[fairyfloss21]

what does that look like for you?

I'm sorry.

[growlycat]

We dance on the line of emeshment, t and I. I think when they lose objectivity and they actually need you too, may be skirting close to the edge. We are still on the ethical side of the line but things could go wrong.

I see at happening when you don't act as two separate people, which isn't an issue in my current therapy. I've tried to enmesh with him, but he doesn't 'enmesh back'. I've tried to get him to be protective, nurturing, among other things (not purposely, it happened organically per my background).

I think last T and I were enmeshed at times, but it wasn't problematic.

This is one way to view it:
what enmeshment looks like

[here today]

Thanks, octoberful. I hadn't seen that when you originally posted it. Some other interesting things on that thread, too.

What enmeshment looked like for me was that I looked to my T's to define me, in some sense. Outwardly, in life other than in relationships, I was very independent. But within relationships, I looked to the other person to define who I was. Well, maybe it's more like I vacillated -- sometimes conforming to their expectation, in order to keep the "relationship", sometimes rebelling. No/little middle ground. Like the "Us" circle was either all You or all Me. King/Queen Baby was either me or the other.

I went into my last therapy recognizing something like that and discussed it with the T but she couldn't/didn't help me with that much.

Originally Posted by fairyfloss21

what does that look like for you?

That takes two to tango. The client might be that way. A good T will handle it.

[Lrad123]

What does it look like if a client is that way but the T handles it? Any examples? I see octoberful’s link above but still don’t quite get what that would look like in the therapy relationship.

Lrad, I posted an example:

I've tried to enmesh with him, but he doesn't 'enmesh back'. I've tried to get him to be protective, nurturing, among other things (not purposely, it happened organically per my background).

By his not fulfilling my needs, we explore them. Otherwise, the work can stop. For example, if you always need reassurance, and instead of working through the issue and the T provides it continuously, it might be something you never get past. A T who is enmeshed may have a strong need to be 'a caretaker' and constantly provide the reassurance to the client, otherwise the T would experience too much discomfort. A T who handles it competently will be able to be non-reactive and containing. Non-reactive would be not constantly providing reassurance. In addition to experiencing discomfort over not providing the reassurance and dealing with the client's reaction, they also risk of not being liked by the client or the client's anger. The hard work of therapy. Despite what you hear here or at other sites at times, the therapist has to work too.

For Ts with abandonment and rejection issues, this is very problematic and why imo they get enmeshed--because not enmeshing can lead to rejection and abandonment fears on their end. Another way to look at it is that not getting enmeshed is not using the other to meet your own needs that stem from unresolved issues or issues that could be dealt with by other means.

[LonesomeTonight]

Originally Posted by octoberful

Lrad, I posted an example:

By his not fulfilling my needs, we explore them. Otherwise, the work can stop. For example, if you always need reassurance, and instead of working through the issue and the T provides it continuously, it might be something you never get past. A T who is enmeshed may have a strong need to be 'a caretaker' and constantly provide the reassurance to the client, otherwise the T would experience too much discomfort. A T who handles it competently will be able to be non-reactive and containing. Non-reactive would be not constantly providing reassurance. In addition to experiencing discomfort over not providing the reassurance and dealing with the client's reaction, they also risk of not being liked by the client or the client's anger. The hard work of therapy. Despite what you hear here or at other sites at times, the therapist has to work too.

For Ts with abandonment and rejection issues, this is very problematic and why imo they get enmeshed--because not enmeshing can lead to rejection and abandonment fears on their end. Another way to look at it is that not getting enmeshed is not using the other to meet your own needs that stem from unresolved issues or issues that could be dealt with by other means.

This bolded part sounds so much like what happened with my ex-MC. I feel we were enmeshed in some ways but wasn't sure how to describe it, and I think you just described one aspect of it perfectly. He would continually reassure me (even while saying he couldn't keep reassuring me) and would accept anything I said or did. He kept being lax about boundaries even while saying he needed to be stricter with them. That all made the rupture more jarring because suddenly he wasn't accepting everything I said/did and was suddenly sharply tightening boundaries.

Current T does reassure me at times--he was resistant to it at first, but I think then he realized the depth of my abandonment fears, so to make me feel safe in the relationship, he has to give me *some* reassurance. But he also balances that out by working with me on how to live with some uncertainty in relationships, including with him. And he hasn't accepted everything I've told him and have done--some of which really hurt me at the time (and I still worry about telling him about a few things, like related to him).

But I also realize that the way ex-MC reacted, that's not typical of relationships. The vast majority of people in my life are not going to accept me for everything I say or do. And T has also said that ex-MC probably wasn't actually OK with everything, but knew how much it would upset me if he was honest, so he'd say it was OK (like finding his wife's Facebook page, for example). And that's not a healthy relationship.

