Posted by lucie lu on November 24, 2008, at 12:34:12
In reply to The idea of a stand-in, posted by DAisym on November 23, 2008, at 18:56:46
Hi Daisy,
Since I agree fully with what you say, it must have been the word "stand-in" that wasn't apt. If anything, they are more like bikes with training wheels - but they are real bikes nonetheless :)
We can never lose sight that a goal in most (but not all, as discussed in seldom's thread) therapies, particularly attachment-based, is to eventually take our new-found interpersonal confidence, skills, and ability to love into RL where we can apply it to *available* people. But I don't see how that is in any way incompatible with a deeply loving and real relationship between client/patient and T. Given that we all have relationships of one sort or another with our T's, there is an inevitable spectrum. Just as there has to be at one end, a dyad that works well enough together but without much emotional contact (and that's fine if it works for the client), at the other end, there must be dyads that are very well matched personally and professionally and, especially in long-term therapy, a very deep and profoundly meaningful bond may develop between the two individuals. There can be responsible, boundaried therapy and still have both parties very deeply attached to one another. The challenge may be, for such a dyad, to be able to "let go" of the relationship if/when it is time to do so, but even so it is just another challenge of the many that face any T-patient/client dyad.
I am not one to equate all feelings in therapy as transference or countertransference. Based on the relationship I have with my T, I know that there is clearly one or more transference relationships that manifest in my therapy but there is also a genuinely deep and caring real relationship. I believe that the two (transference and real) are neither interchangeable nor mutually exclusive, and that usually both are present as we do our therapeutic work together.
The need for patients to love is an interesting point and I read some time ago a book chapter about that which I thought was really good and made a lot of sense to me. The gist was that children whose love is rejected or otherwise not returned, usually by their parents, grow up with significant injuries to their self. In healing this wound, the author said that it is important that Ts not repeat the injury but accept and hold their patient's love, and respect that need to love as much as the need to be loved. I will look up that reference and post the link.
Lucie
> I was struck by what Lucie said about the therapist being a stand in and how eventually one should move to expressing loving feelings to someone IRL. And I thought, "well yes, I guess that is the ultimate goal. But what if the love you feel for your therapist is really for THEM and generated BY them?" So I've been thinking about this.
>
> Of course, transference exists in all relationships. How could it not? But I do think that we can have strong loving feelings for our therapist that they have "earned" if I can say it that way. I think, perhaps, that is why their response is so important and carries so much anxiety for all of us. We want them to accept our love - not necessarily return it. We want them to know it is for them and for them to take it in and hold it. And I think we want them to acknowledge that this capacity we have to love them and to trust them enough to express the love, is a frightening, wonderful thing. I think loving is as powerful as being loved. It is incredible to know you can feel so deeply and it is even more incredible when they accept your love as special and OK - not something to run from or something that will taint them. Because isn't it really a step toward growth - to be able to love someone who has been kind and helpful to you?
>
> Just some rambling musings after a long weekend.
>
> Good luck with this.
> Daisy
poster:lucie lu
thread:864636
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20081120/msgs/865008.html