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.

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." 

The Power of Naming

Although there are hundreds of different psychotherapies, certain fundamental ideas are common to them all. Among these are the concepts of naming and renaming. I can illustrate these tactics with a literary example.

In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, a ghost claiming to be his dead father tells Hamlet he was murdered by his brother, the current King, and orders Hamlet to avenge his death. Hamlet delays, seeking more proof. The King sends Hamlet away to be secretly murdered. Hamlet foils the plot, decides the King is a villain, returns, and—after three hours dithering on stage—kills him. Scholars have long debated the reasons for Hamlet’s hesitancy and failure to act.

Some years ago, I took part in a trip to England guided by a Shakespeare scholar. After we had attended a performance of Hamlet, our tour group had a spirited discussion about whether Hamlet’s indecision could be explained by a diagnosis of clinical depression. Many of those present believed that it could. Didn’t he, in his famous to-be-or-not-to-be speech, contemplate suicide? The inhibition and helplessness of his dysthymia, they argued, would explain his inability to act on his ghost-father’s demand for revenge. I contended he was not depressed and here’s why…

1. In 1600, depression was called melancholia. Where we would say, “I’m depressed,” someone of that era would say, “I am melancholy.” So: was Hamlet melancholy?

Shakespeare’s Hamlet dates from around 1600 and his protagonist appears in Act I with all the trappings of melancholy: black clothing, sighing, tears, “the dejected haviour [behavior] of the visage.” The photo shows an actor in his Hamlet costume, with all the melancholic signs. The photo below shows an actor in his Hamlet costume, with all the melancholic signs.

But wait: the height of fashion among aristocratic men of that time period was to adopt a melancholic dress and demeanor. They wore dark clothing with open collars and unbuttoned robes or doublets, affecting a disheveled appearance and world-weary poses with sad expressions. (Perhaps in our own time those who dress in the Goth tradition make a similar fashion statement.) This “melancholic style” was considered a sign of great poetic feeling and intellectual depth, a stereotype with which Shakespeare’s audience would be very familiar. In short, Hamlet strikes a melancholic pose but his fashionable outfit doesn’t mean he’s depressed.

2. Hamlet is mourning his father’s recent death. In his 1917 paper, Mourning and Melancholia, Freud differentiates the two states: “In mourning, it is the world which has become poor and empty; in melancholia it is the ego itself.”

Hamlet is unequivocal about which state he experiences. For example:

  • In Act I, he observes, “How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable/ Seem to me all the uses of this world.”
  • And later (Act II), he says: "… it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory…” 
Clearly, it is his world that is, as Freud said, “poor and empty,” and not Hamlet himself. He is contending with grief, not depression.

3. And then there is the seemingly suicidal rumination of the “to be or not to be” speech.
Here again, Hamlet’s thoughts are not those of someone struggling with the mental pain of true depression. Rather the soliloquy reflects his wish to be relieved of a heavy burden: what to do about the ghost’s demand for revenge.

He doesn’t speak directly about this dilemma. Instead, he generalizes about the many frustrations and indignities of life.:

  • “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” and
  • “the thousand natural shocks/ that flesh is heir to.”
Again, his focus is the world, not his inner mood. He rejects suicide as a solution to these afflictions because death is “The undiscovered country from whose bourn/ No traveler returns,” and the possibility of more dreadful troubles in the afterlife “makes cowards of us all.” No thanks, Hamlet concludes, I’ll stick with the problems I’ve got. A wise choice, not a melancholic decision.

But Hamlet is only a play, so whether the Prince is depressed or not really doesn’t matter. In psychotherapy, however, the incorrect identification of an affective state can create unnecessary problems. We sometimes encounter patients who confuse “depression” with a variety of other emotions. They may tell us:

  • “I’ve been depressed since my grandmother died.” (No, like in Hamlet, that’s grief.)
  • “My team lost in the playoffs. I’m really depressed!” (No, that’s unhappiness.)
  • “That tearjerker movie left me so depressed!” (No, that’s sadness.)
  • “I’m depressed because I didn’t get a raise.” (No, that’s disappointment.)
  • “I can’t afford a new cellphone. It’s really depressing.” (No, that’s frustration.)
Confronted with these misapprehensions, our first task is to help the patient accurately identify the dysphoric state. This correction not only allows us to focus our therapeutic effort on the appropriate target, it also helps the patient to better understand his or her own reactions. In the worst case, it avoids the temptation to consider an “antidepressant” as a helpful intervention. None of these mischaracterized emotional states would respond to a drug.

