When Your Client Dreams about You

Things were not all good between my client and me, but I had no idea. She showed up promptly and consistently, seemed to like me, at times even told me how much the therapy was helping her. Yet she often seemed uncomfortable, preferring to fill the session with detailed accounts of her life rather than engage in the directly experiential way I like to invite. My role became that of a witness, a compassionate listener for sure, but rather a passive one. I thought, okay, this is our dance-step.

Then she brought the following dream: I was cleaning her house and had done rather a cursory job of it. The house was still so incredibly unkempt she had rolled up her sleeves and was tackling the lion’s share of the job herself. Later I show up with a flashlight and am opening up rooms she never visits, illuminating darkened corners.

The metaphors here are pretty darn obvious, so I won’t belabor them. If we read the dream as a commentary on the therapeutic relationship, I am clearly getting a mixed review – leaving her to clean up her own house because I’ve done such a bad job of it, but also encouraging her to look into areas (inside herself or in her life) that she would otherwise not visit.

What I love about this example is that the dream becomes the vehicle for the client to comment on the therapy process in a way that she would never have done otherwise. I try hard to level the playing field, be open and immediate with my clients, invitational, friendly, casual – in all ways endeavor to make the therapy relationship feel safe enough for clients to say anything. But often it’s only through dreams that I hear truly honest commentary on the things that don’t sit right with them about my job as their therapist.

This argument for listening to dreams extends further. In my personal experience as a client, I have found dreams open up avenues I would otherwise not walk down. The unflinching honesty of dreams at times makes me cringe – they are like that good friend who will tell you when you have spinach in your teeth or have behaved badly.

The most profound therapy session of my life was precipitated by a dream. I was born very premature and in the germ-phobic mid-60s, so I was kept sealed off in an incubator, touched only as needed for the first six weeks of my life. I had another near-death experience as an adolescent, when, convinced I was invincible, dove under a waterfall and then got carried deep underwater by the powerful current, nearly drowning before I resurfaced.

I had a powerfully scary dream that wove these two events together, and because I was seeing a Jungian analyst at the time, naturally I brought the dream to our session. We revisited the dream material, re-entered the dream, sketched it… but all this did was underscore the profound sense of aloneness contained in the dream. Then my therapist asked me to re-enact a part of the dream where I reach out and no one is there. In that moment, he grabbed my outstretched hand firmly and looked me right in the eye, reaching back across the years to provide a firm supportive presence to that lonely baby and that teenager. It was so unexpected it sent a kind of shock wave through my body.

This profound moment had ripple effects that ultimately shifted my sense of self and relationship. Yet I would not have brought the topic up had I not had that dream. I have now been working with dreams, my own and those of others, for more than 20 years. Sadly in that time, I have seen dreamwork fall out of fashion. I am hoping the examples offered here show that dreamwork is not just some quaint antiquated practice but one that has current relevance: we all dream about things that are deeply authentic and that are too often left out of the therapeutic conversation.

Imagine You Are a Smart Phone

Think of yourself as a smartphone—i-Phone, Android, doesn’t matter which. Push that thought to
its limit and see where it takes you. It might alter the way you experience the feeling of being
alive. And it might open up new paths in therapy.

Properly speaking, a smartphone is not strictly a phone. Rather, it is a device containing numerous
apps, a tool with multi-variant potentiality. Tap on the Facebook icon and the device becomes a
social-media tool; tap on the Gmail icon and it serves as an email-exchange tool; tap on Google
and it’s a search engine; tap on the phone icon and only then does it become what its name
suggests—a phone.

Consider now the human organism—you as a biological being, you in your pre-conscious state,
you before you think your thoughts about who you are, you before you occupy a role. You are in
that pre-somebody state, a bundle of potentiality, a device with uploaded apps. Tap on your
“therapist icon” and you inhabit the role of therapist. You become a certain kind of person, one
who engages with others and the world in a certain confined way. You operate in therapist-mode.
You take on an identity in the same way that a smartphone takes on an identity when an icon is
activated. Tap on your “spouse icon,” your “parent icon,” your “let’s-go-drinking icon” and you
inhabit the role of . . . . well, you get the point. You, the human organism, like the device we call
“a smartphone,” has no unitary identity.

To put it in grandiose terms, the Self is an illusion. There exist only ephemeral, highly contingent
selves within the human organism. Your identity is a function of whatever “app” has been
activated. Indeed, even your reductionist thoughts about yourself—I am this or that—is itself a
function of a certain app icon that has been activated. The implications of this are far-reaching
and profound.

A person highly prone to anger, you might say, is a human organism with a very large “anger-app
icon” on the home page, easily and frequently activated. One who is rarely aroused to anger has a
“small anger-app icon”—all human beings come equipped with an “anger app”—that is situated
far from the home page. You could say that your identifiable personality features—your
somebody-ness—are the readily accessible app icons on your home page.

Here’s the upshot for you to consider, so far as therapy is concerned. In many ways, therapy is an
enterprise of reconfiguring the app icons on a home page. Certain large icons on a home page
may not be the kind of apps a person wants to be easily activated (anger app, jealousy app,
addiction app, etc.). Therapy facilitates the shrinkage of those icons and the removal of them from
the home page. Therapy can also facilitate the placement of sought-after icons onto the home
page. This form of therapy engages with a client as a person without a unifying essence.

Therapy becomes an exploration of apps occupying space on a person’s homepage and a discovery of
long-neglected, even forgotten, apps lying dormant several swipes away from that home page.
Therapy under this paradigm diminishes the impulse to diagnose. To tag a person with a
diagnosis—say, as bipolar or borderline—is to risk engaging with that person as having a
unifying, definable identity. It is akin to treating a smartphone as strictly a phone, or a social-
media tool or an email-retrieval tool or so on.

Are there therapy paradigms that suit this I-am-a-smartphone mindset? In my next two blog posts,
I will investigate two paradigms as possible instantiations of this mindset: Internal Family
Systems and Buddhist-inspired therapies (e.g., mindfulness-based therapies).

Why Therapists Choose Online Therapy for Themselves

More and more fellow therapists contact me to seek online therapy (through video-conferencing) for themselves. They come from various places – rural areas or large cities, and from different continents.

What are the reasons explaining this choice?

In a survey that I ran this year with online therapy users about their rationale for choosing this setting, several practitioners happened to be among the responders. One of the reasons they named was that they already knew socially all the good local therapists. This is particularly true for smaller towns and rural areas, but it also often becomes the case after a few years of practice in larger cities.

Another reason is the broadened choice of practitioners. Therapists make sophisticated clients: they usually know what they are looking for, and want a particular approach that may not be available locally. With online therapy, the options are almost endless.

For trainees, having access to a long list of online therapists makes things more affordable, especially for those training in places like New York, California, or London, where the rates of therapists are higher.

Additionally, more and more therapists move frequently to another state, city, or even country. Mobility naturally brings people to online therapy, because when they move they don’t necessarily want to discontinue treatment and start over with a new therapist

My own experience actually combined both – mobility and training needs. When I reached out to an online therapist I was in training, with personal therapy hours to accumulate for my professional accreditation. Simultaneously, I was facing an international move, and it was causing me a great deal of emotional turmoil. It was not my first expatriation, but this time it was hitting me hard – I was feeling uprooted against my will, immensely angry at the circumstances and literally sick with anxiety. I was relocating to a country where I did not speak the language well enough to reach out to a local therapist. A therapist online, with face-to-face sessions via videoconferencing, seemed like a reasonably good option. It turned out to be a bold choice that worked for me.

Beyond these practicalities there is a subtler psychological reason: the feeling of shame.

Marie Adams discusses therapists’ mental health in The Myth Of The Untroubled Therapist: there is a tacit expectation for us, as therapists, to be “all sorted.” But ironically enough, we are not immune to the shame associated with mental health struggles.

Reaching out to a therapist who comes from a different cultural background and lives thousands of miles away can help us overcome the “shame barrier.” Many of my clients acknowledge that online therapy allowed them to jump into it, overcoming the very natural feeling of shame associated with the exposure that any therapy requires.

Among my online clients, therapists make a very inspiring bunch. Negotiating this particular type of peer therapeutic relationship presents its own fascinating challenges. The enhanced face-to-face experience offered by the screen enables intimacy for therapists who often find it uncomfortable to be in the client’s chair or, in this case, on the other side of the screen.

The online option may also foster cross-cultural exchanges beyond borders: there is no better way of satisfying our curiosity about how colleagues work in a different culture. I remember my own excitement as I first reached out to a therapist across the Atlantic.

As with everything new, the very idea of a therapy that is not in one single room but rather through video-conferencing can be associated with some risk-taking. I hear cautious or even suspicious remarks, mainly from therapists who have not yet tried this new way of making therapy happen. This being said, are we not expecting our clients to take risks daily, venturing into new territories? Therapy, by its very nature, is about risk taking, and as our world changes we have to adapt, and possibly take on the role of explorers ourselves. 

