The Whole Truth: Coping Creatively with the Dark Side of Therapeutic Practice

We are sitting down to dinner, like we do every night. My oldest son, home briefly from college, has reclaimed his seat to the left of me. Across from me sit my other two children, sweaty and satisfied by their after-school sports practices. The four of us chirp out a collective, “Thank you,” to my husband, the cook, for such a good dinner. We eat and talk and wind down our day.

Only moments before, I was finishing up one of those long, intense days, hour after hour filled with client struggle and crisis and touching connection. I had silently shooed my last client out the door, my thoughts becoming a bit frantic when I thought she was going to stop at the bathroom, further delaying my departure. I swooped out—lights off, sound machine off, alarm set—hurrying to get on the road that would take me to my daughter’s soccer practice just in time to pick her up.

Most days are like this. I dive deeply into my commitment to healing and helping clients. I work with their internal worlds, and willingly make contact with some of the most painful aspects of life. And, just as quickly, I rush up from the depths, back into daily living.

Today was more difficult than average. A long-term client came in with the news that she’d been diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer. A 15-year-old who had been successfully using art as an alternative to self-harm arrived to session with a freshly cut X in her shoulder. I struggled to engage a new client—a sullen, depressed teen. I listened patiently to a client tell a different version of the same story about her frustrating husband. And I hosted a culminating art show (both celebration and termination) with the work done in treatment by my client, a recovering addict, for her and her large extended family.

Yet when I sit at dinner now with my own amazing family, there is nothing to say in reply to my kids’ inquiries: “How was your day, Mom?” I can’t give them details; everything is confidential. Besides, it feels impossible to convey the depth of pain and joy that my job delivers. And while I think they are actually asking, “How are you, Mom?” I haven’t even had the time to figure that out. Between racing out of the office to soccer practice pickup, and then home for dinner, there hasn’t been an ounce of room for self-reflection. And if I use the time at dinner to really see how I am, I know I will come up with confusing and disparate adjectives: drained, energized, discouraged, overwhelmed, fascinated, curious, amazed, sad. The truth is I’m full of joy and gratitude for the opportunity to midwife significant changes in so many clients’ lives. At the same time, I also have my fill of others’ pain, their traumatic stories, and the experience of feeling helpless in the face of intransigent symptoms. I know too well that, if I’m not careful, this visceral awareness of human tragedy can lead me to disconnect from even the most basic dinner conversation, or worse, cause burnout at work and alienation from family and friends.

Confronting the Dark Side

I’ve come to learn that what I once held true about my profession is in fact not the whole truth. Being a therapist is not only about being effective at helping clients reach their goals. Aspiring to help clients make significant changes, achieve their treatment goals, and improve their functioning is a worthy pursuit that requires a lifetime of work and experience, but effectiveness is only part of the story.

In 2009, psychologists David Orlinsky and Michael Ronnestad studied over 5,000 therapists’ experience and careers, and brought to light the double-edged nature that psychotherapeutic work embodies. They found that, while over half of the therapists studied feel they have effective practices that yield feelings of competence, positive relational interactions, and flow states, another quarter have what the researchers deemed a challenging practice. The therapists studied were equally likely to experience this stress across orientations, career levels, and licenses. But what is fascinating is that those therapists with challenging practices—who experienced professional self-doubt, frustrations, and difficult feelings—still reported high engagement and positive relational interactions. This challenges what therapists might assume to be true: either you feel good because you’re doing your job well, or you feel bad because you are not helping your clients effectively enough. In fact, it offers an alternate view of our work: that there really is a way to experience difficulty without being inadequate, a way to hold self-doubt without feeling incompetent. Orlinsky and Ronnestad’s research reveals that while it is important to increase effectiveness for the therapist’s sense of healing involvement and for the client’s satisfaction with the services offered, effectiveness alone will not mitigate the stress of the profession. “If we do pursue ideal effectiveness as our one and only buffer for professional stress, it seems we are setting ourselves up for burnout.”

When I started seeing therapists as individual clients, I began to hear how easily this stressful involvement can easily turn into shame. If we don’t figure out ways to cope with the difficult feelings that accompany our work, burnout and self-doubt can begin to interfere with our well being and cause emotional disconnection from our therapeutic relationship with clients.

I’ve heard the narrative many times. It goes something like this: “I’m a therapist; I’m supposed to be emotionally healthy. But every single day, hour after hour, I have the chance to feel like a failure. Whether or not I succeed in empathizing with my clients, I feel struggle and pain and tragedy. I’m supposed to be healthy enough to withstand it. If I don’t feel emotionally resilient and instead feel bored and unconnected, or dread seeing my clients, I am a failure. But I can’t be a failure, so I will cover it all up and live with shame.” It’s a closed narrative that doesn’t provide alternative reactions to feeling stress and uncertainty.

Orlinskey and Ronnestad’s study identified a dual coping strategy as the key to therapists’ ability to sustain themselves and to stay engaged in their work. Besides the development of clinical skills, the other aspect of coping had to do with self-reflection. In order to tolerate difficulties such as the distress of feeling powerless to affect a client’s tragic life situation, or needing to regulate intense feelings in order to establish the one-way intimacy of a therapeutic relationship, therapists need to use their creativity to see the problem differently and to “give themselves permission” to experience disturbing or difficult feelings.

When I was an intern twenty-odd years ago, my supervisors coached me to practice good boundaries, and they implied that any struggles I did have with my role as therapist or career choice were due to my lack of experience, my unresolved personal issues, or the fact that I wasn’t seasoned enough and didn’t know how to “leave it at the office.” In his book, A Perilous Calling: The Hazards of Psychotherapy Practice, Michael Sussman suggests that the original blank-screen approach to the therapeutic task has dangerously infiltrated modern practice: “Throughout the history of psychotherapy, the personhood of the practitioner has been all but ignored. Successive generations of therapist have received and, in turn, passed along a professional culture that often leaves little room for the clinician’s humanity.” My own experience as an intern mirrors Sussman’s warning: “I didn’t feel I was allowed to have personal feelings about my professional work as a therapist, but these feelings didn’t stop rising to the surface.” Yet, because I didn’t have a safe place to bring them or a way to work through them, I also couldn’t let myself acknowledge their looming presence.

According to psychologists John Norcross and James Guy, 75% of therapists complain that work issues spill over into their family lives. Norcross and Guy highlight the fact that increased work stress is related to decreased marital satisfaction: the emotional exhaustion of our work can leave us too tired to engage in family relationships. One might think that we therapists could just share our work drama and download to our spouses like any other stressed professional would. But confidentiality rules prevent this from happening. Besides, if we don’t understand that powerlessness and uncertainty are difficult feelings that we need to learn to allow, and instead feel inadequate for having these feelings, we are even less likely to be able to share with family or colleagues how very hard our work is.

Having weathered two decades of this amazing vocation, it’s only now that I am able to turn and look without shame or inadequacy at the shadow side of this work: the part that is painful and dark and that can become toxic, breeding isolation and disillusionment. I’ve been down that path where ineffectiveness led to powerlessness and shame, where the mask of clinical expertise and emotional stability prevented me from connecting to what was true for me, where I bought into the idea that difficult feelings were a sign of inadequacy. At one time, I thought that feeling effective was a true salve against this shadow side. I was so set on being helpful, I was willing to sacrifice almost anything. I didn’t know how to use self-reflection to process the trauma and intense emotion being poured into the core of me again and again. This is the side of my work that I don’t really want to share with my family, and the side that so few of my colleagues readily admit to experiencing.

Finding Support

Externalizing: Painting by Lisa MitchellRonnestad and Orlinksy found that quality of the work setting and available peer support are crucial in assisting therapists to cope with isolation and the sense of helplessness. This seems to be an obvious solution: a work setting in which supervision and peer support groups invite discussions about these issues. Given that the researchers found many therapists to value personal therapy as a tool that helps them engage constructively with clients and feel they are thriving in their work, it would seem like validating these messier and darker inner-world experiences should be a regular work practice among colleagues as well—not just one hidden away in the private realm of individual therapy.

Certainly, there has to be a time and place for this kind of activity. When working directly with clients, we need to exercise appropriate boundaries. We don’t want to be processing our internal experience to the exclusion of tending to our clients’ experiences. But even when I invite fellow therapists to talk about and reveal their inner worlds in a safe non-clinical setting, they have a hard time doing it without relating it back to some kind of analysis of countertransference. We are so good at trying to understand our clients that even the act of excavating our inner experience of being a therapist becomes another avenue for more insight about our clients. So often I hear therapists report a feeling like irritation, and then immediately justify their irritation with a countertranference explanation about how their client reminds them of a mother-in-law, for instance. I have to ask: when can your inner experience of irritation simply be a by-product of being a therapist?

If, as Ronnestad and Orlinsky’s research suggests, nearly half of therapists feel pressured, overwhelmed, anxious, and trapped at least occasionally in session, why don’t we take these feelings more seriously? Why can’t we be open about them with ourselves and with colleagues—collectively honoring both the light and dark of our profession? Can we allow our knee-jerk therapeutic use of self-analysis to slow down just a little so that we can look at ourselves without wearing our therapist masks?

Taking Off the Mask

Just last week, in an altered book workshop that I was facilitating, I saw how sharing this inner world and this double-edged experience can benefit all who participate. The group was mixed: therapists who had been in practice for decades, a few interns, and one trainee. I invited them each to make collages that represented what they carry for themselves and for clients in their hearts. It’s always amazing to me the level of depth therapists are willing to bring to this kind of nonverbal self-reflection. The heart images were powerful and raw. One woman made a weaving that juxtaposed operating room images with strips of wholesome nature scenes. Another took large nails and screws and attached them as if they were impaling the walls of her heart. Many had innocent images of children: smooth skin, wide eyes, swaddling cloth.

