the T confirming the myth. It's probably one of the more common examples of wiley-ness.

I can easily envision lots of reasons someone might want to be a T aside from feeding a personal dysfunction: intellectual curiosity, flexing of analytic capacities, enjoyment of constant challenges, wanting to avoid repetitious tasks, facility for communication, high tolerance for whining, and let's not forget your favorites: indoor work, not physically taxing, and no need for math! The wonder is that anybody doesn't want to be a T!

I think the professions you mention all have one thing in common: a perception of superiority over the ones served, either intellectually or emotionally. (For teaching I'm thinking more about college-level.) That is very appealing to the ego, even if one doesn't need healing. It would take a really rare human being not to feel that pull and enjoy it at least a little.

I don't know that anyone would actually enter into any of those professions to feed their ego, but it could definitely be seen or sensed unconsciously as a perk.

I don't see those people as driven to heal themselves. I don't think of therapy as healing. But I do think they have a greater desire to be needed than people in the medical profession. I don't see the medical profession as a helping profession the way western medicine is set up.
Plus another benefit is they get to blame the client a whole lot more than anyone else does. Everyone else actually asked to do something and it's easily noticeable when they fail to do what they're supposed to do. With therapist they just get to make **** up and blame the client when it doesn't work. So add that to the list of what I think they get out of it-they often get to be adored and they don't have to admit they don't know what the hell they're doing or that they're not doing anything at all

I just don't believe therapists are often intellectually curious, flex any analytic capacity, face constant challenges, don't have repetitive tasks, or are any good at communication.
And there are plenty of other indoor jobs with little math or heavy lifting that are more honest and transparent than being a therapist. And of course, there does not seem to be a shortage of people who think it is the career for them.

I'm not sure "superiority" is always the operative factor. Autonomy and control of environment, definitely. But I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with an enjoyment of ego. It's being driven by it that seems to warp things. And if there's also social status attached, that makes the ego over-gratification more likely. Nurses probably identify more often as helpers than MDs because they are accorded less status.

I think many MDs are so ego-driven that they act against the social perception of medicine as a helping profession. But they're also valued for their demonstrated skills. So while the egotists may not be liked by patients, they may still be seen as valuable. But I think MDs get away with as much or more than Ts in terms of making character judgments, labeling, and dismissing as "non-compliant" patients who question their assessments.

I'd guess helper identity for teachers follows rank--hence so many egotistic university profs, but I don't think being ego-driven is common among kindergarten teachers.

I just don't believe therapists are often intellectually curious, flex any analytic capacity, face constant challenges, don't have repetitive tasks, or are any good at communication.

I think most are middling competent. Some are abysmal, some exceptional. I accept that you are not willing to entertain the possibility that there exists any degree of knowledge or skills underlying the practice! But I believe in a different paradigm.

I gave them a chance to show they had skill and/or knowledge and they failed. So indeed, I no longer entertain the idea.

On the woundedness. Is there anyone who is not "wounded" or has psychological/emotional challenges in some way? I don't believe so. I do believe that many are drawn to the profession and have an interest in psychology with a subjective, personal motive, but not necessarily a perception that they are damaged somehow. I believe that the narcissistic motivations (feeling internally insecure in some way but concealing it and projecting an image of superiority, needing admiration) are often true for therapists, and they often use clients to reinforce and satisfy these needs. There are clients that don't see the therapist as authority, but probably most do in one way or another. I also think that many struggle with having healthy, balanced relationships in everyday life and use their job to generate a sense that they are connected to other humans in meaningful (whatever that entails for an individual) ways even if the client does not feel similarly. Hence all the talk about the importance of the "relationship" - it's far from only serving the client for sure. I know quite a few mental health professionals (psychiatrists, therapists) pretty well as colleagues or friends and some do have outstanding intelligence (not the focused, mathematical kind, more big picture oriented), but they definitely don't seem to apply it to fix the chaos in their own lives, or simply those things cannot be fixed using intellect. But they can conceal a great deal of it and project a healthier and happier image sitting in the T seat - it's certainly not a job that requires transparency.

My two Ts definitely have their own narcissistic need that both like to feed through their job, I think. I discussed it with them quite a few times and they do not deny it at all, but usually try to say that they are able to keep it in check and not abuse it. There were many times in my therapy experiences though when they certainly did not seem super conscious about it and repeatedly behaved in ways that served, or was a reaction to, their particular needs. One of them has more the classic narcissistic traits (insecure, wanting lots of attention, seeking admiration and authority quite aggressively) and he very openly transforms this into his therapeutic philosophy and approach, practicing "modern psychoanalysis", which is conceptually based on these things. So he openly gets to work with these things on a daily basis, even if they are not discussed as narcissism with every client. My other T seems to seek out and get a lot out of a form of sophisticated "twinship" experience. Even his choice of clientele reflects this: he is quite selective and likes to work with people that are similar to him in a few ways - that was also why I chose him. That is something I enjoy as well with select people, but our interactions often became quite self absorbed and self referential due to it, instead of actually focusing on my issues specifically. Often it felt more as conversations with a friend than with a therapist. He never tries to make the impression that he is superior relative to me, much more that we are equals and connected in mysterious ways, always emphasizing similarities. I really enjoyed this for a good while because I have the same need but it's become overly repetitive and not moving anywhere else after a while. So, he is very definitely driven by own desires in it and pretty much admitted it when I questioned him.

I think that therapists are definitely driven by their own desires and needs in their job, but so are most people in any profession, in a good case. I don't believe in pure altruism and don't see it as a problem as long as it remains balanced and they do not abuse it with someone who does not see through it and/or is not able to regulate their participation well.

Finally, I personally never thought or felt that my therapists are superior or even emotionally much healthier than myself most of the time. They also definitely never gave me any outstanding, brilliant insight that I never thought of. I see therapy as a collaboration, much like in other professional collaborations I have, where the goal is mutual benefit and far from just monetary one on their side. I don't mind being used or being the source of it as long as I also get something out of it. I usually leave them when I feel that I no longer benefit from my investment, then go back for more if I have specific ideas what to do with them. I definitely don't see it as treatment in the way a medical treatment can be. One thing is true though: I think doing this job requires some outstanding patience from a T and that's something I definitely respect in them.

I think the more education one goes through, the more likely one feels a need for status and recognition and for ego feeding. An MD who's been through 3-4 years of med school and another 3-4 of residency and internship is not likely to take kindly to a patient who questions them or cites Dr. Google at them.

I agree that this is what usually happens.

But, I find it incredibly sad, not to mention smacking of serious insecurity -- to me, the point of a whole lot of education is to make one much more aware of the limits of one's own knowledge and dare I say, cultivate a spirit of humility?

Anything else feels fossilized and as if all that education has only resulted in dead knowledge.

In my unfortunate experiences they pretended knowledge, omniscience even, about people and situations they couldn't possibly know. They presented their modalities as infallible and magic. They seemed to need idolizing, to dominate, be perceived as saviors.

The counselor I know in a different setting is one of those performer types, bragging about her kindness and brilliance, subtly catty--in attempt to be queen bee. She puts all her energy into self promotion as opposed to her craft.

Sure...but education in the US and I think the West in general is no longer about learning, it's about credentials.

The people really interested in learning can for the most part be found in local libraries, not university classrooms.