How To Help Your Clients Undo What They Haven’t Yet Done

Once, a man who was recently released from prison told his counselor how enraged he was that he just had his wallet stolen from him. This man was visibly angry as he described having $450 dollars in that stolen wallet; and to make things worse, he had a strong suspicion who stole it. He told the counselor that he was going to seek out the thief, get his money back, and kill him. The counselor did not flinch, judge, or panic when the man told him he would seek out and kill the thief. Instead, he asked the former prisoner how long he’d been incarcerated. “I was down for 8 years, and I just got out,” the man replied.

The counselor asked, “Did you like your time in prison?”

“What?” replied the man angrily.

"Did you like spending time in prison?" the counselor repeated in honestly inquisitive voice.

The man then stared angrily and directly into the counselor's eyes and asked, “Did you ever spend time in prison?”

“No,” said the counselor.

“I didn’t think so,” said the man angrily, and he looked away shaking his head in disgust.

The counselor prodded further, again, genuinely inquisitively, “Let me ask you: In all that time in prison, were there ever moments when you wanted to get out?”

The former inmate seemed to get even angrier at this question, “What’s wrong with you?” he asked. “Of course I wanted to get out! I wanted to get out every single day!”

Unfazed by this man’s anger, the counselor asked, “How badly did you want to get out?”

The man, now visibly more agitated and enraged, stared down the counselor intensely and said, “I wanted to get out every second of every day!”

And the counselor asked, “What would you have done to get out?”

And the man, still staring through the counselor, replied sharply, “Anything.”

“Anything?” asked the counselor, matching the man’s eye contact and in a firm voice of his own.

“I would have done anything!” said the former inmate, stepping aggressively toward the counselor.

The counselor looked piercingly but compassionately back into the eyes of the angry man without flinching and finally asked, “Would you have paid $450?”

The man stopped. He got it. He understood. The counselor's words moved through him. He realized that if he would have killed the man who stole his $450, he would have ended up in prison (this time probably for life), and while he was in prison, he would have “done anything to get out,” certainly including paying $450 – and his anger left. He thanked the counselor and walked away.

Now, this is a true story, and the client was mine, and because it’s a true story, you probably want to know the rest of what happened, so I’ll tell you. The man, the former inmate, he was calm enough after talking to me that he went home and went to sleep instead of seeking out the man he believed to be the thief who stole his money. In the morning when he awoke, he said a thankful prayer that he didn’t go after that man and end up in prison. In fact, he even imagined that he paid the amount that was stolen from him and was now free. He felt so good knowing that he resisted acting on impulse for the first time in such a long time, that he decided to make another good decision and clean his room as soon as he got out of bed. To his grateful surprise, not long into his picking up the pile of clothes off the floor of his room, he found his wallet – and the $450.

The question you can ask your clients is this: How much would you pay to undo impulsive decisions you've not yet made? Would you be willing to pay the price of self-control? In the safety of your counseling office, it's often helpful to play out your clients' most impulsive thoughts without the slightest bit of judgment. The more you can play out future scenarios, impulsive decisions, realistic consequences, and what your clients would be willing to do to go back and "undo" something that they haven't even technically done yet, the more you can expand their consciousness and move them from the impulsive, emotional center of their brain to the higher-level thinking center that will help them make more effective decisions.

It's never too late to undo what hasn't yet been done.  

Countertransference in the Rearview Mirror May Be Closer Than it Appears

My wife and I had reason to be on the “other side” of town last week, that part of the city where I lived my previous life with my previous wife. While my wife listened patiently to a story I had surely recounted many times, I do believe I caught the slightest hint of glaze slowly creeping its way over her eyes.

As we drove by an otherwise innocuous restaurant, I slowed down and replayed a scene in my mind’s eye that unfolded dramatically and indelibly over 30 years before in that very same spot. I wasn’t simply a novice therapist at the time, green around the gills, but one who was quickly and easily stymied into therapeutic paralysis during family sessions, particularly those that were contentious and loud, too closely paralleling the not-so-just-below-the-surface drama that pervaded my childhood.

The particular family I was working with at the time consisted of a mother, stepfather, father, stepmother and two children from the original marriage.The mother and father had divorced several years before they got to me, and if they had attempted therapeutic intervention at the time, it was surely not evident and the wounds from that original bond had not even remotely begun to heal.

I often felt sad, powerless and wordless in those sessions, which my supervisor suggested I expand to include all members of the family. Had I been more experienced, I could have more adeptly navigated that brutal emotional terrain. And had my supervisor even the slightest sense of how to move beyond simple structural realignment of parental hierarchies, I could have more effectively guided these desperate people in their re-integrative work. And perhaps, had I been more forthcoming with my supervisor about the immense internal struggle I experienced with that family and how it triggered my own childhood insecurities and rage, I may have been more effective in helping them move forward in their lives. And maybe, just maybe, a traumatic and traumatizing event would have been avoided.

The long and painful short of the story is that I received a call from the father from his hospital bed and listened in horror as he told me how he had been shot that morning by the stepfather… in front of the children.

***

Flash forward to the present and that very same restaurant parking lot in which I now sat with my wife, once again retelling the story of how years before, on that side of town, in that very spot, the drama of what would eventuate in my own divorce played out.

I had just discovered that my first wife was having an affair with the law partner of my best friend. Drugs were involved, as were all-night binges, secrets, lies and betrayal; you know, the usual. I had followed my wife one night to that very parking lot and soon found myself in a made for-television imbroglio, fitting for the reality show “Cheaters.” At the height of that blazing row, a car pulled up, the drive slowly rolled down his window, and said “how you doing Dr. Rubin… need any help with your marriage?” It was, you guessed it, the father from the warring family who had been shot the week before by his connubial replacement.

The rock singer, Meatloaf has a song “Objects in the Rearview Mirror May Appear Closer Than They Are” in which he recounts painful memories of childhood abuse, stinging him still and dragging him back. In that moment in the parking lot I was transported back to the state of emotional pain and therapeutic impotence that working with that family had triggered in me at the time. And that feeling lingers still, although not as painfully and poignantly, thanks to subsequent (good) supervision, personal psychotherapy and the wisdom to know and feel the difference between past and present when working with couples and families, particularly when countertransference comes a knocking. 

The Not-So-Great Gatsby: An Illustrative Look at the Use of Literature in a Therapy Session

 The intake form says “the fifteen-year old Caucasian female ingested 100+ Tylenol tablets,” an apparent suicide attempt. The referral for outpatient family therapy was from MacLean Hospital, a premiere mental-health facility in the Boston area. ” The intake form says nothing about the circumstances of this suicidal gesture, no storyline specifying cause and effect”, no reference to “triggers” or family dysfunctions, really nothing at all useful. And so it most certainly says nothing to warn me that when Dana Cantrell smiles a certain smile, a smile dripping with supercilious insincerity, it stings. Even with her perfect teeth.

I have the intake form in one hand when I step across the threshold, the other hand holding the door open, and call out her name. She doesn’t bother to look up. I know it is her on the sofa, as she is the only adolescent in the waiting room. And I know she heard me. I decide to watch her silently, marveling at how hypnotic a cell phone can be. An elderly man sitting at the other end of the couch notices me looking and smiles. “Young lady,” he says to Dana, “you’re being summoned.”

She looks up at the man but doesn’t acknowledge him. She grips the cell phone like it is a sword handle before pushing herself off the chair. She walks towards me, head bent forward, airy, bouncy hair, like a patch of glowing wheat yielding to a gentle wind, covering her face. She jets through the doorway without a word and strides down the hallway as if she knows where she is going and then abruptly twists her head around and says, “So, you going to tell me what room?”

“How you doing?” I ask, soon after I situate myself in a chair, a few feet from Dana, who is on the couch. She is wearing an immaculate white fleece pullover sweater and lavender sweatpants. Her thighs are hiked up against her chest and her chin rests on her knees.

“Fine.” Her response is sharp, like a thrown dart. “My mom will be up in a minute.”

She is studying her phone. I let her be. Her mother enters, dressed in business attire, bluish-black pinstripe, and wearing tan sneakers, stylish Vans, the kind my daughter loves. She sits in a chair to the left of mine, leaving Dana alone on the couch. She sits primly, like a Downton Abbey character, with both feet planted and her hands clasped and resting on her thighs. She is trim, attractive, with deep blue eyes and boyish short hair parted on the side.

The three of us fumble through the usual therapy dance. Typically, I ask questions to elicit the client’s point of view about why we’re here together and the client explains how life hurts. Sometimes a client will even say why it hurts. But Dana stonewalls. She mumbles something.

“What did you say, sweetie?” Mom asks.