Embodied: Painting by Lisa MitchellIn the course of the workshop, I coached these therapists about the creative process. The start of any artistic activity is always fraught with some level of fear. Sometimes the fear is so high, especially for people new to art making in adulthood, that they may have difficulty starting because they are not familiar with this line between stressful involvement and full engagement. But it often just takes a nudge to begin. I like to remind folks that they don’t have to know how it will turn out; they just have to start with a color or a brushstroke.

For the therapists I have encountered in my workshops, the first step in an art-making activity can be hard for this reason, and yet the process mirrors one all therapists are familiar with. Beginning without knowing where our efforts will end up is much like beginning a relationship with a new client, or starting a session and finding that the treatment plan has taken an entirely different direction, and things are no longer as they seemed.

Even for experienced artists, this starting can sometimes be hard, but it is also exhilarating at the most passionate level. Artists know, when they start, that if they plan too much, the process is going to be stifled, boring, and probably not very creative. If that exhilarating feeling of anxiety before the unknown is present—better call the feeling “anticipation”—it is an indicator of newness and risk, which will inevitably bring discovery of the highest order.

During the training, when we shared our images, there was a collective sigh of relief. One therapist said, “Sometimes there is a jolt of pain in my heart—the sheer rawness of it all. Who do you share this with? I could never go home and show this image to my husband. He wouldn’t understand. It’s so hard to express it honestly for yourself. But then to show it other people—I have so much gratitude that there are others who can see this, hold this, and still not judge me as inadequate.”

The opportunity to view others’ experience in a visceral way normalized the more difficult feelings that the group members carried as therapists. Hearing everybody talk about their art and the experiences that it represented allowed participants to stop pathologizing these feelings. “Seeing others’ openness made the darker side of being a therapist feel more okay in a very powerful way.”

In another activity, I invited the group members to make art that represented the gifts that clients had given them. They first had to get past the fear of admitting that they did actually benefit from client relationships. Then, when they were able to see how much each person’s life had been touched and changed as a result of real, concrete lessons or ideas clients had taught them, they cried. They were so relieved to see that things were actually coming in rather than just going out. One therapist would never have pursued her dream of being a professor if her client hadn’t showed her that it was possible. Another therapist credits her client with the fact that she survived cancer due to an alternative treatment approach that her client mentioned. I credit one particular teen client for teaching me how to show teens respect, and I use it every day with my own children and with all of my other teenage clients.

At the end of the workshop, after they had all made art and reflected honestly about how the profession affects their lives positively and negatively, one of the interns said that it had been an amazing gift to hear that even the most successful and seasoned therapists have difficulties in their work. She hadn’t heard about the difficulties, hadn’t seen others struggling, and hadn’t been well informed about what to expect and how to cope. The older therapists talked about the sense of validation and belongingness that the honest art expressions and discussions had allowed.

When therapists collectively allow there to be a dual experience of light and dark, abundance and depletion, there is a sigh of relief—an acceptance of the whole truth. And self-blame, inadequacy, and shame simply dissipate.

The Therapist as Artist

In the course of my trainings and also my own personal and creative life, the analogy of therapist as artist continues to take on richer, more profound meaning. Not only do therapists have amazing inner worlds that they are constantly mining for ideas, inspiration, and sustenance; to be creative, therapists have to know that anxiety, overwhelm, and uncertainty are all necessary aspects of making their art. This speaks to the idea that therapists can experience growth and depletion concurrently in their work. Just as for an artist, the therapist’s main objective becomes hanging in despite uncertainty, treating the unexpected as opportunity, seeing things from new and different perspectives, and maintaining involvement even when things get stressful. In other words, staying in flow feelings, maintaining a relational manner, and employing effective clinical skills even in the presence of stressful involvement are the ticket to being a creative therapist and staving off burnout.

Operating from the artist’s perspective, therapists can recognize that stressful involvement doesn’t have to block healing involvement. Rather, it is simply a necessary accompaniment to any creative endeavor. As Carl Rogers pointed out, constructive creativity requires openness to experience and tolerance for ambiguity: “It means the ability to receive much conflicting information without forcing closure.” The process of absorption or being wholly involved is characterized by Rollo May as “intensity of awareness and a heightened consciousness.” With this creative encounter come neurological changes—quickened heartbeat, narrowed vision, diminished appetite, loss of time awareness—that mirror physiological reactions to anxiety and fear. May suggests, however, that the artist doesn’t experience this arousal response as negative, but rather as joyful. In the creative process, flow feelings and arousal—whether experienced as anxiety or pleasure—go hand in hand. They are a result of engaging in a creative process. One without the other is impossible. The goal is not to eliminate the anxiety, but to make sure that it doesn’t block the flow.

When therapists see that their work is truly creative in nature and realize that the act of working with clients requires all the same components of any creative act, there is a built-in context for coping. How else do artists and other creatives endure their daily grind? Who else but the most creative know how to hold disparate experiences and make something of them? “Just like an artist, a therapist must hold the experience of being fully, heartfully engaged to painful experiences.” A therapist has to strive to connect on a vulnerable and intimate level with the client, yet maintain a professional boundary so as not to become merged in the relationship. And, despite scary or frustrating situations, a therapist must maintain engagement and strive to stay in contact with the relationship at hand.

As therapists then, we must stay creative: flexible, engaged, committed, willing to hang out in the unknown and greet newness and possibility as it comes. Be open to the process. This is not a passive state—it requires active exploration, self-reflection, sharing, curiosity, fearlessness to look at the unknown, risk taking to express that which is ugly, negative, or difficult. This commitment to staying creative must start with finding a way to communicate that inner-world experience to people who get it—to express these feelings without having to stay in the role of therapist, and to be in the presence of peers who understand that this kind of expression—can be the very key to sustaining self in our work. And because the creative process teaches us to welcome anxiety and other difficult feelings, doing art with other therapists can be a source of continual renewal.

At the End of the Day

If the creative process brings us freedom and new possibilities, it also brings us beauty. So when things aren’t seeming that beautiful around the office, when high healing involvement is giving way to self-doubt, frustration, and boredom, I’m remind myself that stress and flow are not mutually exclusive. I keep up a dialogue with myself on a daily basis. The question that I constantly ask is one that author Michael Ventura asks: “Where is the beauty in my work? Where is the beauty in this client?”

The other day, while sitting with a new teen client, I found myself melting into that beauty. She was reading a poem that she’d written as part of her therapy homework assignment. I instantly saw past her self-harm and angry outbursts, and said a deep thank you for the beauty that my work allows me to see. It’s been a long haul—from those days of meticulously monitoring client numbers and celebrating results to stepping into the quiet, reflective relationship between authentic self and work. I think I’m finally embracing that long, beautiful journey—no shell around my heart needed.

In my work with other therapists, I continue to emphasize what Jeffrey Kottler says in his wise book, On Being a Therapist: “[As therapists] we are touched by [our clients’] goodness and the joy and privilege we feel in being allowed to get so close to a human soul. And we are harmed by their malicious and destructive energy.” Having that focus, and the creative means with which to process all that comes with our work, will allow me to sustain myself and others for the long haul.

So the next time I’m sitting at dinner struggling to cross the bridge between my personal and professional lives, I’m going to consider that “How was your day, Mom?” as an invitation to take stock of my inner canvas. I’ll remember that my work is a creative process and feel more freedom in my reply. If it was one of those days, I think I will tell the kids all those disparate adjectives—drained, energized, discouraged, overwhelmed, fascinated, curious, amazed, sad—without feeling bad about my work. And then I will simply say, with a smile on my face, ”It’s great to be home.”

Suggested Activity

Individually, or with a group of safe colleagues, get together to create a representation of ‘Your Doorway to Therapeutic Presence.” You can do this by using magazine images and computer paper. As you prepare, think, write, and talk about the transition that you make when you begin work in session—from the moment that marks the transition between being alone in your office to your first encounter with your client in the waiting room. Consider what you leave behind as you transition—thoughts of other clients, preoccupation with family issues, plans for the weekend, etc. And consider what you welcome—awareness, presence, compassion, openness to the unknown. We do this transition over and over again, all day long. Some days we do it without effort. Other days our responses to disturbing material in client sessions or personal tragedy cause the transition to be arduous.

As you consider your internal experience of this transition and the state of being on either side of that doorway of therapeutic presence, find collage pictures that represent your experience. For most, the feeling of being present with a client comes with pictures of broad landscape, nature, the representation of awe and the feeling of being at peace with the world. And, depending on the current life situations, the experience outside of therapeutic presence ranges from blissful faces of children to painful images that depict life challenges such as illness, death, and other real struggles.

When you are finished with your doorway, share it. Really—go ahead. This opportunity to allow yourself to be seen outside of your role as therapist by other therapists is the very thing that we are conditioned not to do. This is also one of the most important coping strategies that so many of the researchers suggest. Allow difficulties to be there, honor the intense experience, increase knowledge of self and the therapeutic process, and embrace therapy as a creative process.

References

Kottler, J. (2010). On being a therapist. Jossey-Bass.
Kottler, J. (2005). The client who changed me: Stories of therapist personal transformation (p. 1). New York: Routledge.
May, Rollo. (1959). The nature of creativity. In Anderson, H. (Ed.).Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 55-68). New York, NY: Harper and Brothers.
Norcross, J., & Guy, J. (2009, August 19). Leaving it at the office: Taking care of yourself.
Orlinsky, D., & Ronnestad, M. (2009).How psychotherapists develop: A study of therapeutic work and professional growth. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rogers, Carl, R. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. In Anderson, H. (Ed.) Creativity and its cultivation (pp.69-82). New York, NY: Harper and Brothers. 
Sussman, M. (Ed.). (1995). A perilous calling: The hazards of psychotherapy practice. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Ventura, M. Beauty resurrected: Awakening wonder in the consulting room.

