Attachment work or abandonment work?

Getting back to the point... the message is that it's ok to be attached to your therapist, just plan on being alone with those needs 99% of the time, and plan on expressing those needs only within the prescribed one-hour "attachment window". In the event of any spillover needs, you'll get a short text reply from the therapist with a copy/paste reassurance, if you're lucky. If the therapist has tight "boundaries" you might be offered nothing. If you find this intolerable, it's "transference" and diagnosis of a disorder will be forthcoming.

OP, I don't think you were addressing all realms of therapy, just that as it applies to attachment work.

There aren't even many studies on the matter, in comparison to other issues. I found a published paper that I took in to my former T and the pdoc who wrote it admits to there not being many case studies on it and it sure as heck doesn't include any mention of what to do when the client becomes attached to the T.

Again, I'm sure it's worked for some and I'd love to read the source material on it, because maybe it would help my situation.

Correct, I am talking about therapy attachment generally and attachment work. Not all realms.

This forum has lots of case studies.

I think there is something perverse and far-fetched about subjecting the complexity of a human relationship to formal study. How do you measure the effects objectively or reliably? It's an experimental and poorly controlled process and studying it does not change this. If one person responded well to a particular course of therapy, it says nothing about what would happen with another therapist-client dyad.

I've read some of the source material. I find it helpful in terms of explaining basic attachment impulses. The parts about therapy as a remedy for such problems are usually creepy and delusional. It's the scripture for the religion of therapy rather than something grounded in reality.

You're calling people's attempts to get help, people's lives, case studies, and then you say that there's something perverse about subjecting the complexity of a human relationship to formal study. Huh.

How do you propose attachment issues should be addressed? How does one get out of, say, a pattern of abusive relationships? And what is your agenda, exactly?

"case studies" is the same term used by those therapist guys - why not by posters here?

I'm not trying to stop anyone. Merely pointing out the irony. But it does feel dehumanizing.

Bad therapy is traumatizing to many and somebody should be doing something about it. Thus far, inherent in the problems of attachment issues, comes a complex problem to solve. I don't think it will ever be able to be done perfectly, but then again, neither is parenting. The people who do get hurt, no matter how many or how few, even if it is just one, that is too many.

I can't see a future where therapy for attachment issues is harmless. I think that there needs to be some kind of committee or something composed of the therapists who do this kind of therapy right and patients who have been wronged, and patients who know what good therapy looks like should be heard. I think that it should be mandatory for a third party to come in and assess the situations where the patient is escalating and/or the therapist is failing. This person would have to sift through the information to rule out black/white thinking on the patient's part and countertransference on the therapists part, etc. I would LOVE to see the BPD label drop out of existence.

If you could change how the system currently works, what would you do? I'm just wondering if anyone has thought of anything that would help.

I think the biggest thing is I would make adult attachment therapy an actual side specialty to attachment-based therapy for kids and teens. A lot of therapists think they do attachment therapy, but they really don't. It's not well-defined. The best thing you can do is to ask for references/referrals to find someone who is known in the field to do specifically what you are asking for.

In looking for C, I emailed other practices and specifically described my situation and my needs (I wanted someone with experience working with adults on attachment, and I need between-session contact). They knew of C and referred me his way. I feel a lot more confident working with C because of his long-standing history and recognition in the community for doing this kind of work. He doesn't hide that he does this work; I am not an experiment to him.

The term "case study" can have a general meaning that is not synonymous with formal study... "a particular instance of something used or analyzed in order to illustrate a thesis or principle".

You want me to propose a plan for addressing attachment issues?

Agenda... that sort of question has no place in a principled discussion. You can send me a PM if you want to know my history or whatever.

I don't think there is any motivation for therapists to set up this kind of oversight. The way it is now serves them well, and puts the burden and the risk on the backs of clients. Also I'd say most therapists do not see failure when one of these attachments detonates, because they are so conditioned to think of everything in terms of transference.

Well, I'm going through the agony of a failed bout of therapy when it comes to my attachment crap. It truly is very painful. I'm attempting to try and sit with what I feel...try to spin it in a way that can be healing...but I find it overhelmingly difficult in the moment. It borders on physical pain.

"Attachment figures are targets of proximity maintenance. Humans of all ages tend to seek and enjoy proximity to their attachment figures in times of need and to experience distress upon separation from them."

How is therapy congruent with the above basic human need that Bowlby identified?

Therapy that promotes attachment to the therapist as a means for healing, is at direct odds with the very attachment theory from which it sprang, because its structure is such that proximity maintenance is blocked and separation distress is assured.