“I’m saying this, this whatever you call it, therapy, this therapy isn’t important.” She lifts herself from a slouch and spreads out her hands, palms down, and waves them, a kind of magician-like maneuver, the kind that serves as a prelude to astonishing the audience by making something either appear or disappear.

“My understanding is that you tried to kill yourself,” I say.

“Who cares.”

“You mean, no one cares?”

“No, I don’t mean that. I mean it isn’t important.”

“Trying to kill yourself isn’t something important to discuss?” I say.

“Not anymore.”

“Not anymore because, what?”

“Because it just isn’t,” she says. “It’s wasting my time. I’ve got homework. I’m busy. I already told you, I’m fine.”

“She’s been hospitalized, I guess you know that,” Mom says. “She took some Tylenol.” She reaches for the tissue box on the table in front of her.

“Get over it, Mom,” Dana says.

“I don’t know why in the world she’d do that,” Mom says. “Really, I don’t.”

I believe that to be the truth.

A Session at Dana’s Dad’s House

I notice The Great Gatsby on a table next to the front door of her father’s house, a small Cape-Cod style structure near an ocean bay, an apparent haven for seagulls. Dana’s parents had undergone a bitter divorce—an experience familiar to me—and it would have been folly to bring them both into a session together. But I wanted to round out the family picture so I arranged to meet with Dana at her father’s home, where she spends about a third of her time.

Her father, a mildly affable man with a reddish, leathery face, thinning brown hair, and solid build, ushers me in and asks if I’d like something to drink. He’s wearing pale-blue wrinkled shorts that go down to the knee caps and a faded light-purple t-shirt that says “Life is Good”. I see Dana lying on the couch, one bare leg hiked up so the ankle is hooked onto the couch back. She’s studying her phone. She doesn’t acknowledge my entry into the home. I signal to her father to go into the kitchen. I pick up the book without a clear idea why and follow him. He pours me iced tea.

“Thanks for letting me meet the two of you here,” I say.

Her father resumes slicing zucchini and some leafy green vegetable. “Well, I’m glad you could come,” he says. Then he says, “I’m sorry.”

“About what?”

He slices and without looking up he says, “It’s just that I forgot about the session. I had the impression it was tomorrow. I spent the day working on my boat.” He stops slicing and retrieves something from the refrigerator, a vegetable I don’t recognize. “So I’m quite disheveled, as you can see. You caught me in the middle of preparing dinner.”

“Probably should have texted or called, I guess.”

“Not at all. My bad.” He chuckles. “Jesus, did I just say that? I’m sounding like my son. But seriously—glad you’re here.”

“Is she?” I say.

He looks up, as if he could see Dana through the wall. “Dana? What kid enjoys therapy?”

He’s right. Therapy is for people who find themselves sufficiently unsatisfied with how it feels to be alive that they’ll bracket time to seek out a stranger to talk to. Not many teens find that appealing.

“How is she managing?” I say.

“Should I be worried that I’m not worried?”

“Depends on your level of attentiveness, I suppose.”

“Meaning?” he asks.

“I mean, if you’re not worried but you haven’t been paying attention to what’s happening with Dana, then maybe you should be worried that you’re not worried.”

“I’m observing. I’m asking questions. So I don’t think that’s an issue. The kid’s doing great, from the looks of it.”

“That’s good,” I say. “We want our kids to do great.”

“Yeah, but I thought she was doing great a few months ago. And look what happened."

True to form, Dana is still outstretched on the couch looking at her phone. She’s wearing gym shorts and what is clearly her Dad’s shirt, a light blue sweatshirt with “Martha’s Vineyard” written on it. It makes her head look small, her features more childlike. I place The Great Gatsby on the glass coffee table and retrieve a dining-room chair. This time, unlike at our previous session, I position it some distance away. I intend for there to be a chasm between us. I intend for the communication today to require vocal effort. She pretends to ignore me; she seems determined to stare at her phone. I reach for the book and examine the cover, making a show of it, hoping to get a reaction from her; it is a promotional issue, with “Now a Major Motion Picture” written across the top and Leonardo DiCaprio looking directly at the reader. Serendipity, I think to myself, has delivered this book, at this moment, with this girl outstretched on a couch, throw-blanket covering one leg, the other bare leg still stretched upward at a forty-five degree angle, this girl pretending she’s on the other end of the planet.

” I often use movies and literature as a gateway into therapeutic matters, and sometimes the results are profound” (results hinging on the client’s capacity and willingness to go deep), so I rarely bypass an opportunity that presents itself. But I never know how things will go.I don’t wait for eye contact. I ask Dana if she’s already read the book. She nods, still absorbed in her phone. “And?” I ask. She tells me it was boring, pointless, and the movie version “sucked.” She still hasn’t looked at me. I’m undaunted by her negative review and ask her what she thinks of Gatsby himself. She says he was rich, filthy rich. “And?” I ask again. She mumbles something about the fact that he still couldn’t get what he wanted.

“Meaning Daisy?” I say.

Finally, she looks my way. “Obviously.”

I tell her it isn’t so obvious. “Daisy might be a stand-in for something else.”

“Like what?” she asks. I’m surprised. I detect a tone of genuine sincerity.

“That’s what I’d like to know. Something more vital than Daisy—maybe that’s what he’s after.”

“He was rich,” she repeats.

“So?” I say.

“What else does he need? Makes no sense, that book. He died because he couldn’t get what he wanted. Makes no sense.”

“How so?” I ask.

“What do you mean, how so?”

“I mean, how did that happen, you know, Gatsby dying because he couldn’t get what he wanted. I mean, I know the plot really well, so I’m not asking about that. I was wondering about your view of how the two things—death and wanting-and-not-getting—are connected.”

“I don’t know,” she answers swiftly. “Who cares anyway? I thought this was therapy, not a literature class.”

I tell her that I like talking about books, that great novels are the best way to understand human psychology, definitely better than psychology textbooks. She is unmoved.

“Why was Gatsby so persistent? Why did he obsess over winning Daisy back?”

“Boys are like that,” Dana says.

“But he’s filthy rich, like you say. He’s handsome.”

Dana mulls that over and mutters that guys get obsessed over girls and the whole thing is stupid. “Guys are stupid.”

“But I’m wondering what you think about this: Do you think something was missing in Gatsby’s life? Did he think Daisy could fulfill him in some way?”

“Look, Gatsby’s a rich guy. Rich guys are used to getting what they want. End of story.”

“No, Dana. Not the end of the story. Not by a long shot.”

“Yeah. End of story.”

Dana’s Marvelous Plan

Dana likes to say she’s “back on track.” I had asked her what that means and she looked at me in astonishment. Then she said, “Well, you do this for a living, so I suppose you wouldn’t understand.” She presumes to know me, so she thinks I don’t get it.

Her Marvelous Plan—I understand it well: Ivy League college as a segue to a fancy grad school, medical research, professional recognition, big money, big home, big trips to exotic places with lodging in big fancy hotels. Life lived on a big canvas with a reliable, high-achieving husband with unbounded aspirations and gorgeous, high-vocabulary children inheriting more of the same unbounded aspirations. The world always bending to your will. The world, this life, under your control.

If only she knew of the poster on my dorm-room wall, the one with big italicized print, saying “Living Well is the Best Revenge.” The picture on which this line was superimposed put a particular materialistic gloss on the notion of “living well.” A vivid photograph of a juiced-up, vibrantly-colored sports car, with a scantily clad blonde woman contorting her sculpted body over the hood, as if to say, “I’m your reward.” “Success” as a kind of retaliation. You’ll get what’s coming to you—thrills, pleasure—if you just bear down with grim determination. The poster was a kind of beckoning—get to that point in my life where I can say, ”I prevailed, I fucking prevailed.”

“What about the Tylenol?” I had asked her.

I’m thinking: “What about your Marvelous Plan?”

“What about it?”

“What led up to it?”

“Who cares? Typical shit—ooh, sorry. I’m not supposed to curse, am I?”

“What sort of shit?”

“Typical shit,” she said. “You know, my BFF broke up with her boyfriend and he starts hitting on me and . . . . Why am I telling you this? Who cares, come on, really—who cares?”

“Typical teenage shit, you got this future all planned out, because you’re going to be Ms. Hotshot someday, and you down a hundred Tylenol pills.”

“While my mom was watching Netflix in her room. Yup.”

Lessons from Literature

I know what I’d like to do, in terms of where to take the discussion, but I don’t know how. I want to discuss the relationship between life and the way we experience this ineffable thing, this illusion we call the self.

“There are things we can say about who Gatsby is on the inside by looking at the externals of his life. Do you agree with that?”

“He’s a rich guy,” Dana says. “I guess that means he’s driven. Motivated.”

“And that’s a good thing, as you see it.”

“I’m not into losers,” she says.

Her phone dings. A text alert. She pulls it out from the couch cushion, taps out a response.” She looks at me. “Sorry.”