So, back to the idea of naming and renaming…

Merely naming a set of symptoms provides clarity and a focus of exploration. As above, naming Hamlet’s emotional distress as “grief” not only explains his mood; it allows us to better understand his later behavior. If he were in therapy with us, we might examine his ambivalence about his ghost-king father as a basis for his indecision or challenge his negative overgeneralization about the world’s “emptiness.”

Renaming is an intervention that helps define a therapeutic problem in a more accessible manner. If we renamed Hamlet’s “indecision” as his sense of justice—being right about his uncle’s crime must precede any possible revenge—we could help him resolve his dilemma with much less vacillation. The play would no longer be a masterpiece, but it would save years of unnecessary therapy.
 

Reflections on Evolution of Psychotherapy 2017

Hard to believe, but it's been 22 years since I set up a small booth at The Evolution of Psychotherapy Conference in 1995 in Las Vegas, peddling my first videotape (yes, VHS) Existential-Humanistic Psychotherapy in Action featuring James Bugental, a teacher of mine who happened to be one of the presenters. At that time the Evolution folks (namely Jeff Zeig, director of the Milton H. Erickson Foundation, which puts on the conferences) was kind enough to contact the other faculty members, and ask them if they had any videotapes to sell, so I ended up having a small collection at my booth. Plus I managed to obtain some copies of my father’s video series on group psychotherapy. I ran an ad in the program, plain text, nothing fancy, which I recall started with this headline: “Yalom. Bugental. You’ve seen them here; now take them home.”

Honestly, I had no plans to start a business at all, I just wanted to sell some of the Bugental videos I had produced to make back my production costs. But we had an overwhelmingly positive response to our videos, and as is often the case, a business was inadvertently born.

Flash forward 22 years, and the Evolution of Psychotherapy Conference is still the event in our field. December’s conference had over 7000 attendees from over 50 countries. Initially every 5 years, then 4, and now the next one will be 3 years from now in 2020, it has been referred to as the Woodstock of Psychotherapy Conference, if you’re old enough to get that reference. Most of the presenters are….in fact sadly many of the granddaddies of the field (and a few of the grand dames) that presented at prior conferences are no longer with us (Rogers, Satir, Whitaker, Bowen, May, Haley, Ellis, Bugental, Lowen, Gendlin, and most recently Minuchin, just to name a few).

Still, many of the same faces and names were presenting, although some are really getting up there in years; Otto Kernberg, Erving Polster, Irvin Yalom and Aaron Beck are some that we hope will be back next time—but based on actuarial tables, we just can’t count on it. Plus there are some representatives from the relatively newer generation of therapists: Sue Johnson, Steven Hayes, Judith Beck and others.

A couple of thoughts: The title of conference, The Evolution of Psychotherapy implies we are evolving as a field. Sometimes I wonder. Given the total lack of family therapists from the current crop (a striking contrast from the early Evolution conferences), this would add evidence to what we all know, which is that family therapy is in serious decline. Suddenly it’s all about the brain…but we wouldn’t have a brain without families, just for starters. And as the attachment folks like Sue Johnson point out, without close connections the brain surely wouldn’t do too well at all (think Harlow’s monkeys). Are we really evolving as a field, or are we just coming up with acronyms for new branded therapies?

There was a greater number of female speakers in this year’s conference than the first conference in 1985, although they were still the minority—although the attendees were overwhelmingly female—eyeballing it I’d say well over 80%. I’m not sure that’s an entirely positive development, and unfortunately I think partly reflects the economic challenges in our field—and now another example of women being overrepresented in lower paying professions (at least compared to other professions requiring comparable education and training). Although women are typically the nurturers in our society, we need men who are compassionate and empathic as healers as well. And as for minorities…I count two in the roster: Derald Wing Sue, and Patricia Arredondo, both of whom were there to speak on multicultural issues in therapy. It will be nice when one day therapists of color are there to speak on issues other than how to do therapy with people of color. I think this says much more about our field and society than this particular conference.

Jeff Zeig and his crew know how to put on a show like no one else in our field. The energy and excitement at Evolution conferences is contagious, and one leaves with feelings comparable to ending a stimulating voyage, or theater festival, or 17 course dinner (not that I’ve partaken): filled, stimulated, tired and rejuvenated at the same time. Looking forward to 2020. If you haven’t been to a previous Evolution conference, mark this on your calendars. Based on actuarial tables, I should be there again.

Teaching Clients to Meditate

A family sent their abrasive son to a monastery to learn a better path. When he came home to visit them after having been there his first year, they asked him what he learned. The son replied frustratingly, “All I learned to do was breathe.”