Violet Oaklander on Gestalt Therapy with Children

An Unorthodox Notion

Rafal Mietkiewicz: Violet, what makes me curious is that you are trained as a Gestalt therapist and people connect you with Gestalt therapy, but Gestalt therapy was mainly considered, at least here in Europe, to work primarily with adults. How did you find your way to do Gestalt therapy with the kids?
Violet Oaklander: I was already working with emotionally disturbed children in the schools when I got interested in Gestalt therapy. One of my children became very ill and died. I was very depressed. My friend was going to Esalen Institute to be in a group for a week with Jim Simkin, so I went with him, and I was so impressed with what happened to me. It made such a difference for me that when I came back, I started training in the Los Angeles Gestalt Therapy Institute, and while I was training, I thought, “How could I apply this to children?”It seemed very organic to me. Fritz Perls talked about the body and senses and all of that. I found that it fit my work with children and child development. And of course, over the years, I started using a lot of creative media, like drawing and clay and puppets and music, because that’s the only way it would interest children. But behind that, the basis of my work was Gestalt therapy theory and philosophy. And I developed it more and more as time went by. That’s how it got started.

RM: That’s what you wrote in your book—that children already know, but they are wearing special glasses, so you just take the glasses off?
VO: Yeah. I have many stories working with kids. I’m trying to think of when I first started. When I first began, I was working in the schools with maybe a group of 12 children. And they were older—maybe 12 and 13 years old, all boys. These were kids that didn’t make good contact; they didn’t connect very well with other children.I started doing things that were sort of different. I would have them finger paint. I’d line up the desks so it was like a table, and they’d stand around the table finger painting. At first, they didn’t want to do it. “It’s for babies.” But while they were finger painting, they would talk to each other, make really good contact. And of course it was important to establish boundaries—what they could not do and what they could do. So that was very clear.

Another thing I started doing was bringing in wood, and they would build things. These were children who weren’t allowed to hold a hammer or a saw because they were very disturbed children—it was dangerous. But I saw other classes had wood and got to build things, so I got that. And they had rules: they couldn’t swing the saw or the hammer, or else they had to sit down that day.

I wouldn’t let them build guns, but they could build boxes and birdhouses, and they would work together because they had to share the tools. You would not believe they were emotionally disturbed children. They were making such good contact and really enjoying this. I did many things like that.

RM: You look like you really enjoy your work.
VO: Oh, yeah. I even had the old empty chair. I had two chairs in the front of the room, and when a kid would get really upset and angry, I would have him sit in the chair and talk to the empty chair.And the child that he was angry at might be in the room there, but he would be talking to the empty chair. And then I’d have him switch and say, “Well, what do you think he would say back to you?” and it was so amazing because he would realize that he was projecting. They didn’t know that word—they didn’t have that insight. But they could see that they were projecting their own stuff on the other boy.

It would be so amazing. They would come into the room and say, “I need the chairs.” They would talk to a teacher who had yelled at them outside. They would talk to that teacher, and then they would begin to see that the reason the teacher yelled at them is because they did something they weren’t supposed to do. They knew this, but when they sat in the empty chair, they’d say, “Well, I yelled at you because you hit this other boy!” And then I’d say, “Now, what do you say to that?” They’d say, “Yeah, I guess I did. I did do that, yeah.” It was just little things like that that I began to do, to experiment with some of the techniques.

After I left teaching and I was in private practice, I thought a lot about what I was doing, and I started developing a therapeutic process that was based on Gestalt therapy, beginning with the “I-thou” relationship, and looking at how the child made contact, and then building his sense of self and helping him to express his emotion.

RM: It seems like you combine a bunch of techniques and approaches in your work—like expressive art therapy or child group therapy.
VO: Yeah. We do a lot of sensory work. I mentioned finger painting—anything they can touch. Clay is incredibly sensory and evocative. If it seems like they need to do some movement, we do that. Sometimes we play creative dramatics—charades—because to show something, you have to really be in touch with your body. We might start with fingers: “What am I doing? Now, you do something.” And they think of something and they have to use fingers to act it out.And then maybe we do a sport—they have to show with their body what sport they’re playing, and I have to guess. It might be obvious, but they enjoy doing that anyway—maybe catching a ball or hitting with a bat or tennis racquet. They have to get in touch with their body to do that.

The projective work with drawings and the clay is also very important, because this is how they can project what’s inside of them and then own it. One example is a boy who had a lot of anger but he kept it inside. He presented himself as just very nice and sweet, and nothing was wrong with his life. It was only after I asked him to make something, anything—I usually say, “Close your eyes and just make something, and then you can finish it with your eyes open”—he made a whale, and told a whole story about how the whale had a family—a mother and a father and sister.

What I always do after they tell the story is try to bring it back, so I said, “Well, does that fit for you? Do you have a family like that?” He said, “No, my father lives far away because he and my mother don’t live together. I never see him.” “Well, how do you feel about that?” And then we started talking about his father, which he would never have mentioned, and all this feeling came up. It’s very powerful.

The First Session

RM: How do you approach the first session with a child?
VO: I always meet, if possible, with the parents and the child the first session, because I want the child to hear whatever the parents tell me. I don’t want the parents to tell me things and have the child not know what they told me.Even if the parents are saying bad things about the child, the child needs to hear what I hear from the parents.

Usually in the first session, I have a checklist, and very often I would put it on a clipboard. First I would say, “Why are you here?” and all that. Then I would ask the child these questions. “Do you have a good appetite? Do you have bad dreams?” A whole list of questions.

Sometimes the parent would chime in, but mostly it’s to the child. It was a way of really making a connection with the child. Of course, if they were very, very young, four years old, maybe I’d still ask these questions, but not everything—and use language they could understand.

That’s always pretty much the first session. But if there are no parents involved—because I saw many kids who were in foster homes or group homes—the first session is an important one to establish some kind of connection or relationship. Sometimes I’d ask the child to draw a picture on that first session. I’d ask them to draw a house-tree-person. But I wouldn’t interpret it. It’s not for interpretation. It was to say to them when they were done, “Well, this picture tells me that you keep a lot of things to yourself. Does that fit for you?”—because maybe they wouldn’t draw many windows. And they usually would say “yes.” Or, “This picture tells me that you have a lot of anger inside of you. Does that fit for you?” If they’d say, “No, I’m not angry,” I’d say, “Oh, okay. I just need to check out what I think it tells me,” and we would have that kind of a session.

I did that once with a very resistant 16-year-old girl who at first said she wouldn’t speak to me. And when we finished, she wanted her sister and her mother to come in and do that drawing. So it’s a way of connecting.

But we don’t always do that. If it’s a child who is very frightened—I had a girl, for instance, who was very severely sexually abused for many years, and it finally came out when she was about 11, and she was removed from the home. So she was in a foster home, but the foster mother was very devoted to her and came in, too.

But she was very, very frightened and didn’t want to talk to me. So in the beginning we would take a coloring book, and we’d both color in the book. And we wouldn’t really talk about anything. I’d say to her, “Should I use red for this bird? What do you think?” and just begin to connect with her that way. Pretty soon I was asking her, “Well, what do you think the bird would say if it could talk?”—that kind of thing.

Pay Attention

RM: It’s my guess that you don’t really diagnose kids in clinical terms.
VO: No. I mean, sometimes I would have to for an insurance company. But it’s a matter of seeing where they’re at, where they’re blocked. I had one boy who walked very stiffly all the time. He was 11 years old. And I thought, “Maybe we need to do something to help him loosen up before we even talk about his feelings”—that kind of diagnosis.
RM: So, you don’t find clinical diagnosis useful in therapy?
VO: Not very much, no.
RM: You trust in what you see and what you feel about the kid.
VO: What I see, yeah.If, for example, the child has a lot of difficulty making a relationship with me, that’s what we have to focus on, because I can’t do anything unless we have that relationship. Sometimes children have been very hurt and damaged so early, they have trouble making a relationship. So we have to figure out how we could do that.

I used to see a lot of adolescents who were arrested by the police because they had committed a crime. I was involved in a program where they would send these children to counseling. It was a special program they were trying. So this one girl came in. She had to come—she had no choice. She was 14. She wouldn’t look at me, she wouldn’t talk to me. She just sat there. Naturally when a child does that, it makes you have to come forward more. Well, it didn’t work. So I thought, “Maybe I cannot see this girl. Maybe I have to refer her to another person.”

I went out into the waiting room the next time she came, and she was reading a magazine. I sat down next to her and I said, “What are you reading?” She flashed the cover at me. I said, “I didn’t see it,” so she held it up.

RM: And that was the beginning of contact.
VO: Yeah. Already we were making contact. And it was a music magazine about different groups. I said, “I don’t know anything about that. Could we look at it together?” So we went into my office and looked at the magazine, and she was telling me about the different groups. It was mostly heavy metal. And she was all excited, telling me about the groups and which ones she liked.We tried to find the music on the radio because I said, “I don’t know what it sounds like.” We couldn’t find it, so she said she would bring in a tape. The next week, she brought it in and we listened together. Some of the songs were so amazing—all these feelings and anger. So we just started working with that. And we had a relationship.

But we need to do that—start with where they are. Pay attention. I wasn’t paying attention in the beginning. It was only when I thought, “What am I going to do?”