“Back to Gatsby,” I say.

“Seriously?” she says. She leans her head back, exposing her white throat. “Dad!” she yells out. “I thought this was supposed to be therapy!” Dad steps into the doorframe of the kitchen and tells her to focus.

I wonder if he’s going to join us. “I’m curious, Dana. Actually I’m a little confused.”

“About what?” she says.

“You say Gatsby’s rich—and he does have a lot of money . . . .”

“Which makes him rich, so don’t play games with me, okay?”

“No doubt. He’s rich, and that makes him a winner.”

“Right,” she says.

“So it’s easy to tell the difference between winners and losers?”

“Not always,” she says. “He dies at the end, right? So that complicates things.”

“Are you saying he’s a loser because he allowed himself to be destroyed by his demons?”

“A person could be both. I’m right, right?”

“You tell me,” I say.

“He got caught up in bullshit. Drama, as you like to say.”

“Yeah, definitely drama. But at least at the outset, Gatsby’s outer situation—his wealthy lifestyle—reflected who he was on the inside. You believe that.”

Dana becomes more tentative, warier, if not defensive. And yet, most importantly, I sense from her wrinkled brow she is intrigued by the colloquy. “I guess so,” she says. “Being rich does say something positive about you. Come on. I’m right, right?”

“But that’s incomplete, isn’t it? I mean, that’s the point when it comes to Jay Gatsby, right? That’s why you can’t tag him definitively as a winner or a loser.”

“What I remember is that he lies about his past. He’s ashamed of it. I’m right, right?” I nod to validate her memory. “So he’s living a lie. People in my class talked about how he was living a lie.”

“You mean he’s lost his grip on reality? He lives in an illusion?”

Dana thinks for a minute. “I’d say he had false hopes. Are false hopes illusions?”

I tell her they are. I don’t tell her that maybe the whole enterprise of hoping rests on illusions. Maybe, as Buddhist teacher Pema Chodron says, “we’re addicted to hope.” I take her to mean that, in this culture, we have lost the ability to find contentment in the present, and thus we have become dependent on, grasp at, some hoped-for future outcome to fulfill us.

Dana says, “Then that’s what did him in.”

“I agree. Illusions end up leading to harm.” As does grasping, clinging, the relentless pursuit of something “better” within one’s advantage-seeking scheme. I’m hoping she will say something about Gatsby’s pursuit of riches as a stratagem to get what he thinks he really wants, which is Daisy’s love, but that his actual quest is for something beyond Daisy. ” I’m hoping that I can use that literary analysis as leverage to get Dana to consider what her achievement-oriented mindset is really about.”

The simplest lesson to draw from The Great Gatsby—simplest in terms of most obvious, as it superficially relates to Dana’s psychological profile—is Gatsby’s foolish mental model that things of value in this life can be purchased. If I was inclined to moralize with Dana, I might well push the point that American consumerism corrodes the soul, breeds psychological dysfunction, and generates emotional discontent. But I’m interested in something a bit more recondite. Fundamentally, Gatsby feels inadequate and his pursuit of extraordinary wealth is a palliative for, as well as a defense against, that feeling. I suspect something like that is true for Dana. The fact that Dana is like the vast majority of Americans, equating purchasing power with value, commodifying all of life, is no doubt important to address, if she is to achieve meaningful growth.

“So then you think he’s a loser in the end,” Dana says.

“Do we have to lump people into categories like that?”

“Why not? Makes things easier.” She lowers her raised leg, slides it under the throw-blanket. She scoots down the couch slightly so as to be in a fully reclining position. She’s indicating that she’s losing interest.

“Are you open to the possibility, Dana, that often it isn’t helpful to lump and divide people and experiences into simple categories because it often gets in our way of seeing things clearly.”
Dana shrugs. She pulls out her phone from the couch cushion, peeks at it, and puts it on her stomach. “Are we done yet?” she asks.

I ignore the question. I had her plugged in for a while, but no longer. If I keep going, which I so much want to do, I fear I will be satisfying my needs and not attending to hers. Which is why, when she pulls out her phone, I say nothing. I rise, as if in defeat, and walk over to a side window, long and narrow, to see if I can see the bay. A fence blocks the view. I stand by the window, nonetheless. I look over my shoulder and see that the phone has thoroughly arrested Dana’s attention. I’m not so much seeing Dana with a phone in her hand as I’m perceiving what life has turned into. It’s a sad sight. Very sad.

I return to the chair, heavy-hearted, near tears, thinking I’ll give the session one more push. “I’m wondering,” I plead to Dana, “if we can forget about evaluating Gatsby and just explore whether his struggles might speak to your struggles.” I can’t rid myself of the feeling that I need this girl to talk to me. As if I see the sorrow up ahead for her and I’m the only one to warn her.
She lowers the phone and glares at me, as if I’ve just insulted her. “I don’t have struggles,” she declaims in a low register. She lifts the device to her face once again, obliterating me from her world. “Not anymore. Things are fine now.”

Reflections on Literature in Therapy

Gratifying therapy, as I experience it, is like reading high-brow modernist literature, books by writers like Joyce, Faulkner, Woolf, books that demand the reader’s collaboration, books where the first read is only preparation for the second read, which allows for you to then read the book for the first time. Things unseen, hidden within ambiguities that once seemed so transparent, become visible, sometimes even shocking, with that third-first read. As with therapist and client, the reader must work collaboratively with the writer to construct a version of truth, in contrast to the run-of-the-mill novelist who spoon-feeds plot to the passive entertainment-seeking reader. The former experience, the more arduous one, is truer to life because life itself does not deliver us experiences with ready-made interpretations; our life experiences come to us in fragments, their connections to other fragments opaque, hidden, ambiguous. ” Our lives, and especially our falls and failings, our sorrows and frustrations, are like literary texts, awaiting second- and third-read interpretations.” Much therapy and counseling, however, is of the latter variety, all plot and quick judgments. With the most gratifying therapy experiences, the first swipe through the “presenting problem” is only preparatory for the second swipe. And then finally, deep into the process, the client and I can finally look at the whole life-drama as if for the first time, a thick and rich drama that resists synopsis and boiled-down diagnoses, a drama that, absurdly, was once distilled as a “presenting problem” in insurance paperwork.

It’s in that spirit that I use quality literature and film in a therapy session. It’s a device for collaborating with the client to “read” their own life-story multiple times, with each read penetrating deeper into the “text,” because one’s life experiences are exactly that—texts to be read. It’s a high-wire act because, as can be seen in my experience with Dana, you just don’t know if the whole thing is going to go kaput. I guess I’m saying it takes a bit of moxie to do it. Easier, for sure, to stick to a CBT script. But the chances of professional burnout diminish, because sometimes magic can happen, because this kind of therapy can be fun, adventurous. I intentionally provided this vignette, where nothing momentous happened, where the effort to engage with Dana was met with resistance, to provide something realistic. I dislike the usual emphasis on heroic success stories that make the rest of us feel inadequate.

Dana graduated high school with honors, scored high on the SAT exam, and got into an elite college, which means she’s off and running in pursuit of her Marvelous Plan to be rich and envied. She sent me an invitation to her graduation. I sent her a card, thanking her but declining the invitation. She is doing what we all endeavor to do in those tender years: construct ourselves into a Somebody. But what happens when our Somebody-ness project goes awry? What happens when things fall apart (when, not if)? Maybe in that moment of trying to cope with whatever shock and tribulation hits her, Dana will have a flashing recollection of her adolescent self and this odd man talking in her father’s living room about The Great Gatsby.

Eliana Gil on Play Therapy and Working with Traumatized Children

What is Play Therapy

Lawrence Rubin: Eliana, you are perhaps most well-known for using art and play therapy to help traumatized children. But first let’s take a step back by opening the conversation around play therapy, because many of the people who will be reading this interview may not have had formal training or experience with this form of intervention or may work with children but still may have questions about how play therapy works. What exactly is play therapy and how can play be used therapeutically?
Eliana Gil: I think that there are so many misunderstandings about play therapy.
I have a very good friend who always says, “I can see where the play is, I just don’t get where the therapy is.”
I have a very good friend who always says, “I can see where the play is, I just don’t get where the therapy is.” In other words, I think because play is such a generic activity – a worldwide activity – and people are so used to children playing in the parks and the playgrounds, that it is very difficult for them to think that such a spontaneous behavior can have any therapeutic benefit.

So, I always say to people that play inherently has some very curative qualities, as Charlie Schaefer has discussed so well. Play gives kids the ability to solve problems, to pretend, to compensate for feelings that are very difficult to express, to have fun, and to delight in. All of those are really positive things and it’s clear that play tends to release endorphins. You’re also forming bonds with the person that you’re playing with. So, there are all kinds of inherent qualities that a child is engaged in when they’re using play.