He returned to the monastery, and five years later, when his family asked him what he learned, he looked disheartened as he shrugged his shoulders and said, “All I learned to do was breathe.” He went away and returned again after ten years, and this time he seemed defeated as the same question was posed and he gave the same answer.

Then, many years had passed, and the young man now became a much older man, and at last, he reached enlightenment. When he was asked what he learned to become enlightened, he replied, “Finally, I learned to breathe.”

Our egos like to assure us that we “know.” “I know, I know,” we say, “I should meditate. I know it’s good for me….” But then we don’t. Talking about knowledge makes for interesting conversation, but practicing knowledge is wisdom. In 2018, we have enough evidence from the field of neuroscience to know that even five minutes of meditation a day for six weeks can create physiological changes in the brain. Meditation decreases activity in the default mode network (our constant inner chatter), it lowers blood pressure, and it helps our amygdalas send fewer false signals of danger that lead to anxiety, fear, and ultimately all-too-often, anger. In short, you know that daily meditation can significantly help you, so what’s stopping you from practicing it?

Many people tell me that they “don’t have the time,” and I certainly understand living a fast-paced life with a seemingly perpetually busy schedule; so I often tell people this: You might not have ten minutes a day, and maybe right now you’re convinced that you don’t even have five minutes to do it, but you cannot rationally come up with an reasonable excuse for not having two minutes to meditate a day. And people usually agree. I start people with two minutes a day, because 20,000 hours of clinical experience has taught me that when people start off with two minutes a day, two things happen: 1. They find that they can make the time, and 2. They eventually sit longer until it’s worth it to make five or ten minutes a priority in their everyday lives.

There are many different ways to meditate, but the most basic is to focus on your breath. I recommend people sit up, because I have seen evidence that sitting with a straight spine activates the reticular formation, which is the center of our brain’s ability to pay attention. Like the monk from the story above (and like mastering anything), learning to breathe takes effort, until it doesn’t. I teach people to sit up straight and to focus on their breath. I also recommend not trying to stop your thoughts, as trying to do so often becomes discouraging, since it’s not very realistic. Instead, I encourage people to become an observer of their thoughts—to watch their thoughts move by like watching a boat pass on a river. As the “boat carrying your thoughts” goes by, come back to your breath. A two-minute timer will likely go off sooner than you think. Eventually, so will with the five or ten minute one.

My experience has taught me that it’s foolish to wait until we’re anxious or angry to try to begin handling those tough emotions. Instead, if we can breathe with intentionality as often as possible throughout our day, as well as engage in actively having realistic self-talk, then our ability to handle things like anxiety and anger when they arise will become significantly better. You have all the tools you need to start meditating daily and practicing and role modeling the type of self-control and healthy habits for your clients that will help them see that you are living the example that you are presenting to them. After all, you already know how to breathe… or do you?

Janina Fisher on Innovations in Treating Trauma

Enduring Conditions and Animal Defenses

Ruth Wetherford: Dr. Janina Fisher, you’re a clinical psychologist and expert in the treatment of trauma, author of the book, Healing the Fragmented Selves of Trauma Survivors, and have worked with many of the giants in our field—Judith Herman, Bessel van der Kolk and Pat Ogden and are currently an instructor at the Trauma Center, an outpatient clinic and research center founded by Bessel van der Kolk. Since trauma is such a overused, broad term these days, can you describe how you understand trauma?
Janina Fisher: There was a time when we defined trauma as an event outside the realm of normal human experience. Remember that?
RW: I do, yes. It had to be life threatening.
JF: Boy, were we wrong. We believed it was a rare occurrence. And we now know that 70 percent of the human race will be traumatized in their lifetimes, and probably about 40 percent will develop post-traumatic issues. So it is certainly far from outside of the norm. But over the years, the term started to lose its meaning in terms of its magnitude—now people talk about having critical and rejecting parents as traumatic, so I’m a little concerned that we have found the meaning of trauma and then lost it again, but I’ll tell you the definition I use:

Trauma can be a single event, it can be a series of events, or it can be a set of enduring conditions. Slavery was a set of enduring conditions, child abuse is a set of enduring conditions, domestic violence, war, the Holocaust.

It’s actually more common for people to be traumatized in the context of enduring conditions than to have a single event and have the rest of life be easy and smooth.
It’s actually more common for people to be traumatized in the context of enduring conditions than to have a single event and have the rest of life be easy and smooth. Then, that single event, series of events or enduring conditions have to overwhelm the individual’s capacity to cope and to activate a sense of threat to life.