RM: So apparently the child therapist must be very in touch with his own senses. I guess it’s more important than clinical knowledge.
VO: I think you’re right. You have to know things, but that’s most important—to be in touch with yourself. It’s not easy to be a child therapist. An adult comes in and says, “This is what I want to work on,” or, “This is what’s happening.” When a child comes in, she doesn’t have a sense of what she needs to do. And you have to talk to parents, and you have to talk to teachers, and that kind of thing, too. So it’s different.
RM: Do you do something particular to help bring each session to an end—to help bring the child back to “regular life?”
VO: I think the job of the therapist is to help the child express what’s going on inside. But I notice that most children will only express what they have the strength to, and then they get resistant or they close down. They take care of themselves better than adults that way.But if they do open up a lot, we have to pay attention to what I call “grounding” them. I have a policy that children have to help me clean up whatever we’ve used. So we start cleaning up and then I’ll say, “Well, that was hard. Maybe we’ll talk some more about it next time, but where are you going now?” or “What are you having for dinner?” or “What did you have for dinner?” We talk about regular things to help them come back to ground.

RM: I know that Gestalt therapists hate “shoulds,” but using a paradox, are there any “shoulds” that a good child therapist should obey?
VO: Nothing comes immediately to mind, other than things I’ve already said. But speaking of “shoulds,” it’s worth noting that children have a lot of “shoulds.” People don’t realize that, but children are very hard on themselves. They’re split—there’s a part of them that’s very critical of themselves and then a part of them that, of course, rebels against that. Sometimes we help them understand that, especially if they are adolescents.
RM: Do you touch or hug your clients?
VO: Sometimes, but I’ll always ask them. I might say, “Can I give you a hug?” I don’t just do it. I have to ask them. Or I might put my hand on their shoulder. I can tell if they pull away that that’s not a good thing to do. Or sometimes we shake hands. We do a little bit—not a lot.

Working with Parents

RM: Do you often talk to parents?
VO: Oh, yes. This girl that I just mentioned, she lived in a foster home, and they didn’t care about her, so they weren’t interested. They just did what they had to do. But yes, parents come in. Every three or four weeks they have to come in with the child. Sometimes we just have a family session and I don’t see the child individually. It depends. You have to just decide which is the best way to go.
RM: We have agreed that it’s important for therapists to be in touch with their own feelings. What other qualities should one have to be a good child therapist?

VO:

You have to understand child development so you have a sense of if the child is not at the level she needs to be at. You have to understand the process. You have to be in touch with yourself. You need to know when your own buttons are being pressed—in psychoanalytic vocabulary, they call it transference. You have to understand when you have some countertransference, and to deal with that and work with that.

RM: In your Child Therapy Case Consultation video, a therapist is presenting a case of a child who is acting aggressively. You state at one point that kids can’t change their behavior with awareness. Is this why you often use art or have kids smash clay or other activities, versus just talk therapy?
VO: Yeah. What I mean is children don’t say, “This is what I’m doing to keep me from being happy or satisfied.” Even adults have trouble being aware of what they do to keep themselves stuck. So, with children, these drawings and clay are powerful projections. And it’s the way they can articulate what’s going on with them, without bypassing the intellect, but coming out from a deeper place. And at some point, they will own it. They will say, “Oh, yes, that fits for me.”When children feel stronger about themselves and they express what’s blocking, their behaviors change without having to force it or say anything. I mean, what makes children do what they do? All the behaviors that bring them into therapy are really ways of not being able to express what they need to express—of not being heard or not feeling good inside themselves.

RM: How do you measure progress in your work with children?
VO: It’s important to help the parents see the small changes, and not to expect complete reversal. And, of course, we have to work with the parents, too. Often the parents have a lot of difficulty with their own anger, and we have to work to help them understand how to express these feelings without hurting people around them. We can often do that in family sessions—help them to express what they’re feeling and what they’re wanting and what their sadness is about.One of the things I’ll say to parents is that I don’t fix kids. But what I do is I help them feel better about themselves. I help them express some of their deeper feelings that they’re keeping inside, and help them feel a little happier in life. We do many things to make this happen. And that’s what you have to look for. So when a parent comes in a month later and I say, “How are things going at home?” and the father says, “I think he’s a little happier,” then I know that this father has got it, and he’s seeing some progress here.

I am thinking of this was a boy of maybe 14 who was stealing, and the father wanted to send him to a military school because he couldn’t control him. There was a lot of reason the boy was like that, but that doesn’t help to understand the reason. It’s good to understand the reason why he’s like that, to help him change and be different.

So that’s how I look at progress. When they’re doing better out in life, they’re going to school and have some friends, and doing some of the things they have to do at home, and doing their schoolwork, then you’re seeing progress. They may not be altogether different, but they’re functioning in life.

The other thing that’s important is that it has to be at their level. Children can’t work everything out. They have different development levels. So the girl who was very severely sexually abused, we did a lot of work about that. But when she was 13, she had to come back into therapy for more work—things came up. They reach plateaus. They have to go out and be in life, and then maybe more things come up.

Becoming a Child Therapist

RM: Does it happen often that, when therapists work with a kid, the therapists’ trauma from childhood appears?
VO: Absolutely. That’s something one has to really know about—be in therapy, have a therapist. I have several people who come to me for supervision who are very experienced therapists, and that’s the reason they come. I think it’s really good for a child therapist to have somebody to talk to and consult with because it’s very difficult sometimes. You can’t always see what’s going on.
RM: How long does it take to be fully trained as a child therapist?
VO: Oh, gosh. For many years, I did a two-week training. People would come from all over the world. And sometimes they would get it in those two weeks, and other times they didn’t, so I don’t know. Two weeks is not enough, but it was the most that people could give of their time. Sometimes they’d come back two or three times to the training, but those were people who actually got it the most, because they were so committed to learning more.I can’t define a time. They have to have the experience of working with children first, I suppose, and understand about children. You have to have patience when you work with children. If one thing happens in a session—if they say, “I’m like that lion. I get so angry, just like that lion,” or whatever—if they say one thing, sometimes that’s it for a session. You have to be patient.

RM: What are the most frequent mistakes that therapists make when they work with kids?
VO: Usually what happens is therapists get stuck. They don’t know where to go next or what to do next.
RM: But why do they get stuck?
VO: Maybe they’re just not able to stand back and look. Sometimes, in a supervision or consultation, I’ll give a suggestion, and they’ll say, “Oh, of course, why didn’t I think of that? Of course, I know that.” They get too close to it and worry about doing the right thing. They’re afraid to make mistakes, really. I always tell them, “No matter what you do, you can’t really go wrong.”
RM: If you were to give the best advice to the young therapists about working with children, what would be this advice be?
VO: I might say if you’re working with children, you have to like children!

If you’re working with children, you have to like children!

What Keeps Me Going

RM: My last question is personal. How do you manage to keep so vital?
VO: You know, I’m 84.
RM: You don’t look it.
VO: I don’t know. I am who I am, I guess. I’m still working some. I have this foundation (The Violet Solomon Oaklander Foundation), and we’re having a conference this weekend at a retreat center, and I’m going to do a keynote. So every now and then I still do something like that, or conduct a supervision. That’s what keeps me going. I do a little writing. I read a lot.I lived in Santa Barbara, California, for 21 years. And my son, who lives in Los Angeles, decided I was getting too old to live there by myself. So he tore down his garage and he had a little cottage built, and that’s where I live now, in this little cottage behind their house.

I miss Santa Barbara. I had a lot of friends. I’d be more vital if I was back in Santa Barbara. But I am getting older, and I had a little heart attack this year—little. I’m okay. But I was in the hospital a few days. So it’s good that I’m near my son and my daughter-in-law.

RM: It is obvious for me that you, at 84, have still have so much to give to the others.
VO: Thank you very much for those nice words. I will, as long as I can.That’s what keeps me vital: just doing as much as I can, as long as I can. I just have to learn to take it easy.

Robin Rosenberg on Treating Eating Disorders

Rebecca Aponte: When you think about eating disorders, do you think of both anorexia and bulimia? Is there a lot of overlap in people who engage in these behaviors?
Robin Rosenberg: There are people who engage in both types of behaviors. In DSM-IV, individuals who exhibit all the criteria for anorexia but who also binge and purge would be diagnosed as anorexia nervosa binge/purge type. So diagnostically, anorexia trumps bulimia, if you will. But that is just the DSM-IV; who knows what will happen in DSM-V?
RA: Are they related?
RR: They appear to be, at least for a significant subset of people. So in terms of the research, when you look at people who have bulimia versus people who have anorexia, that is not necessarily a helpful distinction. Anorexia has, in DSM-IV, two subtypes. There is the traditional restricting type, which is the people who eat minimally, and then there is the form of anorexia where people are significantly underweight and may be amenorrheic [they have stopped menstruating], but they may also binge or eat without restricting, but then purge in some way, or use other compensatory behaviors. Those people are classified as anorexia binge/purge type, but in studies, those people have more in common with people who have bulimia than they do with anorexia restrictive type. Some of this is a bit of a diagnostic artifact, because it’s the way that it has been defined in DSM-IV.The most interesting thing about eating disorders in terms of classification issues is that it is not uncommon for people to move from one eating disorder to another over time.

Chicken or Egg: Looking at Causes of Eating Disorders

RA: What do you think are the causes of anorexia and bulimia? Is there a general consensus on what causes them?
RR: One of the things that is clear is the influence of culture, in that our culture is pretty screwed up about body ideal, especially for women. And it is hard to be a young woman or an older woman in our society and have a positive relationship with your body because of the cultural messages about how women should look, which is basically unattainable unless it is a full-time job or you have a lot of plastic surgery.There was a fascinating study by Anne Becker and her colleague. She went to Fiji and happened to be there right as they were getting Western television. Fiji is a Polynesian culture in which typically the ideal body type was the voluptuous large woman, and they were seeing Western TV with our ideal body types—very thin. So she had a chance to study girls and young women, and what was fascinating but sad is that over the time that television was there, the girls basically stopped liking their voluptuous bodies. They started dieting, talking about dieting; there was a lot of peer stuff about food and weight and appearance, consciousness which hadn’t been there before.