When kids come to a therapeutic relationship there’s a relational piece that’s built in where the therapist is viewing the child’s play and interpreting that play in a different way than an untrained person. A therapist is going to look at the child’s play with a different lens and begin to interpret it as the child’s way of releasing emotions or trying to process things that are difficult for them to express because they may be worried about something or they may be feeling conflicted about something.

In other words, I think what ends up happening with kids when they come into that therapeutic environment is that there’s an expression of things that are very internalized that begin to make their way out into the open so that therapists can learn about them. I always trust that whatever is on the child’s mind will come forward – and that if we give them specific kinds of props then there are things that are really going to be much more amenable to symbolic play. What we’re trying to do is gain an understanding of something that’s internalized and that children may not have words for. So, again, the context of a play therapy environment is much more structured than free play, and the therapist is focused on the child’s play in a different way than you would be if you were simply playing with a child.
I think what ends up happening with kids when they come into that therapeutic environment is that there’s an expression of things that are very internalized that begin to make their way out into the open so that therapists can learn about them.

Free play tends to have very few goals. I think the intent when you’re doing play therapy is to advance certain goals that have to do with a child’s growth, or removing obstacles that they may be experiencing towards development, or helping them deal with traumatic events that they can’t figure out what to do with except they have big feelings or they have thoughts that they can’t really make sense of. So, the therapeutic relationship is intended to help create this environment of trust and comfort so that the child can do some of the things that they will do naturally if given the time, space, and proper context. 
LR: You talk about play therapy as such a natural outgrowth of play in the hands of someone who appreciates it, understands it and uses it intentionally with children. What do you think are some of the essential ingredients that make for a good play therapist?
EG: Yes. That’s a really good question. I think that for the most part it has to be somebody who feels really comfortable with children who can find some benefit of their own in the experience of sitting with a child. I think they have to be relationally-oriented and comfortable with connections that are emotional. It’s interesting because you meet so many different kinds of play therapists. Every now and then I say, “Wow. It’s hard to believe that they do play therapy.” When I say that it’s usually because I find a person who is a little bit more rigid in her thinking or looks a little bit physically uncomfortable or shy, and yet that same person with a child could be completely different, you know?

I think many of our play therapy colleagues are by nature very playful, maybe take more risks, and think a little bit more openly. I also think that they are oftentimes well-prepared. I think that play therapists can get a little bit defensive about the potshots that come about “it’s not a credible field,” or it’s “hocus pocus.” I think because of that we tend to be more serious about how we prepare ourselves for the job. Mostly now I see the young people wanting more and more courses, and even more and more certificates in this and that, and they really want to prepare themselves to do the best job that they can do. But the qualities that I seem to think of when I think about the play therapists I know are flexibility, and the ability to be warm, connected, emotionally present, and playful with the child.

First Play Therapy Experiences

LR: I remember the very first play therapy experience I ever had was as college psychology intern in the Child Life Program center of a New York pediatric hospital. I was mesmerized by the playroom and how the children gravitated to play during very serious moments in their medical treatments. Would you share one of your earliest experiences when you realized that play was a pretty cool thing to be able to do in a therapeutic context?
EG: Yes. I remember this very clearly. My first internship was at the Children’s Trauma Center in Oakland, California. All of those children had very severe experiences of physical abuse and neglect. One of the first kids that I got was a little boy who had been malnourished. So, he was really small, he didn’t look well, and he had been in the hospital for a few months. He was now going into a foster care placement. I remember feeling like I wanted to do the very best job that I could do. I had no idea really what I was doing or what to expect, I just had read so much about him and already had so much empathy for him. I remember that he walked into the room and just grabbed me around the knees and just wanted to hug me.

I didn’t know what to do, and was just patting him on the back. Then he grabbed my hand right and wanted to walk me around the room. I hadn’t been in the room enough to really see everything and it was interesting to see the things that he was pointing out. But eventually he got over to a little kitchen and he wanted me to sit down. Then he sat in front of that kitchen and started making soup with a spoon and then he wanted me to open my mouth and eat the soup. So, there was I was going, “wow,” I didn’t quite even have enough time to think about what was happening.

I just was so amazed by the fact that he immediately found what he needed to do, and that this was so important to him, and that he was immediately showing me the things that were on his mind and they had to do with the fact that he was malnourished, and he hadn’t been given enough food, and he was completely over-focused on food. So, for the next few months, this was his play. It was about making the food and about feeding me. Eventually, he became the person that would be fed, but it took awhile for him to allow himself to be in the position of showing that he was hungry or wanted to be fed. It was an amazing process to behold – my first experience with being led through this room with this little child who eventually just knew exactly what he needed to do and really was able to show me what he needed from me right away. From then on, I was just completely hooked.

I couldn’t wait to get back in there and started having all of these fantasies about should I bring real food in, or should we make this, or what should happen? It was very interesting because he eventually wanted to be given a bottle. So, there was a baby bottle, and then we were feeding the baby bottle to the babies, and then suddenly he started sucking on the baby bottle, and then he wanted to come into my lap and suck on the baby bottle. I remember having so many questions at that time about should I let this happen, is this okay, or is he getting regressed. It was such an amazing first case for me to have.

Luckily, I had a woman supervising me who wasn’t necessarily a play therapist, but definitely knew a lot about children’s behavior and some of the ways that they acted out some of the traumas that they had endured, and so she was completely willing to follow the child’s lead and to deal with my questions and anxiety about whether this was helping the child. She just kept saying, “Eventually, you’re going to trust that this is going to be helpful to the child.” I was in a program where they let you see the child long enough, so I worked with the child for something like two and a half years. It was so gratifying just to see this child eventually be able to receive the nurturing he needed from his foster parent who eventually adopted him, and to watch him act out all of the changes in the play that he was going through.

It was incredible, but it all came out through the play because he really was very much language-delayed given the fact that he had so much neglect in his early life, so the play was really how he spoke and how he showed me everything that was important to him. The relational aspect of play therapy was in the forefront because it was clear to me that there was a lot of countertransference that was going on. Luckily, as I said, the supervisor was able to help me navigate through all of that. That was my first and my most memorable play therapy experience.

Play Therapy as a Creative/Expressive Modality

LR: What strikes me the most is there was a beautiful parallelism between your relationship with the child and your supervisor’s relationship with you. You trusted that the child would take you where he needed to go, and your supervisor trusted that you would go where you needed to go with this child. So, the whole relationship – that three-part relationship – was this wonderful teamwork of trust and security.

Art, music, dance, drama and play therapy are described as creative/expressive modalities, but I thought that all therapies involve a certain degree of creativity and expressivity. Why the divide?
EG: I agree with you that, yes, I think we need to be creative and promote expression in almost any therapy that we do. But I think that it is the utilization of some of the creative arts that some therapists simply don’t choose to do. There are so many. For example, I got my doctorate in family therapy and I saw some of the most creative family therapists in the world. They were verbally creative. I mean, I remember Peggy Papp and some of the family therapy sessions that she would do. She would get people up and she would do family sculpting. There was so much creativity involved in that.

However, if you said to them anything about, “Well, you know, maybe we can do some artwork during the therapy,” there was less of a tendency to want to do that because the emphasis was so much more on verbal communication and people just didn’t feel as comfortable. Oftentimes, they would say, “Well, I don’t know what to do after somebody makes a piece of art.” I would watch, for example, some of those family therapists put the kids – little kids like under six – sort of in a corner, give them a paper and pencil, and ask them to draw something or just kind of be quiet while the therapy took place with the parents. If the kids were older, they were very interested. There’s so much creativity, for example, in circular questioning and different things that family therapists do, but the kids were in the corner making these pictures.
I was always interested in pictures they made. You know, let me go through that trashcan and see what they threw out.
I was always interested in pictures they made. You know, let me go through that trashcan and see what they threw out.

So, I think it really is a different focal point. It’s saying I value the artwork that people can create, I value the process of doing it, and I value the product that they come up with. I think it has therapeutic benefits to allow people to engage in those activities and then to process those activities. It’s a different kind of punctuation, as it were.

I love watching movement therapists because they get people off the seats. And then suddenly they access a different kind of energy that’s available when you start doing that. In music therapy now, there’s so much research that’s indicating that it can be really incredibly therapeutic for people. Then there’s the access issue – that a lot of people feel, “Well, I can’t do that because I’m not trained to do that.” So, there’s a little bit of that separatism with each of those fields valuing that modality so much that there’s coursework required and practicums required. For example, to become a drama therapist, which my daughter recently became, you have to really study a lot about the history and development of drama as therapy, and how it is utilized in contemporary circles, and how it is different from psychodrama.