It doesn’t have to literally be life threatening, like a bus barreling towards you as you cross the street. The key is that we feel a sense of threat to life whether we are capable of verbalizing it or not. Small children can’t say, “I’m afraid I’m going to be killed,” but their bodies can feel it.

RW: You’re talking about the subjective experience of threat to life. Your work focuses extensively on the brain’s reaction to it and the activation of the sympathetic nervous system. It seems like many more psychotherapists are trained in this area these days, don’t you think?
JF: Unfortunately what I hear from graduate students and from young therapists who’ve just been through training is that trauma wasn’t even mentioned in their graduate programs.
RW: That’s shocking. Well perhaps you could talk a bit about this aspect of your work for our readers who may be new to it.
JF: Well, when I first became interested in trauma in 1989-90, we still thought of trauma as being something that war veterans had exposure to and victims of sexual assault. We were still putting the pieces together and hadn’t incorporated more enduring traumas like child abuse and domestic violence.
RW: Neglect.
JF: Yes. Then 9/11 brought credibility to the concept of trauma and changed the whole world’s attitude toward trauma. Pioneers in the trauma field began to make sense of why patients could recover from depression, anxiety disorders, they could manage hallucinations and delusions, but they couldn’t manage post-traumatic reactions.

Bessel van der Kolk had this insight that “the body keeps the score,” that what was different about trauma was how it encoded in the body and activated the animal defense responses that we share with all mammals. People thought he was nuts. I remember people coming up to me and saying, “Stay away from that guy. He’s a nut case.” But over the years, research has proven him to be accurate.

RW: So what are those animal defenses that we share?
JF: There are 5 animal defenses: fight, flight, freeze, feign death, or submit and cry for help. Fight is basically anger. Interestingly, animals are much better at fighting than humans—that’s why we’ve taken up weapons. Then there’s flight, and again, animals are faster at fleeing. Animals play possum and human beings say things like, “I pretended to be asleep,” which is the human equivalent of playing dead. We freeze like a deer in the headlights and we cry for help. Humans are better at crying for help than mammals because we have language, but all animals make sounds to communicate to their fellow animals that they’re in trouble.
RW: How do those get manifested in the effects of trauma?
JF:
Clients who have chronic submission responses tend to present as chronically depressed, hopeless and helpless, ashamed, feeling less than, and because we call it depression, we don’t treat it as a trauma symptom.
The average therapist sees the animal defenses every day in the office. For example, clients who have chronic submission responses tend to present as chronically depressed, hopeless and helpless, ashamed, feeling less than, and because we call it depression, we don’t treat it as a trauma symptom. People who chronically have the freeze, deer-in-the-headlights response get an anxiety disorder diagnosis. They’ll report, “I’ve been having panic attacks, I can’t leave the house, I can’t drive the car more than a few blocks.” Those who have chronic fight responses can’t stop fighting, can’t stop being angry, engage in aggressive behavior including aggression toward their own bodies. Some people with chronic fight responses tend to be violent toward others, some toward themselves, and an even smaller percentage have both. They have aggressive responses toward others and they harm themselves.
RW: So these patterns of behavior in adult life correlate with the animal responses that we have as children in response to various kinds of trauma.
JF: Right. We have come to understand—and this is the essence of the body keeps the score—that when something bad happens to us, not just our minds, but our bodies become sensitive to related cues. This is why when people have a car accident they avoid the place where the accident occurred for months or years afterwards. Or sexual abuse survivors who can’t tolerate being in the company of men of a certain age. The body gets sensitized to anything that vaguely resembles the original event.