It is not a true experimental design, but it is pretty compelling. These young women were from a culture that had historically had an ideal of a heavyset look for women—yet some of them started spontaneously throwing up because they felt they had eaten too much, which could be a symptom of bulimia. Very sad. So culture is clearly part of the equation for both anorexia and bulimia.

RA: There are images surrounding us constantly of unrealistically thin or fit men and women, but it seems that not everyone is as susceptible to negative self-comparisons.
RR: That’s exactly right. Because this is a multi-determined category of disorders, there is no one factor that stands out, but people with eating disorders often report having been teased about their appearance or body size or shape. At least, these experiences are on their minds in such a way that they tend to report them. So that is another cultural piece, if you will.Personality factors or being perfectionistic—that is particularly true for people who have a restrictive type of anorexia. The thought is they will diet and then they keep dieting. It is a very slippery slope of weight loss.

People who binge and purge or have a binge/purge-type anorexia may have some issue around impulsivity or emotional regulation. Sometimes they will have more substance abuse issues, alcohol in particular. There is sometimes a cycle where they become disinhibited by drinking, and then they overeat, and then they feel bad, and then they throw up or purge and whatever they do with the eating. Frequently, they exercise the next day.

RA: Is it as if they are using these behaviors as external tools to try and help deal with their emotions?
RR: Exactly. In fact, people who binge talk about using it to zone out, to get away from themselves, but then they just feel really bad afterwards, so it doesn’t really work. It works in the moment, but not later.
RA: Are there common family dynamics in eating-disordered people? You mentioned some personality issues of being perfectionistic, but are there any relational patterns that stand out?
RR: The biggest one is a family preoccupation with weight, food and appearance, or being teased in other ways, their body shape being an issue—which makes sense, right?If your family is really attuned to how you look or how they look, that is what you learn and what you internalize. There appear to be some causal biology issues as well, but that is also very hard; it is sort of a chicken-and-egg thing, because people often don’t come to the attention of research studies until they have an eating disorder. And once your eating is disordered, you are changing your biology.

So there are lots of associations, but it is just not clear. Sometimes eating disorders run in families. Is that genetic coding? If a parent had eating issues, the odds are that there will be a family dynamic around food. So is that genetic or is that biological? They are trying to tease this part out. Is the eating disorder co-morbid with a mood issue, which could explain why antidepressants might work for people with bulimia? I think the biology part maybe a bit oversold. People have different temperaments that make them vulnerable to different sets of disorders if environmental circumstances trigger them. But I don’t think it is the case where someone has the gene and therefore he or she gets it.

RA: It certainly seems like you are leaning much more towards a social explanation.
RR: Right. It’s not as if eating disorders typically arise across like multiple generations in the same family.
RA: That is what I was going to ask, too. Are the rates of anorexia and views around eating disorders different in different parts of the world?
RR: There have been people with anorexia in recorded history going back quite a while, but they were mostly young women or older girls, and it was religiously motivated—a sort of asceticism. There weren’t issues about body image per se. And in current times in Asia, at least 10 years ago when they did some of these cross-cultural studies, some of the young women with anorexia didn’t say that they felt fat, but they complained that the reason they didn’t eat much was because they didn’t like the way that they felt. They did not express the same fear of weight issues that Western girls or adults with anorexia have.The other thing is that 30 years ago anorexia was a kind of white upper-middle-class disorder; now it is an equal opportunity disorder.

Dissatisfied or Delusional?: Body Dysmorphia and Pro-Ana Culture

RA: What is the role of body dysmorphia—a disturbed image of someone’s own body? Is that causative, or is that more like a symptom?
RR: It is hard to figure out what is normal eating for a woman in our society. It is hard to sort out where the line is between normal and abnormal size. When guys are hungry, they eat; it’s fuel. But it is really hard for women to view food as fuel that they need and not use it in other ways, and listen to their body about when they are hungry and full and not be externally regulated—”This is the amount I should eat, and this much is too much,” or that kind of thing.So many women feel fat, or feel fatter than they actually are. Is that body dysmorphia, or is that just part of what women think it means to be a woman? Is that what our culture tells us women are supposed to do? Women say, “How do I look? Do I look fat in this?” That is part of the culture.

Real dysmorphia is preoccupying—it is almost delusional. They have done some studies on women with anorexia: they have an Adobe Photoshop morphing program where there is a photo of them and they can turn a dial to make themselves thinner or heavier. So you ask them to adjust the image to what they think is their actual body size. Some of the studies show they are actually pretty accurate—it is not that they necessarily see themselves as heavier than they are—but some studies don’t show that. It is a little hard to say.

The dysmorphia isn’t about being unhappy with your body; it is really thinking that your body is different than it is. And I think it is not uncommon for people who were heavy when they were younger—no matter how thin they are, they may feel like they are heavy. It is not a dysmorphia—it is just how they encoded their body image, and it is really, really hard to update it accurately. It is like people who grew up poor: no matter how much money they have, they often feel poor. It’s not like they are delusional. They know that they have this money, but it’s hard to fully accept the new circumstances in a deep way.

RA: Do you find that restrictive eating is often a way to get attention, or is it really primarily an attempt to fix a perceived flaw in oneself?
RR: I think people come to it for really different reasons. It’s sort of like substance abuse. There are many different reasons why people start this slippery slope of using or abusing a substance. But once they are dependent on the substance, it takes on a life of its own, and ultimately they all look similar at that end of the process. Some people start out trying to lose some weight. It feels really good. They get a lot of positive feedback about it. They say, “Okay, I will just lose a little bit more, a little bit more.” And then, before you know it, they are underweight and their self-esteem has gotten tied up with it. They have gotten this reinforcement from, who knows, their boyfriend.And then it is really hard to come out of it, because depending on how underweight you are, you start having some cognitive impairment issues, and then it is hard to make good decisions. Bulimia or binging and purging is a similar thing: it may start out where someone ate so much that she felt either physically uncomfortable or emotionally uncomfortable with how much she had “pigged out,” so to speak. So she may have made herself throw up, and then in that moment she felt better—there was immediate positive reinforcement for the behavior. So the next time she feels uncomfortable she thinks, “Oh, well, this worked last time. I will do it this time.” And then she does it again and she start to think, “Well, it’s okay if I overeat, because if I do, I can just throw up, or I can take laxatives, or I will just do another half hour on the Stairmaster,” or something.

Then it becomes a slippery slope. It is not necessarily for attention, but once they do it, it becomes a coping strategy that it is hard to switch off. And it often becomes the primary coping strategy.

RA: Has there been a shift in anorexic culture with the rise of pro-ana websites? (These are websites that act to support groups for eating disordered women, to encourage each other in extreme weight loss.)
RR: Yeah, it’s really sad. It is one of the downsides of the Internet. It is ubiquitous—if you want that kind of support, it’s there for you. And I think it is really hard for families and caregivers, because you can’t forbid someone to use the Internet, so it is much harder to control the environment in a way that is positive.
RA: Is that the main difference since the rise of these kinds of websites—that it is more difficult to create a healing environment and to control that space?
RR: I think that is one of the differences. I think there is also a “me, too” copycat issue. In psychotherapy, there is a certain competitiveness that happens. It is not just advice. If you have a therapy group of women with anorexia, you have to have a skilled group therapist to make sure that the group doesn’t end up being de facto pro-ana. You don’t want people to get into this competitive “I’m thinner than she is, I eat less” dynamic.

The Importance of Teamwork: Treating Eating-Disordered Patients

RA: What kinds of events precipitate eating disordered individuals seeking treatment?
RR: Sometimes the individuals recognize they have a problem—either they saw something on television or a film or online. Or they vomited up some blood or they passed out. Sometimes people just feel like it is taking over their lives and they haven’t quite realized it until they were late for some event because they were engaging in these behaviors. Or a friend was using the toilet, the bathroom was left disgusting, and they had a fight.Sometimes it is family members being concerned. Sometimes if they are under 18 or even if they are college age, parents may say, “You have to do this,” or, “We won’t pay for college if you don’t do this.” So there may be a certain level of coercion.

RA: Do eating disordered clients usually minimize their problem?
RR: I think it depends on why they are there. If they are not there because they want to be, then they may be tempted to minimize it. I think it is like substance abuse in that way. If people are really there because they feel totally committed and want to be there, they are likely to be more honest than people who are ambivalently there.
RA: Are there pitfalls to getting in the role of monitoring their eating or bulimic episodes? How do you balance concern for their physical well being with the need to give nonjudgmental support?
RR: Great question. One of the things that is really important for psychotherapists treating eating disorder patients is to work with either an internist or a pediatrician who has experience and knowledge about medically treating eating disorders. This is super important, because as the psychotherapist you don’t want to get into that dilemma of having to be the bad cop, or any cop. You just don’t want to have to be monitoring their medical status. And frankly, most mental health clinicians don’t have the training. Even psychiatrists shouldn’t be in that role because that is really a medical role.And not all internists and pediatricians really know how to monitor patients with eating disorders. They don’t necessarily know what to look for, and they don’t know how patients might try to game the medical exam. For example, a good practice for any kind of eating disorder, and patients who have anorexia in particular, is that they should be weighed every time they come in. And they should be weighed with only a gown, because sometimes anorexic patients will put weights into their clothes to make themselves heavier on a scale so it looks like they have gained weight.

If you have them wear a gown, or even if you don’t, you really need to palpitate their bladder, because sometimes patients will water-load before they come in as a way of being heavier on the scale. Water-loading is very dangerous because it can make their electrolytes go all out of whack. So there are all these things that you wouldn’t necessarily think to do.