So because his approach and boundaries are different, even though I have some attachment to my T, I'm not really worried about enmeshment. He's also said he's being really careful in some things he does/says to me so that he doesn't repeat what ex-MC did, because it may have felt good and helpful at the time, but didn't help me in the long run, particularly with outside relationships. And he wants to help me build stronger outside relationships and to feel more secure in them. Which is a goal I have, too.

I think the worst thing about enmeshment is that it is usually not sustainable and becomes a frustrating ride of push and pull patterns. I don't think it is good to be overly enmeshed with anyone (such that it negatively affects other things) but with the limitations of therapy and professional relationships in general, it very soon runs into those impossibilities and ambivalence, often destroying what's actually good about the relationship and shifts focus from true goals.

I had a tendency to make some of my professional relationships more complex and complicated and blur boundaries myself and was often surprised at how easy and successful it was to pull other people into it. Sometimes even people who otherwise appeared very professional with good boundaries - they gave in to the desire with me, sometimes claiming they thought I could handle it. And yes I could indeed often handle it and there were no serious adverse effects, but too much complication/complexity regardless. A version of this happened in my therapy as well albeit much milder than with other people when I was younger and less aware of how it worked. I often even claimed that I was more evolved and open because I had those fluid boundaries and did not want to rigidly classify and box relationships... that's one way of seeing it. But strictly speaking, it was poor and/or inconsistent boundaries. I imagine that some Ts, who enmesh with clients, are not very aware of the mechanism either and often act out their momentary desires.

[here today]

Originally Posted by octoberful

Lrad, I posted an example:


By his not fulfilling my needs, we explore them. Otherwise, the work can stop. For example, if you always need reassurance, and instead of working through the issue and the T provides it continuously, it might be something you never get past. A T who is enmeshed may have a strong need to be 'a caretaker' and constantly provide the reassurance to the client, otherwise the T would experience too much discomfort. A T who handles it competently will be able to be non-reactive and containing. Non-reactive would be not constantly providing reassurance. In addition to experiencing discomfort over not providing the reassurance and dealing with the client's reaction, they also risk of not being liked by the client or the client's anger. The hard work of therapy. Despite what you hear here or at other sites at times, the therapist has to work too.

For Ts with abandonment and rejection issues, this is very problematic and why imo they get enmeshed--because not enmeshing can lead to rejection and abandonment fears on their end. Another way to look at it is that not getting enmeshed is not using the other to meet your own needs that stem from unresolved issues or issues that could be dealt with by other means.

But when T's DO enmesh. . . and for clients who may even feel an attraction or pull to T's who do enmesh. . .

A key, I think intellectually at least, may be an authentic, independent ego -- not a narcissistic one. Or, Unaluna mentioned recently that who she was, or what she had had, prior to her last therapy was a false self. Maybe that's touching on the same thing.

But how does the authentic, independent ego develop? And how can one make up the deficit, if their is some, after we are adults?

Maybe I'm getting there. It feels like I have different feet in two different grounds, sometimes. Having what may be an authentic, independent ego is different from what I had had, in all its various forms and complications.

The enmeshment with, and eventual rejection/termination by, my last therapist "broke" the spell, maybe -- and/but almost broke me. She's still stuck, I'm pretty sure, from a recent email exchange we had. So I don't think the termination/rejection was deliberately "therapeutic" although it may eventually have a good outcome. Fortunately, I've had support here and in other support groups.

I had no clue, did not know, had no faith, did not even know that I had "needs" that might be dealt with in other ways. Scary, scary, scary situation. Still uncertain, still insecure. . .Life, maybe.

But how does the authentic, independent ego develop? And how can one make up the deficit, if their is some, after we are adults?

A parent nurtures a child's development so the child becomes an autonomous authentic individual with a solid sense of self by letting the child be who s/he is. As opposed to projections, controlling, using to meet needs, etc. But largely the parent has to have an authentic independent ego for that to happen. A parent with unresolved issues will have a difficult time, and the issues get passed down through generations (more nurture rather than nature).

I believe in the object relations approach, which isn't for everyone. In therapy, the therapist neutrality and working through the transference from the psychoanalytic perspective helped me with this. Magnifying the effect of transference and avoiding enmeshment allows you to delineate what comes from you and what comes from the therapist, as well as strengthen your observing ego. It changes the way your mind works, partly because of how it addresses your defenses and also solidifies psychological boundaries (which then define who you are leading to boundaried actions).