Body Memories

RW: Can you talk about how traumatic experiences are encoded in the brain differently than normal day-to-day events?
JF: In the first brain scan studies, which were conducted in the mid-90s, a small group of trauma survivors were asked to write a script describing a traumatic experience and then hear someone reading the script back to them while undergoing a brain scan. I think that’s pretty brave in and of itself.
RW: It sure is.
JF: What the researchers found, which astounded them, is that the part of the brain that remembers normal narrative memories shut down when they were being read the traumatic event—even though they themselves had written the script. The part of the brain that became active was a part of the brain that we’ve come to understand holds emotional nonverbal memories.
RW: The amygdala?
JF: Yes, the amygdala. For some reason, the amygdala on the right hemisphere side seems to be the center for traumatic memories. What this meant was that we couldn’t work with the narrative memory of the event because post-traumatic memories are held as non-verbal feeling and physical reaction memories—what I call body memories.
RW: Body memories.
JF: Yes. It literally changed everything about our thinking on trauma.
RW: It was revolutionary. Why isn’t it being widely taught in psychotherapy training programs?
JF: I wish that that research, which has been replicated many, many, times, was taught in graduate school and training institutes, hospitals and clinics, because most therapists still practice the type of trauma treatment that we were practicing in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, which consists of asking people to remember what happened.
RW: Without a sense of what to do with it.
JF: Exactly.
The “talking cure” belief that if it’s talked about, it will resolve, unfortunately does not work with trauma.
The “talking cure” belief that if it’s talked about, it will resolve, unfortunately does not work with trauma. As patients talk about the trauma, their amygdalas and their limbic systems start to go crazy, they feel overwhelmed, and they don’t want to talk about it anymore.
RW: So they leave the session feeling very undone, and they don’t want to come back. You’ve said that you learned that the hard way, as many other trauma therapists did. So, if it’s not enough to just talk about it, what is enough?
JF: What seems to be enough is a variety of activities that help us to restructure our relationship to the memories—techniques, interventions, and experiences that help to slowly recalibrate the traumatized nervous system and animal defenses that are triggered by everyday kinds of stimuli. It’s two pieces: one is the body piece and the other is the feeling-memory piece.
RW: This gives a lot of creativity and flexibility to what the therapist does in the moment.
JF: True, but one of the difficulties, and the reason why I wrote the book, Healing the Fragmented Selves of Trauma Survivors, is that there’s a relatively large subset of traumatized clients who have what we call complex trauma related disorders—some of which are reflected in DSM, but many of which are not. Complex post-traumatic stress is not in the DSM. Dissociative disorders are in the DSM, but not in a very clear, usable way. And there’s a huge amount of literature that attests to the relationship between self-harm, suicidality, addiction and trauma. There’s huge correlations between them.

I happen to be a therapist who likes complexity—I like challenging cases—so I kept seeing people who, despite their best efforts, could not get sober, could not manage their suicidality, could not manage their anxiety, had treatment-resistant depression no matter what medication or what kind of therapy. I became intrigued by how to help these clients.

I had the opportunity to hear a theory proposed by Onno Van der Hart and Ellert Nijenhuis in the Netherlands called the “Structural Dissociation Theory,” which is a very well-accepted model in Europe. As soon as I heard them describe this model, the lights came on, the orchestra started playing, and I thought, this explains so much, including what we now call personality disorders, which are beautifully described by this model. It explains them as neurobiologically based, and that we all have a part of our brains, and therefore part of our personality, that keeps on going no matter what. No matter what disaster is befalling us, the left brain part of the personality just keeps on keeping on.

The “Going on With Normal Life” Self and the Traumatized Self

RW: You call this the “normal life part” or the “going on with normal life” part.
JF: Right. The authors call it the “apparently normal” part, but I didn’t like that language because it fed into my clients’ sense of having a false self. So I renamed it the “going on with normal life” self.

Repeated trauma can cause splitting in the personality such that we start to develop subparts representing the animal defenses.
And then the model says we all have a right-brain side of the personality that’s emotional, reactive, and nonverbal, which I call the traumatized part. They describe the way in which repeated trauma can cause splitting in the personality such that we start to develop subparts representing the animal defenses: a part that fights, a part that flees, a part that submits, a part that freezes, a part that cries for help.

For me, this theory makes sense of the most confusing of our clients. It makes sense of borderline personality where you see a very big cry-for-help response, but an equally big fight response. And in high-functioning individuals, a very strong going on with normal life self who’s actually quite ashamed of these big fluctuations between neediness and anger, and doesn’t understand them any more than the therapists do.

As you know, the problem often with psychotherapy is that clients want help but feel shame or defensiveness as we delve deeper into issues that they need to work on. What I found was that this language of parts helped my clients look at very difficult issues without feeling shame and defensiveness.