For eating disordered patients, the internist should explain that they have to be weighed every time. If they don’t want to know the numbers on the scale, the internist is happy to weigh them backwards, or have the nurse or the physician’s assistant weigh the patient backwards. Sometimes patients freak out by the numbers on the scale every time they come in, if it is up or down or that kind of thing. It can be devastating for patients to see the numbers on the scale show they are gaining weight, even if they know that they are and they should.

RA: Other than working with internists, are there other things that therapists should know about working with anorexic or severely bulimic clients?
RR: It’s really good to have a dietician who knows about treating people with eating disorders. Sometimes a dietician who doesn’t have specific training in eating disorders can do more harm than good. It is really about specializing. They are a valuable part of the program because they can look at a patient’s food chart and see, “Gee, maybe you are having cravings for ice cream because you are not getting enough fat earlier in the day. So what happens is by dinner time you are not being sustained by the food that you are eating because you need fats to give a sense of satiety.”So if they are basically having a low-fat diet, they will be much more likely to be at risk to binge later in the day. It is little things like that, where even a nutritional consult can be helpful.

RA: What do you think about residential eating disorder programs? Are they worth the cost? Is it possible to get that kind of care as an outpatient?
RR: I leave the medical decision to have someone do residential treatment to the person’s pediatrician, doctor, or internist. We consult with part of a team, but at some point it is a medical decision, which means it is really not safe for the person to be doing what they are doing on an outpatient basis.There are various steps of care for eating disorders. You can have a 24-hour inpatient experience. You can have residential, which means that is where they sleep. They have a dinner meal and they sleep there, but during the day they are doing other things. You can have a day treatment, which is their 9 to 5, but then they sleep somewhere else. You can have intensive outpatient treatment, where the person comes three to five times a week for a psychotherapy session, or more regular once- or twice-a-week outpatient psychotherapy.

There is a range of different options available depending on the severity, the patient’s motivation, insurance issues, or practical issues. Sometimes residential is really the best course of action because the eating is so out of control that they need an environment that is totally structured for them 24 hours a day.

The main problem with residential is that when people leave, they typically go back to the same environment that they came from, and they have all the situational cues. It’s like putting an alcoholic in detox—if afterwards you put them back with their friends who are going to bars, or they have all of the alcohol in the house, or they haven’t learned new coping strategies adequately, then they are kind of back to square one.

RA: Because they are surrounded by enablers?
RR: Right, depending on the situation. And honestly, unlike alcohol, someone can not drink, but you can’t not eat. And I think that is one of the hardest things about recovering from an eating disorder—it is really having to figure out how to do it in a different way. It is not an all-or-none thing. And it is really hard, I think, to figure out how much food is enough. When should I get up from the table? How hungry should I be before I start a meal? How hungry should I be to have a snack?
RA: With regards to psychotherapy, in your experience, what kind of treatment works best?
RR: The kind for which the patient is most motivated. The track record in research studies is for cognitive behavioral therapy; that is the gold standard and the treatment of choice for bulimia. For young people with anorexia, if a family is willing to do it, there is what is called the Maudsley Approach, named after Maudsley Hospital in England, which is where the treatment originated. The idea for this treatment is that the therapist’s role is to support the parents and the parents’ wisdom and authority in getting their child to eat. So the child lives at home, and one of the parents is home 24 hours a day, and they alternate. The idea is that the kid can’t do anything until she eats, and as parents it is their right to get their kid to eat. But you don’t want to literally force it down her throat, so the therapist is a consultant helping the parents use their knowledge of their child and their authority to help the person eat. There is a great book for the Maudsley Treatment called Treatment Manual for Anorexia Nervosa.
RA: That sounds pretty intense for a family.
RR: It is incredible intensive. It is a huge family investment in time and energy, and it has a very good track record. But obviously, you are not going to use this with a 30-year-old.For people with anorexia who are older or for whom Maudsley doesn’t make sense, if they are medically stable, so they don’t need to be in an inpatient unit, cognitive behavioral therapy can be very helpful. But the main problem with cognitive behavioral therapy for people with anorexia is if they are underweight enough, their cognitive functioning is compromised; it is subtle, so patients don’t always realize that their cognitive functioning is compromised.

So what happens is that you can’t really do the cognitive work, because they can’t do it. They can pretend to do it, but they believe that their thoughts about food are actually rational.

RA: What do you do at that point?
RR: If this is because they are underweight, you may actually want to do a brief inpatient or day treatment stay to get their weight into a healthier range so that the cognitive functioning is better.Sometimes depending on how old they are, their living circumstances, they are having family therapy or even couples therapy, if they are older. And they are trying all different kinds of things. Interpersonal therapy (IPT) is being used for bulimia. It has actually got a pretty good track record. Most people don’t have training in IPT, so it is not as widespread. Another thing that can be helpful is dialectic behavioral therapy for people with intense bulimia, because it is really an emotional regulation problem, so DBT aimed at helping with emotional regulation can be very helpful. Researchers are beginning to apply DBT as a way of treating bulimia, and results are encouraging.

Tips for the Novice

RA: If a client reveals to his psychotherapist that he has some form of disordered eating but he is not drastically underweight, at what point should he be referred out to someone who specializes in these kinds of issues?
RR: What might make sense before clients are referred out is if therapists are willing to have a consult with someone who has this expertise in eating disorders, because it can’t hurt.If the psychotherapist doesn’t have an expertise in eating disorders, even in a one-shot consultation they will learn something that will help them for other patients in their practice. They themselves will get to ask that question—”What is the cutoff? What are the questions I should be asking patients when they mention eating that seems a little odd to me?”

Therapists who are at all wondering if a consult is a good way to go should do what therapists naturally do when a flag goes up with something a patient mentions, which is to ask more about it. Try to get a little bit of a history of the problem. Does the patient see it as a problem? Do family members or friends mention it? What does the patient think the function is? What function does it serve? What are the drawbacks? What are ways in which it seems the patient thinks it is working for him or her to have that disordered system? So collect information.

When there is any doubt, a consultation is a really good idea. Or, if it is really clear that the person has a problem that is enough out of the therapist’s expertise, he makes a referral and explain to the patient, “You know, it’s not necessarily an ‘eating disorder,’ but it sounds like it is enough of a problem in your life that it is worth just getting some advice from someone who has an expertise about this.”

Again I wouldn’t frame it as the person should enter lifelong eating disorder treatment. If the therapist doesn’t think she needs a consult herself, let the patient have a consult.

RA: What is the biggest challenge of working with these kinds of clients?
RR: One of the things about the process of becoming a better therapist is figuring out the kinds of clients that aren’t a good fit for you. And patients with eating disorders are definitely not a good fit for some therapists. One of the things is just to realize that and there is no shame in that. It’s really not an issue. We all have kinds of patients who we work better with and kinds of patients that we work less well with.So if you as a therapist feel like, “Ugh, I don’t really want to get into this. This is just not my thing,” that’s really useful information and it may make sense to refer the person to someone else.

Again, I think the best thing to do when that happens is to have a consultation. I am a big believer in either peer consultation, groups with people who have an expertise in eating disorder or paying for a consult, but if you feel like you are not being as helpful as you can, if it feels like the treatment is standing still, it is always good to get another take on the case. That is where we have case conferences and things like that.

The easy cases, where the work gets done very quickly, usually happen when it is a newly diagnosed eating disorder or new onset, and the person is really motivated. But I think more and more there are the chronic cases where people have been doing it for a long time and it is one of the main coping strategies that they have. And if they got the eating disorder at a young age, they never really developed themselves as people outside of the eating disorder, so they don’t actually know who they are. There is no baseline they can return to.

And it can be very slow-going work. The patient may be ambivalent about getting better, so it may feel like it is two steps forward, one step back, or just sometimes like you are standing still.

RA: What is the hardest thing for you personally in working with it?
RR: I think it is my own impatience to want to help them get better sooner.
RA: Having more motivation than they have sometimes?
RR: Yeah, exactly.
RA: You mentioned it is important for therapists to figure out what kinds of clients are a good fit for them. Have you noticed personality characteristics that make really good therapists for working with eating disorders?
RR: Yes. One of them is people who aren’t squeamish about talking about vomit, about loose stool, about bodily functions in great detail. If someone is uncomfortable about that, then it is definitely not a good fit. Some people may feel like they are being too intrusive to ask the kinds of questions that should be asked: “How often are you throwing up? How do you throw up? What does it feel like when you throw up?”The other part is there is a lot of work about body image. The actual eating disorder symptoms sometimes, with appropriate treatment, can get better remarkably quickly. But what happens is residual body image issues remain; the person may be eating in a normal way but he or she doesn’t like their body, they may be cutting—not parasuicidal cutting, but they make little marks with a razor on their thighs, that kind of body hatred. That is a different level of work that then has to get done.

RA: When you are at that piece of the work, is cognitive behavioral therapy still the best modality for that?
RR: If people are having that kind of self-harming behavior, probably DBT, dialectical behavior therapy, or some of those techniques can be very useful because, again, it is about emotional regulation. If you hate your body so much that you hurt yourself like that, then I would say DBT is a good way to go.Often, there are psychodynamic issues as well. And there is a fantastic workbook by a man named Tom Cash called The Body Image Workbook, and it is just a fantastic book—well researched, very effective treatment for body image issues. The main problem is that people don’t necessarily want to do the work that is in the workbook. They have to be really motivated to do it. It is a lot of record keeping and exercise, not physical exercise but things like “stand naked, look in the mirror”—Mirror Exposure, it’s called. And that can be really hard for people. So therapy can actually be helpful in getting people over the hump to do that work.

RA: Have you learned anything in specializing in eating disorders that has informed your general practice?
RR: Absolutely. I have a deep respect for people’s ambivalence about getting better, and about how the longer symptoms persist, the harder it is to turn them around because people forget who they were before. The saddest part about eating disorders developed early is there was no “before.”But that’s generalizing. The other thing is just the awesome human spirit and the general capacity to try valiantly to cope. Human beings are amazing, and to a certain extent we are very resilient. Eating disorders, in some sense, are a type of resilience that just went awry, that became pathological.