There’s a ton of stuff there that I don’t know anything about, but I watch her do it and it’s just – it takes your breath away because it’s punctuating the therapeutic process a little bit differently and it is valuing an activity or some kind of creative process in a different way. So, we, as play therapists, tend to do that with play. One of my little pet peeves is that almost every person that I know that works with children will have toys, papers and markers in their room, but the purpose of those things in the room is so much different when you’re trained as an art or a play therapist.

So, I really encourage people to decide how they actually even say what they’re doing because I think unless you’ve been really trained to be an art therapist you should say you’re doing art or using art in a therapeutic fashion, which is true. But to be either a trained play therapist or a trained art therapist, you are privileging that activity in a different way and you think of that as where the therapy is happening, not as a mechanism to get to a therapy process. I see so many people – they’ll get kids to start a painting and then as soon as kids are like spreading the paint around, they say, “So, how are you feeling?” 
LR: Right. “How are you feeling today?”
EG: Yes. “How are you and your mom doing this week or weekend?” So, what you do is you interrupt the process that art therapists consider so valuable because it is right hemisphere of the brain activity. So, you’ve actually invited someone to be in that area of their brain where there is symbol language, metaphor, and all this really important stuff going on, and suddenly you crash in with a question and you’re asking them to shift into this cerebral activity of responding to you. Now, you’re not doing either verbal therapy well or art therapy well. The same applies in cases of play therapy.
LR: So, it’s the difference between seeing the toys, games, and materials as sort of adjunctive as opposed to being the means through which we connect with the child –
EG: Exactly.
LR: – as opposed to really seeing that those are the means of communication?
EG: You’ve got it.
LR: Have you had any thoughts about the use of play therapy with adults and even perhaps the elderly?
EG: Yes. One of the things that became very clear to me being in the family therapy field before I got into child therapy was this lack of connection between, “hey, we’re here to work with the grown-ups and the older kids,” and the people mostly in the child development field who were seeing kids individually and/or with their parents. It just felt like this real disconnect where the family therapist didn’t feel comfortable with kids and the play therapist often didn’t really want the parents in the room. So, that was one of those bridges that I really felt needed to be built between those two fields. So, I started making a concerted effort to teach family therapists how to do play therapy, how to invite younger kids into their meetings, and vice versa with the individual play therapists to consider the possibility of dyadic work with parents and kids.

I started thinking about activities that could be done in systemic work and family play activities that could be brought in to invite everyone to engage. Thus, family play therapy was one of the things that I felt really was the connecting bridge, and there were simple things that could be taught to family therapists and to play therapists that could actually engage this systemic point of view and/or the expressive point of view. So, I totally see that. In the process of doing that, of course, I always invited everyone who was living in the home and that meant some of the grandparents and other people who happened to be staying with the families. So, I worked with a lot of people that were seniors, as it were.

The one thing I haven’t done which I think would be a wonderful thing to do is to actually go into senior centers. I know that that’s being done. I know that some of the senior programs that I’ve visited with my mom do playful activities, they do bingo, and they have balls that people throw around. I’ve seen video examples of these kinds of things. I think that would be a wonderful thing to interject because laughter is really important, as we now know, for the whole system to kind of get re-energized. I think it was Patch Adams who first started talking about the healing power of laughter and play. So, I think that that’s wonderful to incorporate with seniors.

Is it Evidence-Based?

LR: I feel compelled at this point to throw in this nagging question that I know clinicians, especially those just starting out, have. The creative-expressive therapies have – and maybe especially play therapy – have struggled for scientific recognition when compared to some of the more empirically informed practices, like cognitive behavior therapy. Does this tension in the field detract from or add to the legitimacy of play therapy? Are we just trying to prove ourselves in a way that we may not have to? Or do we have to?
EG: Yes. Those are really good questions. I have seen an evolution over the last 10 to 15 years about this particular question. I was concerned about was the defensiveness that came with this debate. In other words, those of us who are in art therapy or in the expressive therapies obviously were defensive because the research hadn’t been done and maybe can’t be done as well. I mean, I think CBT, for example, is one of the easiest things to research because it is such an obvious protocol, you apply it, and then you see what the outcomes might be. But art and music? I mean, that’s a little bit more difficult to figure out.

Over the years, though, something interesting has happened. I think that it’s been good for us in the play therapy world because it has prioritized some of us doing research in play therapy, especially trying to figure out a way to do it when you’re not in an academic setting. So, doing some of the smaller research studies is useful and it’s valuable for us as therapists to put on that other hat and say, “We can accumulate some data.” It may not be the gold standard of a research study, but we can do something, and we can contribute something. So, that’s happened. I think there’s been a shift to incorporating the collection of data or data analysis when that is at all humanly possible.
Some of these evidence-based programs that are now on the record or are SAMHSA approved as evidence-based – these things actually incorporate play therapy.

But I think the other thing is that some play therapists really took on this whole notion of trying to get the evidence support that we as a field need. So, I feel really comfortable now that the play therapy research has really advanced a lot. So, that’s all good. I think that’s positive in the end for all of us. For example, Parent-Child Interaction Therapy has a component of psychoanalytic play therapy. Theraplay was just recognized by SAMHSA as being evidence-based and now, filial therapy looks to be evidence-based at this point because people have been doing research for quite a while.

There has been sort of a movement towards “let’s put an external stamp of approval on this,” but it legitimizes everything we do in a way. It has rippling effects into the larger play therapy field. So, I do think that we can all pretty much say now that we’re using evidence-based and practice-informed types of play therapy 
LR: Even though we may not put the emphasis on play as the carrier of change, it clearly is an important component?
EG: Well, yes. In some of those. Now, in others – I think in Theraplay, obviously play is what it is all about – play and relationship – and I think filial therapy as well. But these other two that are a little bit more recognized outside the play therapy field – the child-parent psychotherapy as a model for working with domestic violence. CBT was originally designed to work with physically abusive parents, as I remember. But those are a little bit less connected to the play therapy world, and yet they are being recognized, valued, and they have a big inclusive piece that is play therapy. So, I think that’s interesting, but here’s where we are at. I think everybody is feeling a little bit settled, a little bit more able to justify what they do, and so I think that’s all good. It worked in the right direction.Then, just as a final comment, trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy, which many people were calling the gold standard for working with sexually abused children, is now a hybrid. 
LR: Trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy
EG: I’ve heard TFCBT people say that it’s a hybrid model. So, they use art, play, narratives, etc. to make the whole program a little bit more accessible to children. I think that’s interesting, too, that you can field test something, you can research it, and there’s a protocol that was researched. I think we’re very far away from using that rigid of a protocol anymore. I think that most people who use TFCBT are using it in ways that they have found is more accessible to the clients that they work with. But nevertheless, insurance companies and counties want to pay for is anything that is evidence-based, so there has been a financial push towards getting these evidence-based programs into effect as well.

Working with Traumatized and Abused Children

LR: On the heels of these comments about trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy, I know that you have been in the process of developing trauma-focused integrated play therapy. May I take a step back and ask a question that may be self-evident? What is it about play therapy that you have found to be particularly useful for kids and teens who have been abused and/or traumatized who may not be free, so to speak, to play?
EG: Well, it’s funny that you use the word free because I think by definition a traumatic event sort of traps the person. The person experiences helplessness, no options, and vulnerability, and young children really don’t have the cognitive ability to sort out what just happened, what meaning does it have, and what does it explain about that person, or me, or whatever it is that’s going on. Language is problematic for young children in terms of being able to both perceive and then report out what just happened sometimes because they don’t have the language skills, but other times because they sense that this isn’t something you speak about – that there’s something about it that remains sort of in secrecy and they may be encouraged or threatened to keep something secret.

So, for all of those reasons, they’re really not free. They don’t feel free to come forward to knock on someone’s door and say, “Hey, you know what just happened to me?” It’s a very complicated kind of situation, especially when it is interpersonal trauma in the family. Now, we’ve got to add to all of the things I just said the relational issues with the person you love, or the person that takes cares of you, or the person that you’re dependent on. It gets extremely complicated. So, I think what play does is allow a child to come forward to take whatever that big feeling, or that big thought, or whatever that language might be and somehow externalize it so that it’s out here and he or she can look at it and the therapist also can at least take in what the child is showing.

So, for example, one of the phrases I always use with kids is “You can tell me, or you can show me in whatever way you want.” That’s a really important little thing that goes a long way because if you just say to kids things like, “Yes, and then I’m going to just ask you some questions,” or, “And then you get to talk to me about that,” that’s inconsistent with what they’re in a position to do at that moment in time. So, to say instead, “You can just show me in whatever you want – you can draw about it, you can play about it, or any way that you want to show me,” doesn’t feel like so much pressure on the child. Just being able to give them that message that you can work at your own pace, I’m not going to ask you a bunch of questions in here, and you can show me what’s going on inside of you – that is it.
One of the phrases I always use with kids is “You can tell me, or you can show me in whatever way you want.”