RW: Well there is so much pathologizing of this symptomology in our field and so much pejorative language around it. To have a language that frames the symptom as a creative solution to an early problem or trauma can be very relieving.
JF: Absolutely. It opens a door. I can talk to clients about how their fight part takes prisoners, right?
RW: Or stands up for a cause.
JF: Right. And then they’re free to say, “Yes, but it’s embarrassing because that angers drives people away.” Or I can say, “The cry for help part of you is just a little kid, and of course a little kid would cry for help.” It gives them a way to be in a relationship to these reactions rather than either being mortified and ashamed or saying, “What anger? I wasn’t angry.”
RW: It’s a form of psycho-education it seems to me. Can you talk about why that is so helpful?
JF: Well, I was trained in a traditional psychodynamic way.
RW: Me too.
JF: Most therapists from our time were, and psychoeducation didn’t have any place in psychodynamic psychotherapy. But when I went Judith Herman’s clinic in 1990 as a post-doctoral fellow, it was one of the major things she was recommending for trauma. She said that we had to educate clients, that it didn’t work for trauma survivors to have an imbalance of power. Aside from all the usual ways therapy can create an imbalance of power, there’s the imbalance of the therapist knowing everything and the client knowing nothing. She said, “Your job is to educate the client to make meaning of the trauma symptoms so that the playing field is more even.”
RW: In addition to balancing the power in the interpersonal dynamic that kind of learning activates the pre-frontal left brain. You begin to have a model and words for understanding what happens to you when you are triggered.
JF: Exactly. I learned that you can activate the prefrontal cortex when it automatically shuts down in the presence of a threat by getting people to be interested and curious.
My psychodynamic training was all about asking very complicated, beautiful questions, but I realize now my poor clients didn’t have the brain power to answer these very abstract questions.
My psychodynamic training was all about asking very complicated, beautiful questions, but I realize now my poor clients didn’t have the brain power to answer these very abstract questions. But when we just help people to be interested and curious, then things start to hum in the prefrontal cortex.

RW: Can you give some examples of how you might talk with the client that would encourage their curiosity about parts of themselves that they previously were too ashamed of or too frightened of?
JF: I start in the very first interview with someone. Most clients come in saying, “I’m here because I am depressed,” “I’m here because I’m having panic attacks,” “I’m here because I hate myself,” “I’m here because my relationships aren’t working.”
RW: They’re not coming to therapy to learn about the amygdala.
JF: Right. So in that initial conversation, I ask them, “When did these issues begin? When did you start to feel depressed? When did you start to have the panic attacks? When did it become difficult to leave the house?” And I say, “My guess is that something triggered that depression.”

Triggers

RW: You start looking for the triggers right away.
JF: I do that to help them be curious. They come in saying, “There’s something wrong with me because I can’t leave the house.” And usually within the first 20 minutes I say, “Wow, you must have been really, really triggered,” and they kind of go, “Huh?” That “huh” is what I want because it means that their fixed belief that there’s something wrong with them has just been disturbed.
RW: The idea that your difficult feelings are actually in response to something rather than just in your head without connection to the real world. That’s so reassuring.

JF: Yes, it is. At the same time, I want to be careful not to do a one-to-one correspondence to a specific event because most clients are suffering as a result of enduring conditions, and if they think they have to have a single event connected to every symptom, it becomes more difficult to work with them. I try very hard to connect the current trigger—like the death of the cat, or the fight with the husband—to the enduring conditions.

“The effect of living in a world where only the cat loved you is still with you, still in your body.”
So for the client whose cat died, I asked, “What did your cat mean to you when you were growing up?” And she responded, “The cat was the only person in the family who loved me.” “Well, no wonder it was triggering to lose your cat six months ago. The effect of living in a world where only the cat loved you is still with you, still in your body.” We connect the triggers to the enduring conditions, not to single events.

The Role of Empathy

RW: So your motive is to understand the experience from his or her point of view and you call that empathy. What is the role of empathy in your work?
JF: Well, there’s empathy as most of us have learned it in school where we say, “That must have been very hard for you.” The purpose there is to connect to the client’s pain and to say, “I get that these are not just bad events, they also caused you pain.” But I find that many traumatized clients have trouble with that kind of empathy because they’re afraid of the pain that we’re trying to evoke more of.

So I tend to express empathy more in terms of why it makes sense that they have a particular symptom. I say many times a day, “Well, of course, it makes so much sense. If you’re depressed, it’s easier to be seen and not heard, isn’t it?”

I have a long-term client who I’ll call Annie—not her real name, of course—who said to me once,

“Why are therapists so interested in every gory detail of what happened to us? Why don’t they ever ask us how we survived?”
“Why are therapists so interested in every gory detail of what happened to us? Why don’t they ever ask us how we survived?”
RW: That’s such a great question.
JF: What she was saying was, “If you empathize with how I survived, that’s going to be more validating than empathizing with how victimized I was.”
RW: That appears to many to be paradoxical.
JF: If the purpose of empathy is to resonate to our clients’ feeling states, resonating to their strengths can feel very empowering, especially if you’re someone who has felt unempowered, ashamed, hopeless, weak, and your therapist says, “Wow, you were a pretty ingenious little kid to have survived that.” There’s a feeling of empowerment there as opposed to when we say, “Oh, that must have been so hard.” That pulls for the feelings of vulnerability which are connected to feeling weak, helpless, hopeless.