I feel so rejected by my last therapist, whom I was attached to. It's like I have PTSD about it or something.

Calilady-
It's a mind-****. When I was terminated, I walked around in a daze for quite awhile. I did find a good T, but otherwise, I don't know what I would have done. Keep posting here for support, that's what I did. Feel free to PM me anytime!

Bud--
I just read your reply now. I kind of come from both sides of the coin, I had a T who terminated me, and I have a good T at the present. I get what you are saying.

When two people get together, and both have past issues (therapist and client), the interactions of each, at least in my previous therapy, made us both become horrible people who I don't think we are. The problem is if the T is subjecting you to countertransference, and if they are under supervision, why do they keep doing it? My behavior escalated. T's supervisor told him I was being manipulative and to not let me do that. ExT told me that. So, I was the worst person I had ever been with that T, yes it started with me going insane. I own my part. But T spewed his countertransference to me, he had a mother who was an alcoholic, so tell me that a part of him didn't enjoy spewing hatred my way. WHy would a so called normal person stay in a relationship like that if they weren't getting anything out of it? So, what choice did I have but to go on? Report him? I am proud of the people who report their Ts, it takes a lot of courage. However, I have no trust in whatever board decides, as if they are going to take my word over Mr. Perfect (except behind the scenes).

My point is that you may be right about some therapists in that they wouldn't go for oversight. I know my T felt relief when I finally left, and he was an asshole right up to the end. But that's okay, because he has only really had this problem with me, his only BPD as he told me. So it must be me.

I have to disagree on a part of what you said. You said that they are so conditioned to think of it in terms of transference. . . I think if they were thinking of things in terms of transference from the past, that they wouldn't take things so personally. I think they get to a point where they start taking it personally. I could be wrong, though.

So, this predicament will continue until somebody actually does something. And I want to do something but can't think of what. Like who am I ? We need an advocate on our side, and an advocate on their side and someone needs to find a better way. This way sucks(sometimes, when it goes bad) and leaves people more damaged than they were to begin with.

I WANT the title BPD changed. Period. There is NO excuse for this label.

I want the issue of when therapy goes bad to be addressed.

But it may never happen.

Re: thinking of everything in terms of transference, I meant that is their way to escape accountability. Anything a client says, including that they have been wronged by therapy, can be blamed on client projection. It's a guiding principle. A broken therapy attachment that puts the client in a sui spiral isn't real, it's just the client's "repetition compulsion". A new therapy attachment is just a phone call away, and it will clear up any confusion you might have. Call today.

I think the fact that wronged or traumatized clients have no advocate within the system says it all. When my therapist released me back into the wild, my only recourse was to enlist the help of others in her caste. Most of them advocated for my therapist, not me. This is what's called a rigged game. I no play no more.

Why is there no entry in the DSM for Psychotherapy-induced PTSD? Surely it presents with some unique symptoms.

One lasting effect for me has been intrusive thoughts, which is textbook PTSD or trauma symptom.

My understanding of transference and its role in therapy was different from yours. I viewed transference as something that I was not in control of, something which would therefore be "good" if it showed up in therapy and something that the therapist and I together, as part of the "therapeutic alliance" would learn from, unravel, come to understand, "resolve". . .or something like that.

Didn't work that way. I knew that I was having a negative transference toward my last T but -- as you suggested in another thread -- I hated her because of the way she was treating me, not just because of the transference. The INTENSITY of my feelings and the fact that I couldn't really verbalize them was a result of unresolved trauma and the "transference" of some of the energy that I had had toward people and situations in my past. But then the therapist could not tolerate the intensity of my feelings and, hence, "broke" the "therapeutic alliance" -- at the critical juncture.

Absurd! But ethical. If the therapist couldn't tolerate me, she couldn't tolerate me -- but "how would that make you feel"? How would ANYBODY feel about that? angry, cheated, and powerless? worthless, bad, and "nothing" And what can anybody DO about that? nothing. It's all 'ethical' according to the guidelines.

I would think they would be horrified, if they were capable of any empathy. But my last therapist said that I "triggered" her and, therefore, like anybody, her survival functions took over and her empathy went away.

So much for any "therapeutic alliance"! The therapist couldn't do it!! But since she didn't know she was not capable of handling it until she couldn't handle it -- she gave me some referrals and it was all "ethical" according to their guidelines. I chose not to play again, either.

The problem here is them and their system. It needs to be named, called out, repeatedly, so that eventually it breaks down their wall of denial.