And maybe you are getting there. Seeing how your Ts actions are about her rather than about you is one way it unfolds. Not seeing, but experiencing; knowing. Not sure what the best word to describe is. Believing?

Originally Posted by octoberful

A parent nurtures a child's development so the child becomes an autonomous authentic individual with a solid sense of self by letting the child be who s/he is. As opposed to projections, controlling, using to meet needs, etc. But largely the parent has to have an authentic independent ego for that to happen. A parent with unresolved issues will have a difficult time, and the issues get passed down through generations (more nurture rather than nature).

Yes. In terms of how to facilitate this in adulthood, if not via therapy, I think it can be quite effective via constructive, positive, secure ordinary relationships as well. Good teachers and mentors can play important roles in youth as well as fulfilling friendships, romantic relationships, work collaborations. I did not get anything out of therapy in this sense (okay I also don't think I had significant deficits in this area at the time I was in therapy) but a lot from good relationships throughout my life, relationships without rigid structure that I chose and were not just given to me. And via participation in adult communities. In terms of parents, I had one who definitely did not have a good sense of self and very low level of independence (mom) and one who was the polar opposite and much more similar to who I have become (dad). And I have been drawn to people similar to my father and myself in many aspects in my whole life - a very beneficial pattern for me. I think it has "corrected" or lowered the manifestation of many biological predispositions that I believe I have through heritage.

[Thalassophile]

Find it really interesting to read all the responses here and so many are written so well. I may be off track slightly here and not quite as articulate as some of the posters but IMO one of the hardest things for a T to do with some clients is to ensure they have done their own work on themselves to such a level that they are able to remain separate from the client and not become enmeshed particularly with long-term clients or those or directly or indirectly spend more of their sessions to become so. To me, this seems to be one of the hurdles that many therapists (even the better ones) seem to fall down on!

Originally Posted by LonesomeTonight

This bolded part sounds so much like what happened with my ex-MC. I feel we were enmeshed in some ways but wasn't sure how to describe it, and I think you just described one aspect of it perfectly. He would continually reassure me (even while saying he couldn't keep reassuring me) and would accept anything I said or did. He kept being lax about boundaries even while saying he needed to be stricter with them. That all made the rupture more jarring because suddenly he wasn't accepting everything I said/did and was suddenly sharply tightening boundaries.

Current T does reassure me at times--he was resistant to it at first, but I think then he realized the depth of my abandonment fears, so to make me feel safe in the relationship, he has to give me *some* reassurance. But he also balances that out by working with me on how to live with some uncertainty in relationships, including with him. And he hasn't accepted everything I've told him and have done--some of which really hurt me at the time (and I still worry about telling him about a few things, like related to him).

But I also realize that the way ex-MC reacted, that's not typical of relationships. The vast majority of people in my life are not going to accept me for everything I say or do. And T has also said that ex-MC probably wasn't actually OK with everything, but knew how much it would upset me if he was honest, so he'd say it was OK (like finding his wife's Facebook page, for example). And that's not a healthy relationship.

So because his approach and boundaries are different, even though I have some attachment to my T, I'm not really worried about enmeshment. He's also said he's being really careful in some things he does/says to me so that he doesn't repeat what ex-MC did, because it may have felt good and helpful at the time, but didn't help me in the long run, particularly with outside relationships. And he wants to help me build stronger outside relationships and to feel more secure in them. Which is a goal I have, too.

That's one thing I noticed about your current T-he seems ok with your discomfort rather than letting you affect him so much? Maybe I'd even assume when he does give you reassurance, it's for you rather than him (as part of containment so your psyche wouldn't be overwhelmed), whereas MC may have done it for himself in part that kept you both enmeshed.

[here today]

Originally Posted by octoberful

A parent nurtures a child's development so the child becomes an autonomous authentic individual with a solid sense of self by letting the child be who s/he is. As opposed to projections, controlling, using to meet needs, etc. But largely the parent has to have an authentic independent ego for that to happen. A parent with unresolved issues will have a difficult time, and the issues get passed down through generations (more nurture rather than nature).

I believe in the object relations approach, which isn't for everyone. In therapy, the therapist neutrality and working through the transference from the psychoanalytic perspective helped me with this. Magnifying the effect of transference and avoiding enmeshment allows you to delineate what comes from you and what comes from the therapist, as well as strengthen your observing ego. It changes the way your mind works, partly because of how it addresses your defenses and also solidifies psychological boundaries (which then define who you are leading to boundaried actions).

And maybe you are getting there. Seeing how your Ts actions are about her rather than about you is one way it unfolds. Not seeing, but experiencing; knowing. Not sure what the best word to describe is. Believing?