The Contagion of Confidence and Calm

RW: This touches on what you’ve referred to as the contagion of the confidence and the calm of the therapist. It’s related to what we think of as the placebo effect in medicine. We know that when doctors have absolute belief that their methods are going to help us get well, and they’re focusing on the self-correcting immune responses and the strengths of our bodies, it has a strong positive effect on patients.

It’s so important to think of empathy not just as for the painful negative aspects of the self, but for the positive surviving parts.

JF: Absolutely. Certainly we want therapy to be a safe place for people to share their pain, but why shouldn’t it also be a safe place to share their pride, pleasure, excitement, curiosity? Trauma survivors can get deeply mired in the trauma the more they go for the grief and anger.
RW: And many trauma survivors don’t have a lot of sources of recognition and appreciation. They’re not coming in with stories of little triumphs through the day, so when the therapist does point it out and they see that it’s not just window dressing, that it was substantive, that’s so affirming.
JF: Exactly.
RW: Would you talk about the role of the person of the therapist?
JF: As you know, it’s a topic near and dear to my heart because what I’ve come to realize over my 37 years in this field is that we are really the instrument of psychotherapy.
Research shows that the relationship with the therapist is still the strongest variable affecting therapy outcome, regardless of the model being used.
Research shows that the relationship with the therapist is still the strongest variable affecting therapy outcome, regardless of the model being used.
RW: I believe it.
JF: We have so many models now which are wonderful, and I like most of them, but we have a tendency to assume it’s the model helping rather than us helping. But who and how we are makes a huge difference. You and I are probably both old enough to remember the blank screen approach.
RW: I hated people who were blank screens.
JF: Me, too. And now we understand that if the therapist is a blank screen and the client has suffered abuse or neglect, it is immensely triggering and even threatening. It’s not going to feel neutral. Freud’s idea was to be neutral so as not to be threatening, but that’s just not how it works, particularly with clients who’ve experienced trauma.
RW: Carl Rogers pointed out that there is no neutrality because a blank screen or silence or non-responsiveness is itself a response usually perceived by the right brain as rejecting, or at least disconnecting.
JF: It’s funny, I didn’t love Carl Rogers when I studied him in graduate school, but I’ve really come to appreciate his work because he got this idea that the therapist is the instrument, and how you play your instrument makes such a difference in the client’s receptivity.

RW: How do you think therapists can be more personally connected with clients?
JF:
We are both triggers of hope and triggers of fear
. First and foremost a willingness to be curious rather than to assume from the diagnosis or from the presenting symptoms that someone is in a certain category. The willingness to assume that every symptom represents what was once an adaptive way of coping with and surviving their circumstances, because we become who we become in a habitat, in a context. Lastly, and this is hard for therapists, but remembering that we are both triggers of hope and triggers of fear.
RW: Can you say more?
JF: If we get caught up in seeing ourselves as triggers of hope or safety only, we’re going to pathologize the client when the client gets afraid. I’ve had very few clients in 37 years who’ve actually said, “I’m afraid,” but I’ve had lots of clients who’ve been reactive and angry, defensive, resistant, suspicious—all of which are expressions of fear.

It’s very important to know that even as we are building a relationship and creating safety, we’re also triggering fear. So we do our best to notice those moments that we can hear or decipher the fear and then do what securely attached parents do, or what dog owners do: Change your body language and your voice to help change the child’s state, the dog’s state. We do it without thinking.

I watch how the client responds to what I just said, and then I vary my next remark based on the data I just got. So I say something and I see the client looking a little uncomfortable, then I’ll smile and say something light and see if the client’s body relaxes. Or I might say something that really underscores how bad they feel—“Wow, I get that this is really awful”—and see if the body relaxes. Or is this a client who feels defensive when I say, “Wow, this is really tough.”

They feel safer not because I have good boundaries and a therapeutic frame and all those good things, but because I’m scaring them less and less.
They feel safer not because I have good boundaries and a therapeutic frame and all those good things, but because I’m scaring them less and less.
RW: In my consultation with trainees where we’re going over audio or videotapes, it’s usually apparent that when the therapist says something that sounds pejorative or a little bit pathologizing, there’s a loss of empathy because of some perceived threat, and it’s often unconscious. An angry client, particularly a smart, articulate angry client, can be a trigger for the therapist. What are some things that you do to help yourself stay non-defensive? Not triggered?
JF: I sort of have a split screen. I’m very attentive to the client and to resonating to the client&rsq

What is Mental Illness? Donald Trump and the Psychiatrists Who Would Diagnose Him

Recently, the American electorate has been treated to the awkward spectacle of mental health professionals proclaiming that President Donald Trump is mentally ill. These pundits have ignored the ethical standard against diagnosing someone you’ve never met, based only on public scrutiny, and have exhibited both grandiosity (they believe themselves saviors of the Republic) and lack of insight (they fail to recognize how their personal politics taint their judgment). They show an evident contempt for our democracy and the 60 million voters who chose Trump over his rivals. (Full disclosure: I didn’t vote for any of the listed candidates; instead, I wrote in my choice: George Washington.)