I LOVE this thread. Thanks for making this thread it is so unbelievable relevant and so many insightful posts.

I have been hurt BAD in therapy, but I have also taken something away from it every time. Ultimately I think the therapeutic relationship can rewire the brain through a safe, secure attachment to a competent and ethical therapist. I believe this is a delicate matter and I ALSO believe it can be ended prematurely and if so, can be damaging. I have had this experience and it has hurt me BAD and re-traumatized me.

I hope to find a therapist to safely attach who can remain my therapist for as long as it takes to heal...

Thanks,
HD7970ghz

((((HD)))
I hope you can find one, also. So, you have had more than one bad experience? I'm sorry, Even one is bad enough. This is my opinion, but looking for a therapist with alot of experience would be a good idea. My current T has over 35 years of experience. (although my previous T from which I was terminated had about 30 years). He also works with the most complex patients, D.I.D., and he understands me both intellectually and emotionally. I keep thinking that it would be nice for all of us to make a checklist for people looking for therapists. I agree with you that good therapy can rewire the brain. For me, it has taken having a generally nonreactive (not reacting negatively) T, who is mostly consistently kind, empathic, knowledgeable and so forth. He responds the same way to each of my texts. He told me he is not triggered by me. Let us know how your search goes!

I was talking about transference as a tool for manipulation, coercion, control, obfuscation, subjugation... rather than the general phenomenon of transference. And specifically that it can be used to rationalize a failed therapy attachment. If everything is a projection of the client's past, then failed therapy is too, and it only hurts because of past hurts (which of course is utter bullsh*t).

As an aside, I think the term is referenced so obsessively in therapy circles that it doesn't even mean much. The entire therapy system has some sort of OCD tic around this. Everyone is constantly saying transference transference transference.

Based on what you wrote, I dodged a lethal bullet. Thank goodness. My ex therapist was there for me through it all.

Yes, I suppose some manipulative therapists could use the concept that way. But I don't buy it -- instead, it just demonstrates to me lack of therapist skill in managing the transference. The licensing boards probably accept it, though, unfortunately.

So the therapists can still abandon you. Though if they can't help you then they can't help you, that's the reality. Kind of like incompetent, abandoning parents. Which if the wounds are deep and from early experience -- well, expecting a client to be able to be "adult" about that is, well, ridiculous!! That's why the client may have been in therapy to begin with!! And if anybody besides the client his- or her-self can understand that, it should be the psychotherapy profession!

We adults with psychological "wounds" had defenses to help us manage our adult responsibilities as best we could. Part of the goal of therapy, as I understood it, is for the defenses to loosen or come down in the "therapeutic relationship". But then the therapist hurts us AGAIN, exactly where it hurt to begin with and is not healed, and then abandon us AGAIN. It's not LESS than the original hurt. Instead it's exactly the same (at least it was for me). Because the original hurt had never healed.

If you can't stand the sight of blood, then you shouldn't be a surgeon. You will endanger your patients if you open them up and then freak out and can't continue the job.

It's ridiculous to expect patients to know or be able to guess who will freak out at experience of intense emotion and who won't. We go into surgery expecting all surgeons to be able to tolerate it.

Maybe there needs to be some kind of certification for therapists who are going to do "depth" work and open people up? Because dumping us after that with no new way to deal with the world is really, really horrible.

Referral to another therapist, who might do the same thing again for all the client knows, is a really, really stupid, incompetent, insensitive, unempathetic way for the profession to recommend and allow therapists to handle things.

Managing transference... how is that not a colossal manipulation? Screwing with the needs of a vulnerable human being, presenting a contrived persona as authentic, keeping method and risks and track record a secret, evading questions, applying "techniques" to produce a conditioned response, encouraging the continuation of the relationship for profit and gratification, encouraging trust and vulnerability without earning it, deliberately withholding information, frustrating the client's needs for effect, imposing arbitrary boundaries. The list goes on. This is run of the mill stuff.

Therapists are consummate manipulators. Sometimes it's subtle and well camouflaged. That's why it's dangerous. And because it's done with a smile.

I didn't mean managing THE CLIENT. I meant managing their own reactions, countertransferences, while trying to keep the feelings and needs of the client in mind, too.

I think that it could probably be done although, of course, it wasn't done for me. And I'm not going to try again -- maybe I'm too tough a case or something. In which case THEY, not we, need to weed us out early and recommend we try something else -- EMDR is available now, it wasn't years ago. Waiting until it all falls apart and then dumping us, even with referrals, is a pretty traumatic way to do things. Doesn't have to be essentially manipulative to still be pretty awful.