The truth about "transference"?

i'm sorry to hear that she has betrayed you in this way. i know that you may not have the strength at this time to confront her on these issues, but i hope one day you will find that courage to speak up and let her know that what she has done is wrong. i promise, it will be a very empowering moment for you.

my T has my hospital and police reports so well acquainted with my behavior deficiencies and is very overfriendly to me but complaining is wasted as i will be back in cell or rehab

I think there are more who don't use it than there are who do.

Certainly most therapists these days don't place emphasis on it or deliberately cultivate it as an old-school psychoanalyst might have done.

In my therapy I speak about transference because it makes sense to me - it seems to describe very well the out-of-proportion feelings that I have about my therapist. He doesn't use the word except in response to me, its not a concept that he brought into therapy, it's something I chose to bring.

Most of the literature I've read on the subject (and I've read a lot, in an attempt to make sense of my feelings) also sees transference as a phenomenon that happens all the time in our every day life, not something pathological or something unique to the therapeutic relationship - the important difference is that (assuming it's done well) therapy gives us a chance to explore these feelings in a different way.

The term "malignant eroticised transference" exists precisely because the vast majority of erotic transference is not considered to be dangerous or unhealthy. There are rare occasions in which clients become dangerously obsessed with their therapists and will attack them or stalk them or sexually assault them. There are a couple of examples of this in the paper that BudFox mentions (which he also openly admitted to not having read).

I think this is the paper

http://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/vi...context=theses

It was posted in the subforum above.

Here is the excerpt:

This isn't the same as stalking and obsession, which can be psychotic or related to borderline, and I don't think even considered to be ET. (Which happened to me outside of therapy by a nontherapist leaving me with ptsd).

Not sure what you mean by saying it's 'not the same as stalking or obsession' - absolutely malignant eroticised transference often plays out that way. Not all such behaviour is a result of malignant transference and not all malignant transference results in such behaviour, but there is plenty of crossover.

It's by nature delusional since the client refuses to accept the realities of the therapeutic relationship (or, in fact, their therapist's lack of reciprocal attraction) and insists that their 'love' must be gratified.

Sorry, I just don't see that stalking is closely related with any type of ET.

I am slightly biased because of the person stalking me, who was psychotic/antisocial-narcissistic. To me, ET in therapy, regardless of type, isn't that related to stalking. It's more related to aggression and control mixed with rejection and i agree, often-delusions. But these people are not in therapy to have an ET relationship.

I don't think these behaviors are played out in ET, regardless of how pathological the ET. Most people who have issues to this degree would never be in therapy to begin with. In other words, very rare. I think stalking and obsessions is more in the realm of forensic psychology but here are Wiki's categories:

We can have both opinions at the same time. I think what I'm talking about is psychotic transference which i suppose can occur both in/out of therapy but mostly happens outside of therapy with people who don't see therapists unless they are in prison.

I'm confused now because the parallels between the definitions of stalking you've just posted and the feelings that erotic transference (both hostile and loving) inspires seem extremely clear to me!

Also, it's a fact that therapists are more often victims of stalking than the general population. There is some information on that here: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/10/i...r-contact.aspx

I wonder what has happened to those people's brains that makes them able to use such nonsensical language with a straight face. I will give them credit for acting (I hope they are acting - it scares me a lot more to think they actually believe any of this total crap they try to sell)

I think they think they are and just not telling clients. Being clear with clients is not their strong suit. Smoke and mirrors.
They are wily and condescending manipulators in my opinion.

From the article you posted, it looks just as common in the general population (more common in women who are not therapists than therapists overall):

I just think it's rare to that stalking is an outcome of ET as discussed in that article, I think it's more psychotic transference than ET. The malignant ET described in the article BudFox is talking about is more about a client having continuous longings for the T and being hostile about it.

MET as defined by that article sounds nothing like stalking behavior or psychotic transference. Not healthy, but not criminal either. I agree with you it could lead to the criminal behavior but I it's not rarer than with the rest of the population.

Not trying to present an argument but clarify the difference in my view. I don't think many truly dangerous people end up in therapy, though there are plenty walking the streets.
I see that most people who come here to talk about their suffering in ET describe this trait too The MET definition seems to describe behaviors of those who have more overt qualities; more demanding and not stepping back in observing the behaviors (lack of insight). Acting on the same feelings others have but are more covert about.

So while the paper describes actions of a different category of MET, the underlying feelings are similar. I think it's more related to lack of insight than ET.

I find this interesting just because this is EXACTLY where I've just arrived in my therapy.

My T does not talk about transference but about relationship patterns which i definitely believe in I've been experiencing them my entire adult life. I am still repeating my abuse in some ways, whether through relationship with others or myself, and i TRY to do it in therapy but my T reshapes the interaction.

My T DOES offer nurturing etc and do inner child work. But recently after a few revelations and a traumatic experiencing we've reached "how do I prevent the pain still inside me from controlling me or my responses"

How do *I* do it. It's not really teaching, like I'm a child. She knows how to lead me to discover these thibgs but nor what the answers are, ie what works for my unique self. It's not about her somehow taking it all away. It's about me learning to do it so I can always do it with or without her.

My transference was out of control because my therapist was NOT a blank slate...

Blanche - Yes, I have read the definition of malignant eroticised transference as it is described in that paper, I have read the definition of stalking that you posted, and I have read the statistics on the site I posted. To me, all three seem to confirm my opinion, to you they seem to confirm yours. It seems we're just going to go round in circles here.