RA: Say more about that.
RR: If you are having a hard time, if your boyfriend broke up with you and you are sad, it’s not uncommon in our culture to go have some ice cream to console yourself. People are just trying to do the best they can, and I think that is true for eating disorders. People who are depressed who struggle valiantly to get out of bed in the morning when they just want to curl up—the fact that they get out of bed is amazing. That is what I mean about the human spirit to keep going, despite all of the things that people are juggling and the mental and physical handicaps, being exhausted, feeling like they are going to faint, just not being able to function well, being preoccupied with lots of food.

Most people, most of the time, are able to put one foot in front of the other and keep going in trying to get better.

RA: What have you found most enjoyable in this work?

RR: I think it is about the essential human contact of really hearing someone in the fullness of who they are—the good, the bad, the ugly—and their profound relief at being accepted for who they are. And then the sense of being able to help them. The amazing thing is, when therapy works, the idea that you helped make someone’s life better.

James Gilligan on the Psychology and Treatment of Violent Offenders

Why Violence?

Rebecca Aponte: You worked with highly violent individuals for many years. Most people are not particularly inclined to work with those kinds of populations. What drew you to work with this population?
James Gilligan: That's a good question. I think the ultimate answer, as with most major life decisions that people make, goes back to my earliest childhood. I grew up in a family with a father who was quite violent toward my two brothers. He was only violent toward me when there was a medical excuse for it—he was a surgeon. But my brothers he would really whack around. He would knock them across the room to the point where I was really scared he would accidentally kill one of them.

Now, it's true, the level of violence didn't reach the extremes that I later became familiar with when I worked with prison inmates who were often the children of fathers or mothers who actually had killed a family member. My father didn't go that far. He was never arrested, and nobody ever made a complaint of child abuse or anything. That was in the days before people even had a concept of child abuse. The whole concept of the battered child syndrome wasn't articulated and expressed until around 1963 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Before that, people didn't even talk about child abuse.

So this was, you might say, "invisible," even though it was happening in a small town in Nebraska where everybody knew everybody else. People could see the bruises on my brothers, but nobody would say a word.

So without consciously intending this at all, I became interested in becoming a peacemaker and trying to figure out how to prevent violence—how to get it stopped, or how to prevent it from happening in the first place. I wouldn't say that I consciously articulated that to myself at the time, and not until years and years later.

But when I became a psychiatrist, I was not at all interested in working with violent patients. I wanted to work with people more or less like myself.
When I became a psychiatrist, I was not at all interested in working with violent patients. I wanted to work with people more or less like myself.
I wanted to become a psychoanalyst and work with the ordinary neuroses that everybody has to one degree or another.

When I was in my residency training at the Harvard Medical School, the teaching hospital was paying me such a small salary that I couldn't afford the expenses I had, because I already had a wife and three children. I needed to supplement my salary, which I learned I could do by spending one day a week in a state prison doing something I had never heard of before and had no interest in, called prison psychiatry.

So I went into this project with no high hopes. I thought it would be an exercise in futility. I thought it would be boring. And I had been taught up to that point that the kinds of people who wind up in prison are totally untreatable—they have no motivation to examine themselves, no motivation for introspection. They wouldn't tell you the truth. They would try to manipulate you by lying to you so that you could help them get an early release date, and on and on.

I was taught all of this and believed it. Then I went into the prisons and discovered that almost everything I had been taught was wrong. And I discovered that it was the most moving experience I had ever had in psychiatry, because I was face to face with the deepest human tragedies on a daily basis. And I mean not just the tragedies these criminals had inflicted on their victims, but also the tragedies they themselves had been victims of in the course of their lives.

What I found was that the most violent among them, and many of those who weren't even at the highest level of violence, had been subjected to a level of child abuse that was beyond the scale of anything I had even thought of applying that term to. As I said earlier, the most violent people were really the survivors of lethal violence, either of their own attempted murders at the hands of one of their parents, or the actual murders of close family members who were often killed by other family members right in front of their eyes.

In the Danger Zone

RA: You have said that the first prerequisite for a therapist working with violent patients is to learn how not to become their victims. How do they do that?
JG: Let me just say two things I would emphasize there. One is simply a practical matter of common sense, which is when you are dealing with a dangerous population, make sure there is plenty of security around. “One of my mentors said, “”If you don’t realize how dangerous these people are, you are more out of touch with reality than they are.”
RA: Aside from the fact that prisoners are obviously in a situation where they are being humiliated so frequently, do you find that therapy with regular people and therapy with violent individuals is really all that different? Or is it very similar?
JG: That's a good question, because throughout the time I was doing this work in the prisons, I was working probably between 70 to 80 hours a week, but I had a very active private practice, too, with people more like myself—Harvard faculty members, Harvard graduate students, local professional people, and so forth.

First of all, the basic principle of respect certainly is universal—that is part of all therapy. But the main difference is the prison work was much more skewed toward crisis intervention. That is, the prisons are the environment in which crises are not just an everyday occurrence, but a several-times-a-day occurrence. Prisons are in a state of chronic recurrent crisis. So when I was actually talking with people in the prison, it often was in order to resolve a current crisis.

What I learned was, however, that when you learn how to deal with the crises, a lot of very constructive work can be done. The prisoner, for example, can learn how you can resolve a crisis by talking rather than by using your fists or a weapon, because they would see how we did it—and that, in fact, it was more effective than their way of trying to solve a crisis, which was to hit somebody, or try to strangle them or stab them.

So a lot of useful work got done that way, but certainly the prison environment and also the personalities of the kinds of people who wind up in prison were different enough from my ordinary private patients that we were certainly not even in any way attempting to mimic a lot of the ordinary routines of psychotherapy or psychoanalysis. We certainly didn't have people lying down on the couch five times a week, free-associating.

We were much more face-to-face, dealing with a concrete reality. But in the course of that, as we got the crises resolved, the prisoners then became capable and motivated to talk with us about their lifelong issues, and could talk to us about the most painful and formative experiences in their earliest childhood and so forth.

Common Misconceptions and the Meaning of Attention

RA: And you have trained a lot of therapists to work with violent individuals, haven’t you?
JG: Yes, I did, and I and many of my colleagues, over many years.
RA: Do you find that therapists have any general misconceptions about working with violent individuals?
JG: Oh, yes, I really do—just as I did before I first started working with violent people. I was full of misconceptions. One of the commonest, actually, was one I didn't share quite as much, and that was a total fear of working with people who had a history of violence or were at high risk of it. Every time I worked in the prisons, I was working as a member of faculty of one of the Harvard teaching hospitals. And we would try to make sure that part of the training of the psychiatric residents—or sometimes even medical students and forensic psychiatry fellows, along with clinical psychologists, psychiatric social workers—consisted of spending a certain number of months as clinicians in either the state prison mental hospital or the prisons themselves.

What we found was that we got a lot of resistance. Many of the people who were very happy to see mentally ill people at, say, Maclean Hospital or the Massachusetts Mental Health Center, the Harvard teaching hospital, didn't want to go near a prison or a prison mental hospital, and were scared to death of it. We tried to convince them that ironically, in some ways, because there is so much security, the prisons and prison mental hospitals can be some of the safer places to work, as long as you know how to do it.

So that was one misconception—that this population was too dangerous to work with. The other was the misconception I had had, which is that they were untreatable. I found it totally untrue. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, while I frequently had the experience of meeting somebody in the prison or the prison mental hospital who I thought was untreatable at first,
I came to the conclusion, over the course of working for 25 years, that nobody is untreatable. I wouldn't give up on anybody.
I came to the conclusion, over the course of working for 25 years, that nobody is untreatable. I wouldn't give up on anybody. I saw people who seemed intractably violent, and in some cases intractably psychotic, in the case of the mentally ill prisoners. And I reached the position that everybody can be brought to a point where they stop being violent toward other people. They just do not use that as a means of trying to solve their life problems anymore.
RA: Going back to what you were saying about people being afraid to work with these populations, I’m wondering about the times that you were assaulted when you were new to this. What do you think went wrong?
JG: In the 25 years I did this, I was really seriously assaulted about three times—I mean, punched in the face. I didn't get a broken nose or a broken jaw, though I easily could have if I hadn't been lucky. That was really it. And when I asked myself, "What happened? What led to this? What could I learn from it?" I began to realize that each of these incidents had occurred under almost identical circumstances. Namely, it was late in the afternoon, I was getting tired, I was eager to get home to see my wife and family. And what occurred to me was the analogy that skiing accidents typically around 4 o'clock in the afternoon, when the sun is going down and you want just one last descent along the ski slopes before you go home—people are tired, they are distracted, and that's when the accidents happen.

I found that that was what was happening, and I realized that the prisoners, in fact, were correct that they thought that I was really not giving them my full attention, that I was a little distracted or impatient, I wasn't really completely listening to them, and they succeeded in getting my attention. That's how you do it—you hit somebody, you sure get their attention.

And I realized another thing about it: the German word for attention, "Achtung," also means respect. And it struck me that paying attention to people is a form of showing respect for them.
The German word for attention, "Achtung," also means respect. And it struck me that paying attention to people is a form of showing respect for them.
And not paying attention to them is a way of disrespecting them. In fact, that's one reason that I think that psychotherapy is one of the most profound forums of showing respect toward another human being, because the therapist is sitting there giving that person his or her entire unadulterated attention. That alone is part of the curative therapeutic process, I'm convinced.