Yes, in my family and cultural background there were very few, if any, women who had authentic, independent egos. It just wasn't "done". I thought of T's that I had had, and my family and cultural norm, when I read this from another post of yours:

A T who is enmeshed may have a strong need to be 'a caretaker' and constantly provide the reassurance to the client, otherwise the T would experience too much discomfort.

That's how many/most women in my family and culture got their identity. I have to a certain extent, too. My it didn't suit my temperament very well, hence some internal conflict -- whether because of that or other reasons IDK.

But I'm not at all drawn to the object relations ideas. Something just doesn't seem to fit, with me. Maybe it's a temperament thing again? Heinz Kohut's ideas DID resonate with me, though. He seemed to be articulating some things that match with stuff going on in me, more. Maybe because I'm an introvert, and also independent and analytical by temperament? The self-object idea, particularly, seems more like what goes on in me than the way things are described in object relations.

I don't remember -- have you said, are you a T yourself? I am not, just a long-time therapy client who has done a lot of reading, etc., as well as (often failed) therapy.

Edited to add: I guess my question

But how does the authentic, independent ego develop? And how can one make up the deficit, if their is some, after we are adults?

was more rhetorical, or investigatory/curious than one asking for, or expecting an "expert" answer. I'm not at all convinced that current theories and methods in psychotherapy are adequate to help with healthy identity and ego development very much. I'm no expert, but I've read a lot of them. Also tried a lot, lot, lot of therapy. Hasn't helped much, sometimes made things worse. So, I remain curious.

[Lrad123]

I’m wondering if by not replying to my emails, my T is choosing not to get enmeshed. I can imagine that in a way, it might be easier to reply than to refrain from replying.

[chihirochild]

I'm finding this thread super interesting and also relevant to what I'm working on in therapy--I'm grateful for everyone sharing their experiences and wisdom. I'm not very educated about any of this, but this discussion reminds me of a line of Freud's in which he states that the therapist must be prepared for, "a perpetual struggle with his patient to keep in the psychical sphere all the impulses which the patient would like to direct into the motor sphere." [Here's the text if anyone wants it]

Originally Posted by octoberful

Lrad, I posted an example:
By his not fulfilling my needs, we explore them. Otherwise, the work can stop. For example, if you always need reassurance, and instead of working through the issue and the T provides it continuously, it might be something you never get past. A T who is enmeshed may have a strong need to be 'a caretaker' and constantly provide the reassurance to the client, otherwise the T would experience too much discomfort. A T who handles it competently will be able to be non-reactive and containing. Non-reactive would be not constantly providing reassurance. In addition to experiencing discomfort over not providing the reassurance and dealing with the client's reaction, they also risk of not being liked by the client or the client's anger. The hard work of therapy. Despite what you hear here or at other sites at times, the therapist has to work too.

I ask these questions not because I disagree but because I don't understand: what does it mean to be containing but non-reactive? (How might that look in actual practice?) How is it possible to be containing without being reassuring? (I dunno, maybe my question is "what exactly is containment?")

Similarly, if therapy is a place where needs are to be explored and understood rather than fulfilled, what happens to those needs once understanding is achieved? (E.g. say a person feels a need for reassurance. The person and the therapist work together to understand where that need comes from and how it manifests in the person's life... and then what? Does understanding the source of the need make it magically go away? Is the person supposed to get better at finding reassurance from people in their "real life?" Are they supposed to get better at self-reassurance?)

[koru_kiwi]

Originally Posted by octoberful

That's one thing I noticed about your current T-he seems ok with your discomfort rather than letting you affect him so much? Maybe I'd even assume when he does give you reassurance, it's for you rather than him (as part of containment so your psyche wouldn't be overwhelmed), whereas MC may have done it for himself in part that kept you both enmeshed.

my ex-T also struggled with my discomfort and often shared with me that he felt like he was walking on eggshells or walking on a fine line so not to 'upset' me. when we would have these conversations, it often frustrated me because i told him that i didn't want him to have to walk on eggshells for fear of offending or hurting me. i encouraged him to be honest with me in those instances and challenge me because i knew that this is exactly what i needed for my therapy to work, but because of his own issues, discomfort, or fears he often could not meet me in that space. for a long time, i use to think it was my fault, that i was doing something wrong and that is why he was having the conversation with me about walking on eggshells. but in fact, it was his stuff and discomfort getting in the way of my therapy and it was as if he wanted me to take care of him in those moments. it's sad because he was completely blind to it, even in those moments when i was practically pointing out what he was doing was not the correct way. it took a while for me to fully understand what was going on, but in the end, i learned much of my therapy and the relationship was actually more about him and his needs than it was mine and you are correct, because this dynamic definitely kept us both quite enmeshed with each other.