In a New York Times OpEd (1/12/18), Jeffrey A. Lieberman, Chairman of Psychiatry, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, said:

… when psychiatrists engage in clinical name calling about the president’s mental status without adequate evidence and proper evaluation, they are damaging the credibility of the entire field. Psychiatry has had a checkered past: Witness its collusion in Nazi eugenics policies, Soviet political repression and the involuntary confinement in mental hospitals of dissidents and religious groups in the People’s Republic of China. More than any other medical specialty, psychiatry is vulnerable to being exploited for partisan political purposes.

A recent book, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President (St. Martin’s Press, 2017), accuses the President of such things as “impulsivity,” “pathological narcissism,” “paranoia,” and “sociopathy.” But what about other Presidents and Presidential candidates who these same diagnosticians would no doubt admire?

  • Barack Obama may have impulsively criticized as racist a white police officer responding to a possible burglary at a black professor’s home but had to publicly apologize through the “beer at the White House” photo op. Although a minor episode, it raised the issue of racial animus with the first President of color.
  • Lyndon Johnson refused to end the Vietnam war because, he said, “I will not be the first U.S. President to lose a war.” Tens of thousands of Americans and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese were subsequently injured or killed because of Johnson’s apparent pathological narcissism.
  • Hillary Clinton may have revealed her paranoia when she defended her husband, Bill, as the target of a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Perhaps this earlier instance of a secretive, suspicious nature presaged her later use of the infamous private email server.
  • And speaking of Bill Clinton, does any President more clearly show sociopathy than him? Consider a few of many possible examples: his purported history as a sexual predator, his questionable connections to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, and even his apparent theft of White House property at the end of his term.

All of these alleged signs of mental illness fall under the category of character traits, an even more ambiguous area of diagnosis. After all, everyone has a personality, and it is only a matter of degree whether any of our mannerisms interfere with daily function enough to be considered problematic. Successful people often have strong character traits that may help or hinder them. All of the politicians above, including Donald Trump, have lifelong histories of functioning at very high and effective levels. To call any of them mentally ill begs the question: what is mental illness?

Leaving aside the political contretemps, we must recognize how difficult it is to define mental illness. The DSM5 attempts to categorize various observations and behaviors into a useful taxonomy. These categories are described as “disorders” rather than illnesses and they are constantly reshuffled with additions and subtractions in each revised edition. For example, before 1974 homosexuality was a disorder and afterwards it was not. The current edition includes gender identity disorder (or “transsexualism”) for the first time. So, in this sense, mental illness is whatever a large committee says it is. This approach is useful for research and to facilitate communication among providers, but it isn’t science.

Adding to the difficulty is the observation that a behavior considered abnormal in one part of the world is accepted as normal elsewhere. In the United States, taking one’s own life is almost always considered a sign of mental illness. Yet the Hindu practice of sati in which a wife throws herself onto her husband’s funeral pyre still occurs today, and Islamic fundamentalists blow themselves up like the Japanese kamikaze pilots of World War II. These acts are considered, within their own cultures, as honorable, not “sick.” Suicidal behavior, then, can sometimes be an illness and other times not, depending on the cultural context. I could give many other examples, but the point is that human societies vary and there is no universal standard for mental illness. The only definition that covers all of it is: mental illness is a marked deviation from cultural expectation. Although accurate, this definition is so broad as to be almost meaningless, and it has little practical utility.

In everyday practice, we rely on those who seek our help to define their own mental disability. Behaviors others might consider abnormal can be acceptable to an individual. Some live with phobias by restructuring their lives to avoid anxiety triggers. Others may accept low-level chronic depression as normal, as in the old blues song, “been down so long it looks like up to me.” Narcissistic, dependent and even antisocial personality traits may be tolerable unless they lead to significant interpersonal or societal dysfunction. People who come to a psychotherapist usually can tell us what they consider “abnormal,” and maybe that’s all the definition we need.