Then I honestly do believe, as I said earlier, that they’ll bring to you whatever is on their mind or whatever big question or big feeling they have. I have a little kid who came in – this is just a little example, but I must have hundreds of little miniatures on shelves for doing sandtray work. This little girl had just been removed from her mother and she for some reason she zoned in on a mother kangaroo that had a joey in her pouch. What she did in the therapy – and this was a little four-year-old – what she did immediately was she took the little joey out and buried it. The rest of the session she was walking this mother kangaroo around the room going, “Where’s my baby? Where’s my baby?”

I just thought, “Oh, my gosh, this is exactly what’s on her mind.” Is she going to be found? Will her mother find her? Is her mother looking for her? How’s her mother doing? All of that separation stuff was immediate. That was this remarkable ability that toys have to speak to children and for them to speak with the toys. So, I’m just absolutely a believer that given this environment of calm and inviting kids to look around and see what they want to see – that eventually they’re going to show you whatever it is they need. I trust them to do that. 
LR: That’s that same trust that you shared around that very first case that you described and that seems to be an elemental part of your personality when it comes to kids – this sense of trust and the desire to empower children.
EG: Yep.
LR: Do you think that there are core qualities that make for a clinician who might become a competent play therapist for traumatized and abused children?
EG: It’s funny that you say that about that initial case. I now trust that process a whole lot more because I’ve seen it so many more times, but even then there was a little quality that I was trusting that something good was happening. So, I think that that’s part of it – you’ve got to believe in the value of the things that you’re offering. I take a child into a play therapy office and I feel like, “Okay, I’m doing the very best thing that I know for this child right now. I know this will be in some way beneficial. Whether he can start doing it immediately or it’ll take him some time to do it, I believe that he will pace himself, and that he needs to slowly walk towards the things that he fears, and that sometimes we push him too hard.”

Some of the programs that involve psycho-education for kids in the first few meetings to me seem like…
LR: Too much. Too much.
EG: Yes, they’re not really taking it in, and they’re probably just nodding their head, but I don’t know that they’re really getting it. I also really believe in that neuro-sequential model of therapy – the thing that Bruce Perry does where he says, “You know, you have to really think about the functioning of the brain. When you meet a kid for the first time, what are the parts of the brain that are most activated at that point?”
If you’ve got a kid who is scared to death, it’s the brain stem, right? So, it wouldn’t make any sense for me to start talking to that child. I have to first make sure that they can self-soothe or that they can somehow comfort themselves.
If you’ve got a kid who is scared to death, it’s the brain stem, right? So, it wouldn’t make any sense for me to start talking to that child. I have to first make sure that they can self-soothe or that they can somehow comfort themselves. So, I might be more willing to blow bubbles with that child than to sit there and say, “Let me tell you what we’re going to do,” because as Bruce says, “I mean, cognitive behavioral therapy is great, but you’ve got to wait until that part of their brain is online and that’s usually later.” They’re not usually online immediately.

So, that part has really kind of helped support some of what intuitively I was doing without really understanding why. It’s wonderful when work comes out that really supports everything you’ve been doing. Bruce of course values TFCBT or any kind of cognitive behavioral work. He just says that it has to be done at the right time. He says that he never starts with that. That’s something that I would say, too – that that is not my go-to. It could be a long-term goal or certainly a goal in the third phase of treatment, but not necessarily where I would start.
LR: Right. In your recent book, Post-Traumatic Play in Children, you differentiate between play therapy with traumatized children that you just described, and post-traumatic play. Can you explain that difference for people who are not even familiar with play, let alone play with kids who have been or are being traumatized or abused?
EG: Yeah. I think over the years what we’ve been able to identify is that children who have traumatic experiences oftentimes have this resource available to them which is called post-traumatic play, which is a literal acting out of the things that have occurred in a very miniaturized way. It has some very distinct features. Oftentimes, it is incredibly repetitive, so the child is initiating and completing the play in the same fashion over, and over, and over again. Sometimes you see differences in how kids are interacting in that play. There’s very little joy or spontaneity and it almost looks very structured and very rigid. Again, I think that this is the child’s desire to bring this experience out, and then to be able to start seeing it gradually, and eventually be able to feel things associated to it in a safe environment, and be able to use what is more typical in play therapy like pretend play, to incorporate some changes into the play and some new options and possibilities.

This process ends up unfreezing some of the play and helping that child move beyond the rigid memory of what happened into maybe what they wished would have happened or seeing a part of what they did as resilient or fighting back. But there’s some real opportunities here for movement for the children in this miniaturized and externalized play where they’re really projecting stuff and eventually showing that they can go beyond what happened into what is more normal for kids, which is compensatory play, or pretend play, or something where they change the end of the story just because they can and that begins then to free the child up.
There are times in therapy where you might want to “tickle the defenses,” as Carl Whitaker used to say….
So, it’s a beautiful process to behold and it is very much self-initiated. There are times in therapy where you might want to “tickle the defenses,” as Carl Whitaker used to say, and provide kids with some of the literal symbols if they’ve had a specific traumatic experience. That sometimes helps them initiate the play. I’m pretty sure there are some kids who can’t access this play for a long time, so they may look very different in a play therapy situation. They may look unresponsive or as if there’s “not much going on,” and then they may eventually be able to do post-traumatic play. So, one of my goals with kids who have been traumatized is always to facilitate the environment of the relationship so that they can eventually start doing post-traumatic play because I think it can be such a release for them. 
LR: So, not the environment of the playroom per say, but the environment of the relationship with the play therapist? –
EG: Yes, exactly.
LR: – where children come to feel free to share the unsharable, to express the inexpressible.
EG: Most of the kids who do get into the door with an interpersonal trauma – boy, have they been already interviewed by people, asked a million questions, and had to meet four or five new people. So, that’s why if you can do child-centered play therapy initially, if you can take all of that pressure off and alleviate the sense that the child has to provide immediate information, then I think then the child can begin to relax a little bit and eventually access their own healing resources.

I’m really interested how people self-repair in any catastrophe or tragedy. I’ve been interested to see how in different cultures, people pray and sometimes sing together. I remember in the streets of New York after 9/11 they started these drama therapy programs where people would come together and do these little plays. After the tsunami in Sri Lanka, I was really struck that some of the children would actually go pick the rubble up and create little villages. So, that reconstructive task of putting together that which was destroyed, I mean, that’s one of the benefits of play, right? There were the kids doing that and then sometimes they would destroy it and put it back because that was what had happened. But it’s beautiful to behold prayer meetings and just all of the different ways that people came together to draw pictures and paint things after tragedies, to both acknowledge and express all of the different ways that things had affected them and then how they had responded to it.
LR: I recently heard a TED talk with Andrew Solomon about how African healers view Western therapists who sit in a dark little room and ask sufferers to talk about the most upsetting things when for them, it’s the sunlight, and it’s dancing and movement with others that heals.
EG: There you go. There you go.
LR: So, I get it.
EG: I completely agree with that and understand that. That’s why with kids we have this great ability to just invite them into lots of different kinds of things. We just recently got our first animal assisted therapist and I can’t wait. We had been doing an equine program and to watch the kids with the horses was amazing. There’s a lot of research that shows that these are mechanisms for healing. There are going to be a lot of therapists who are going to say, “What? How is that different from having a dog at home?” I know there’s skepticism for almost everything, but we have to keep inviting people in lots of different ways because you don’t know what their way is going to be.
LR: You don’t. Well, clearly, you are a lifelong learner. Are you also a lifelong player, Eliana? Is play something that is important in your life outside of the therapy room?
EG: Yes, absolutely. My structured play activity is tennis and I play a lot of it. But I just pick up things. Like my new thing is stone art. So, I’ve been going on walks with the dog and I pick up stones and now I’m making this art with the stones and I’m really, really, really enjoying that. So, I would say, yes, playfulness and – gosh, you should see me with my grandchildren. 
LR: Oh, I can only imagine.
EG: That’s a treat for me. Then a lot of the Theraplay activities I love with the kids. Whenever I have groups of people in the house I’m always wanting to do something Theraplay-based because I just think it is so much fun. So, I love charades. I’m really good at charades. We do a lot of stuff like that when we get groups together. My kids are great that way, too. They know they are coming to play.

Superheroes in Psychotherapy?

These days, it is hard to flip through the television or cable channel listings or search movie offerings without being bombarded by ads, coming attractions or trailers for something or other superhero. These men, women, earthlings, aliens and everything in between are everywhere; flying in and out of our consciousness, challenging us to be bigger, better and stronger. They are in many ways role models for strength, morality, virtuosity and humanity, while also being poster children for weakness, vulnerability and fragility… heroes with feet of clay.

