Posted by badhaircut on December 31, 2004, at 17:21:42
In reply to Idealization, posted by Toph on December 31, 2004, at 14:23:01
I think idealization is a really interesting topic; thanks for bringing it up. I also think, with due respect to the Kleinians, that the occurrence of idealized objects can itself be idealized. It's easy to see someone as good or bad (or reliable or unbalanced or whatever); and if that way, *extremely* that way, and if not, *certainly* not. It's easy to do that, and we do think that way, but not as much (in my opinion) as object relations theory requires. I think we are naturally far more fickle, flippant, and flexible than O.R. expects. Even as infants.
As to therapists, do people really idealize Ts as a rule? For comparison, do we idealize dentists? I get frustrated when a dentist makes a mistake with me; I may have unrealistic dental expectations. But how deep do those expectations go? (Put another way, How persistent are they?) With either dentists or therapists, I think, our idealizing is pretty shallow. It's on its way out as soon as we realize we're doing it. UNLESS, of course, its presence is explicitly encouraged by the therapist under the theory that the idealization itself is useful, at least in the therapy relationship.
To the extent that people idealize therapists especially, I suspect that may have more to do with the expectations that the therapists themselves create (or allow to flourish) with such undefined, undefinable, vague, subjective goals of therapy that are supposed to be, at least by implication, extremely positive, good, healthy, and humane. I'm not saying (here) that such undefined goals are "bad", just that they lend themselves to unrealistic expectations — which, in turn, look like a confirmation of object-relations theories about idealization of the therapist.
My 3¢ worth.
poster:badhaircut
thread:436049
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20041228/msgs/436109.html