As I did originally say - I believe (as do the majority of therapists, as far as I can tell) that such dangerous behaviour is rare and that the vast majority of erotic transference does not inspire clients to act in such a manner.

I think a lot of the problem currently is that not many therapists really do, or are trained for, the "blank slate" thing, which was an idea the psychoanalysts used and may still. Therapists who are trying to do something like repair people's attachments or something are NOT usually blank slates, I think -- which gets into the kinds of problems some complain about on this forum. And hence their own stuff -- transference or countertransference or whatever you want to call it, gets into the "relationship", authentic or transactional or whatever. At any rate, I think that has been true for me and my experiences in therapy.

Here's another related article, posted in the Interesting Psychotherapy Articles subforum by Quietmind:

Thanks for the conversation anyway.

My concentration is **** today, so not surprised if i'm not being coherent or whatever. It's taking my mind off other things I dont want to think about, so its all good.

I didn't perceive you as incoherent - I think you're an intelligent person who writes well. I respect you. For whatever reason it started to feel like we were just banging our heads together though! I know that you have had a fairly similar experience to me in terms of your feelings for your therapist and I think in a lot of ways we are on the same page.

Sorry you have stuff to don't want to think about... Glad I could provide a bit of a distraction!

Enmeshment is the other end of blank slate. Perhaps any extremes are problematic.

The only ones who do that extreme blank slate crap are psychoanalysts, though many of them don't, their training is centered around transference. Less likely to "get in the way" with these types because they are separating it, doing what BudFox is saying is part of rhe problem. I think the problem is the opposite-therapists unaware of their transferences more likely to cause relational damage.

Agree that those being more blank slate and neutral are those not doing the reparenting thing.

Though the relational type of therapist seems to work for some here, like BB wrote about.

I am not sure what kind of input the OP asked for, but transference is a phenomenon that is present everywhere in life and is often a major drive in how we form relationships. The phenomenon was not created in therapy or by therapists, the profession just gave it a name and sometimes uses it to understand personal motives.

My problem with it is that it is often interpreted in a very superficial and stereotypical way by therapists who use the concept. For example, that it always comes from our relationships with caregivers, and what the client experiences with the therapist is a reflection of some feelings relative to parenting, needs unmet by caregivers etc. I think that such interpretations are often gross generalizations and can mislead a client seriously, also make them stuck in therapy "to work through it".

I don't think therapists use transference as a tool necessarily. More like a basic belief system. Even if they don't utter the word. It's the primary filter thru which they run client thoughts, feelings, behaviors. When in doubt assume the client is projecting in some way.

Can be a means for subjugation and manipulation. It also adds layers of obfuscating BS on top of normal human interaction, and this can be used to justify the existence of the system, the payment, etc.

Society grants therapists the power to interpret the thoughts and feelings of other people. They can persuade someone in a weaker position that his/her own thoughts and feelings do not mean what they appear to mean. And only the therapist has access to the real meaning. They can also make those thoughts/feelings into a pathology if they choose. To me that is what psychotherapeutic "transference" is mainly about.

I've definitely experienced that too and it was very upsetting. And come to think of it--the concept can also be used to absolve a therapist of any and all responsibility.

Example:
If someone has an abusive/incompetent therapist, the therapist can treat you crappy, which of course brings up bad feelings. However, the feelings related to childhood experiences are analyzed and all the feelings are attributed to transference rather than including the nontransference feelings that come from the therapist's words or behavior.

Behaviors that are abusive or hurtful outside of therapists and therapists elicit transference and nontransference feelings just the same; it's just not labeled or distinguished, but they are just the same.

LOL. You think I'm suggesting therapists invented the phenomenon of transference or psychological projection?

The point is to question the psych profession's insinuation that "transference" arises in therapy due to organic and wholesome processes that are just waiting to manifest in the purified space of therapy. I think it's more honest to say it arises due to basic deception. They present a managed and constructed persona-for-hire as a conduit to healthier relationships and personal growth.

I realize some therapists are more open than others, and this cuts down on fraud some. But it's still theater.

This is textbook straw man. I said nothing about denying the existence of transference. There is no possible way to get that from my post.

You are right. Every thread here mentions transference by name (and all the variations of it, by name). Same with every other forum, every blog, book, scholarly article. Everyone in therapy culture uses the same jargon, repeats the same dubious concepts. This stuff oozes from every pore of the therapy organism. If you are around it long enough, you get covered in this slime. It's hard to wash off.

I understand what you are saying but my therapist actively works against this model. He has told me that he works on purpose to bring his genuine self into his interactions with clients because he wants to reduce the amount of room for transference. It's definitely not the filter through which he perceives our interactions.

And I get what you are saying about the level of authority often invested in therapists, but that has nothing to do with the way my therapist and I do therapy. We both tend to be fairly anti-authoritarian, and he in no way perceives himself as the expert on my thoughts and feelings. He doesn't hold onto a vision of himself as the one with the real meaning about anything in my life. Instead, he views himself as facing many of the same problems I do, since life is hard and as humans we all have a tendency to get stuck on things because of the way our brains work.

I actually think that the way he works is based on a rejection of much of the same model that you reject. Have you ever looked into the so-called "third-wave" therapies? Perhaps particularly the more Buddhist-influenced ones. I think some of their thinking would really resonate with you. Maybe take a look at what someone like Paul Gilbert says about the therapeutic relationship?

I would agree with some of your criticisms of the way therapy often works! But i have been lucky enough to find a therapist who works in a different way, and that really suits me.