As a matter of “fact,” superheroes, despite their unflagging heroism and unwavering commitment to the greater good, are typically misunderstood, marginalized and often persecuted by those they seek to protect. Superheroes notoriously come from broken homes, have complex and conflicted family of origin relationships or have suffered immeasurable childhood traumas. They are lonely, self-doubting and tormented figures, shadowy reflections of our own frailties and fallibilities.

The brutal childhood loss of Bruce Wayne’s parents, Superman’s dislocation from his home planet Krypton, the Thing’s exposure to mutagenic radiation and Wonder Woman’s quest to find her place among humanity are but a few metaphors for the struggles that are common to all of us, whether or not we change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel in our bare hands or save entire civilizations.

Yet somehow, superheroes seem to wake up every morning, pull on their boots and spandex, ready to face the challenges of the day, just like you and me. But as it turns out, they manage to find strength, meaning, and identity in the very same ways that we mere mortals do; by aligning themselves with others such as in the X-Men, Avengers and Justice League. They seek comfort in relationships, continually and painfully look inward for a deeper sense of self understanding and self-acceptance, and when these methods fail, turn to psychotherapy. Yes, superheroes go to psychotherapy!

As it turns out, quite a few superheroes have turned to the therapeutic couch when all else and all others have failed them. Bruce Banner, a.k.a. the Hulk turned to fictitious neuromuscular psychiatrist Angela Lipscomb to help integrate his deeply fractured personality. Oliver Queen, a.k.a. Green Arrow sought solace from Dr. Edmond Cathcart to resolve painful inner conflicts, and Peter Parker, a.k.a. the Spiderman who is tormented by intrusive memories and the pull to his dark side (Venom), turned to Dr. Ashley Kafka so that he might vanquish his inner demons.

Interestingly, the psychotherapists who come to the rescue of these tormented superheroes struggle in many of the same ways that real-life psychotherapists often do. Dr. Frederick Wertham Blink, so-called “superhero shrink,” struggles to raise his own tormented teenage daughter, psychiatrist Leonard Samson wrestles with his own existential angst as he simultaneously struggles to render therapeutic assistance to the various heroes of the X-Factor, and Dr. Edmond Cathcart must somehow decompress from the challenging work of healing others just to muster the energy to leave his office at the end of the day.

Clearly then, superheroes are far more than two-dimensional fantasy heroes who model impossible standards for us to achieve. They are, despite alien origin, profound trauma and inevitable estrangement, very much human, and as such like the rest of us in need of connection, meaning and inner peace. So, they turn to psychotherapy. And in turn, their psychotherapists are often quite realistically portrayed in the comic-book world as caring, committed and loyal helpers, who also like the rest of us try to find a balance between our lives in and out of the office, within our own skins and in our own real-life relationships…all the while battling self-doubt, seemingly insurmountable odds and forces beyond our control. In other words, just like the rest of us therapists out there in the real world struggling to give it our best shot. 

The $5 Snake Phobia Cure

On my way to the airport recently my Lyft driver asked my wife and me what we do for a living, so I told him that we produce training videos for mental health professionals. Sometimes that’s a conversation stopper; people say something like “oh, interesting….” and the banter trails off. But he didn’t miss a beat and told me he had seen a psychologist for three sessions, but the therapist said very little, and he stopped going. I thought to myself, “oh no, another client with a sub-optimal experience with a too-passive therapist.” Although he was quite chatty, I didn’t feel we had enough “Lyft alliance” for me to inquire about the reason for his consultation, but he then relayed a related story.

He told me he had experienced a severe snake phobia, so much so that he couldn’t even look at a picture of a snake. He also had a fear of being alone (join the club, I thought). One day he was with a friend in a touristy area, and spotted a man with a large snake around his neck, offering the general public the privilege of sporting his snake in a photo pose for a mere $5. Before his pre-frontal cortex was able to chart out a course on Google maps to his Broca’s area to articulate that this wasn’t a business proposition he was interested in, his friend snatched the snake and put it around his neck, and snapped a few photos.

Somehow this quick action threw a monkey wrench into his previously established phobic narrative, and he found himself touching the snake and liking the experience. Voila, phobia cured in a few seconds for only $5!

This reminded me of an interview I did a few years ago with the legendary Albert Bandura at Stanford, where he relayed to me his studies using systematic densensitization to quickly and effectively cure snake phobics. When I first heard about this, I thought “so what?”—I’d been in private practice for many years, treated hundreds of clients, and didn’t recall a single one complaining of a snake phobia, or any other phobia for that matter. But Bandura explained that the folks in his study were in some cases really handicapped by their phobia, for example: plumbers who were afraid to crawl under a house because of their fear. And so eliminating the fear really did have profound ripple effects in their lives.

Such was the case with the unnamed Lyft driver. He told us that this instant success at curing his snake phobia gave him confidence in other matters. He realized that the fear was all in his head, and that suddenly other fears lost their potency. His fear of being alone, for example: he realized it’s not such a terrible thing. This gave him the courage to walk away from a lousy relationship with his girlfriend, and he reported being happily single.

I’m not much a behaviorist, but examples such as this further convince me that it’s just plain silly to limit your “interventions” to whatever school or orientation you align yourself with. I know, I know…others will argue that fidelity to a specific model is important. I respectfully disagree. Success breeds success. If our Lyft driver can conquer one fear and this has ripple effects throughout his life, more power to him. He got great treatment for 5 bucks!
 

O Psychotherapy, Where Art Thou?

As I was driving home from a trip to the local hardware store I was channel-surfing until I heard a radio talk show physician say, "Today I am going to examine the ills of psychiatric medicines."

Now, that caught my attention. This was going to be my kind of entertainment. First, let me admit my own bias upfront. Although I worked with psychiatrists for years, I am not a huge fan of psychiatric medicinals. Yes, they can be helpful, but I don't believe they should be advertised day, night, and seemingly every minute in between. These brain drugs (as Dr. William Glasser, the father of reality therapy was fond of calling them) come with heaping doses of side effects.

Just listen to the conclusion of any television ad released by the pharmaceutical industry and you'll be saying "he got that right."

As I listened to the doc on the radio, who clearly had an alternative functional medicine slant, I must say she really did her homework. I mean she was seriously armed to the teeth with facts and figures. With every jab she took at the prescription drugs for mental health, she backed her allegations up with journal articles, studies, and meta-analysis data.

She boasted that she would be willing to debate any psychiatric or other medical doctor who was listening. Sadly, none called.

She covered it all. The horrific side effects of the drugs. The studies where prescriptions were useless or worse yet made the client more depressed or anxious. Then there was a discussion of how anti-depressants caused folks who were depressed to become suicidal; hence the so-called black box warnings on some of these wannabe miracle pills.

She explored research where safer alternative supplements won out. And, who could forget those random double blind experiments she rattled off where the placebo fared as well as the highly advertised meds.

This was so great. But the best part was yet to come. After the commercial break (which was not sponsored by a drug company . . . yes!) she was going to talk about superior interventions. I just knew this was where psychotherapy was going to walk away with the grand prize.

Sure enough, as soon as the commercial ended the good doctor began listing a host of things to help folks with emotional issues. Some of these included: yoga, meditation, massage, chiropractic interventions, exercise, tai chi, getting enough sleep, drinking adequate water, negative ion generators in the home and the car, helping someone else in need, herbal remedies, minerals such as lithium orotate, and on and on and on.

Since I was pulling into my garage as she was going over her seemingly endless list I sat patiently with the engine off waiting for the information about psychotherapy.

Certainly, all of her interventions had some merit, but I felt like popping a lithium orotate capsule chased by a hit of Prozac myself when I heard, "Okay, well that does it for this week's show. Next week I'm going help our listeners tackle blood sugar difficulties."

Blood sugar? Did she say, "blood sugar?" Yes Howard she said, "blood sugar." Quite frankly I was stunned. But I just knew my day would turn around.

Several hours later a friend who was going back to college after many years in the business world called to say he was writing a paper on happiness. The assignment dictated that he should use YouTube sources and therefore he wanted me to have a look at his video references.

After punching in key words related to happiness, he had videos put together by physical trainers, alternative health experts, inspirational speakers, business management types, a multi-level marketing (MLM) guru, and perhaps most interesting, a 16 year old who usually talks about make up strategies, but decided she needed to dedicate a video to emotional health. And to round out the field — thank god for small favors — a couple of research and social psychologists.

What about trained, licensed psychotherapists? I regret to say the psychotherapists were MIA. Or as they say in the baseball world: their bats were silent.

To be sure, neither of the aforementioned incidents included in my day from hell was very scientific. But it did make me wonder. Has the golden age of psychotherapy come and gone?

Indeed, this is a different time and a different place; a whole new era, if you will.

Have Ellis, Rogers, Wolpe, Satir, Erickson, and Frankl been replaced by a young woman who normally gives advice about shades of blush? I was just about to say "absolutely not," when a rather scary free association whispered, "Howard, don't be so sure."