But I also realized that what I was doing in the prisons was I was not giving them my full attention, and I was disrespecting them. What I heard from the most violent inmates over the years when I would ask them why they had hit somebody—not myself but anybody—they would say, "It is because he disrespected me." And they used that term so often, they abbreviated it into the slang term, "He dissed me." It struck me that anytime a word gets used so often it gets abbreviated, it tells you how central it is in the moral and emotional vocabulary of the person using it.

Disrespect is central to the ideology of violence. When I became a victim of violence, I would say I had provoked it by inadvertently, unconsciously disrespecting the people I was supposedly talking with.

Confronting the Horror

RA: I want to talk a little bit more about that role of disrespect or shame in violence. When you are working with the prison population, how do you balance your sense of respect and dignity for them with the serious and grave impact of the actions that landed them in prison?
JG: Again, that's an excellent question I asked myself many times. I have tried to make the distinction, when I think about that, between the horror and the outrage that one can't help feeling when you realize how horribly this person mutilated somebody else or caused them horrendous suffering. So when I talk about respect for this population, I don't mean pretending that you respect somebody for that part of their behavior.

What I mean is something much more basic than that. First of all, no matter how horrified I am about the behavior that led them to be sent to prison, I'm not there to humiliate them about it.
No matter how horrified I am about the behavior that led them to be sent to prison, I'm not there to humiliate them about it.
I am there to try to understand what caused this behavior on their part. I am an investigator. It is a scientific process. I am a physician that is a part of science, and I am there to try to learn something from them. So it is precisely the most horrendous offenders who I regarded as my teachers, and I was their student. I was trying to learn from them what had led them to behave in this way, which of course I found just horrendous. So when I say I would treat them with respect, that doesn't mean I respected what they had done. But on the other hand, I also felt it was not my job to punish them or humiliate them for it. My job is to try to understand what had caused them to do it.

The other thing—in my first book on the subject of violence, called Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic, one of the epigraphs was a quotation from a book by a political scientist who said, "Of human beings, none are good but all are sacred." Now that is, in a sense, a religious way of putting it. But actually you don't have to commit yourself to a particular form of religious belief to believe that some things are sacred and that, just being human, there are some things we just don't do. And I felt the one thing I would not do, no matter what the person was in front of me had done—I was not going to strip that person of their human dignity. They still were human beings no matter what they had done.

And that there was something about the human personality or the human soul or psyche, whatever you want to call it, that is sacred. There are just some things that you don't do to a person's psyche.
RA: But you must have negative feelings from time to time towards the person that you are working with. How do you manage that countertransference?
JG: I will tell you about one of the most horrendous case that affected me personally, that really forced me to confront that in myself. This is a man who had raped and murdered a 14-year-old girl who lived in the house next door to him, and he then buried her body in his basement. He dug a hole in the dirt floor of the basement and buried her in it. Then he went upstairs and watched a football game on television, and waited until his wife and daughters got home, and acted as though nothing had happened.

When her family realized she was missing, a group of citizens was formed in the community to have a search party and try to find her. He joined the search party as if he did not know where she was. He finally was caught and apprehended, and convicted of murder.
RA: That’s chilling.
JG: When he told me this story I felt literally sick in my stomach. I thought I was going to throw up. I was so offended. The whole story was so horrible. How can you sleep after hearing something like this? And I felt a sense of compassion for this girl that is just endless. How much more horrible can anything be?

Then I realized, "Well, I have experienced that feeling before." When I was a medical student, we learned anatomy by dissecting a cadaver that smelled of formaldehyde. And you worked very hard in medical school. Sometimes people had to eat lunch while they were dissecting a cadaver. It would make you sick to your stomach. And then in the pathology lab, the same thing. We would be doing autopsies and dissecting disease tissue, tumors and so forth. And, again, totally disgusting. I would feel sick in my stomach.

But when I was in medical school, the attitude I took was, "Well, okay, that's a normal response to something that in fact is a source of illness in pathology. And, yes, you should be disgusted by it. It's a normal, human, biological response. But I will tolerate the disgust and nausea in order to learn what caused this person to die—in order to learn more about the pathology that was involved." So I realized, with this murderer, I was doing the same thing—but as a psychiatrist, not as a surgeon or pathologist. I was, in a sense, dissecting his soul, which was full of pathology, and it was disgusting. It was horrible. It made me nauseated. But I said, "Again,
I am doing this in order to try to learn something. I'm trying to learn what was the pathology that killed this girl.
I am doing this in order to try to learn something. I'm trying to learn what was the pathology that killed this girl." And that was the only way I could do it—by tolerating the sense of nausea in order to try to learn something.
RA: If the person that you are speaking with is expressing remorse, do you find that your own sense of disgust is mitigated by that?
JG: I would absolutely say that. And I think it's true for several reasons. One is, when a person has a sense of remorse, I am less worried that they are going to be likely to repeat the same behavior. I feel that also there is more to work with. They are more treatable. One thing that I learned over the years, though—I would see people who had committed murders and felt no sense of remorse whatsoever. They felt totally justified. They felt they were the victims, and on and on.

Finally, when they began to realize what they had done, how much human suffering they had caused to other people, when they finally reached the point where they could recognize how much pain they had caused, then they would begin starting to feel remorse and say, "Oh my god, what have I done?" And at that point I was dealing with a suicidal person, because the remorse is one aspect of feelings of guilt. When people feel guilty, they typically have a need to punish themselves. In many cases these were the people who would kill a family member, a wife or a child, and minimize it at first. Then, finally, when they were able to face what a horrible thing they had done, they really were seriously suicidal, and the staff and I would spend a year or two trying to prevent a suicide before the prisoner could finally integrate what they had done, who they were, and where they could go from there.

Once they had learned to live with the remorse and not kill themselves over it, the one thing they seemed to find that made life livable for them was when they found out how they could be of service to other people. And when these men in the prison, who otherwise just seemed unremittingly suicidal, realized they could actually be useful to other people, they had something to live for.

It might be as simple as they could teach other inmates how to read or write. A lot of prisoners are illiterate, and those who knew how to read or write could teach the others to read and write. Another person might become the librarian at the law library in the prison, and kind of be the jailhouse lawyer and help prisoners to write up a legal brief for themselves and so forth. Or they might help out with the school educational programs, or cooking things in the cafeteria. It almost didn't matter what they did, but if there was something that was useful and had a useful place, they then had something to live for.

What struck me about that was, after all, in a sense, that is true of all of us. What makes life meaningful and worthwhile for anybody is the sense that actually they are useful to other people.
RA: Once someone has reached that point of experiencing remorse, is it dangerous to bring that up, to try to treat it directly? What do you do at that point?
JG: At the concrete level, we would certainly put them on suicide precaution and try to make sure that they didn't have access to anything they could hurt themselves with. But I would talk with them. I would try to acknowledge their pain—the pain of realizing how much pain they had caused others—and try to talk with them about how they are actually not helping anybody if they kill themselves. They are not undoing anything. In fact, maybe they could find a way to, so to speak, try to make up for what they had committed. I would certainly try to steer them in the direction of finding some way to make their own lives useful to other people.

But I was certainly aware that they were dangerous to themselves, for often a year or two. In fact, the only suicides that I did see happen in this world were of people who had reached that point, who had originally felt totally justified in the homicide they committed and then later realized that they really weren't—there's no justification for killing somebody else.

The Point of It All

RA: As you know, the “bread and butter” of psychotherapy is to help people reduce anxiety and depression and adjust to new life situations. What are typical treatment goals in working with violent offenders?
JG: First of all, to prevent further violence. That's not the ultimate goal—that's just the first step. But we would have to reach that point before we could do anything further. In other words, as long as violence was continuing, any other therapy was a waste of time. It's beside the point. So the first goal would be to help them to reach a point where they would stop using violence as their optional tool for solving life problems.

A second one would be to give them the tools they needed and the resources they needed in order to gain the sense of self-respect, which they simply had never been able to develop. The reason they were hypersensitive to being disrespected by others was because they were so lacking in self-respect, and that means lacking in the precondition that any of us need in a given day to be able to respect ourselves.

For example, everybody gets humiliated at one time or another, but most people never commit a serious act of violence in their lives. And I would say one reason for that is because most people have enough internal and external resources available to them that they can restore their self-esteem, even when they have felt humiliated. You have an education, you have some skills, knowledge that you can respect and that other people will respect. The guys in the prison, almost all of them had none of those. They were often illiterate. They had often been unemployed, homeless. They have been abused and treated as worthless from the time they were born. I mean, their self-respect is zero.

I learned that if we gave them the tools they needed, they could gain self-respect just through the process of education and development. For example, I always regarded education as a therapeutic tool. Education can serve a lot of purposes—people can get better jobs if they have a good education, and so on. But I felt it was therapeutic for this population to gain a set of knowledge and skills that they could respect themselves and treat other people with respect.

In fact, we found that the single most effective therapy in the prisons in preventing violent recidivism after people left the prison was prisoners getting a college degree while in prison.
We found that the single most effective therapy in the prisons in preventing violent recidivism after people left the prison was prisoners getting a college degree while in prison.
We had a program like that that had been in effect for 25 years. Professors from Boston University taught courses for credit, and the prisoner could get a college degree from Boston University.

We found that over a 25-year period, several hundred prisoners had gotten a college degree, and not one of them had been returned to prison in that time. When we extended the study to 30 years, we found that two people had been returned. That was much less than a 1 percent recidivism rate. Phenomenal compared to the usual recidivism rate of 65 percent in three years—this was less than 1 percent over 30 years.

But, for me, the reason was they built up their self-esteem. They could respect themselves.
RA: So preventing future violence and tools for self-respect—are those the core of the work that you are doing?
JG: Certainly that was, at the level of emotions, prerequisite to everything else. For example, I felt that certainly one thing that had been missing that had made it possible for them to commit serious harm to others was their lack of a capacity for empathy with the suffering of others, and a lack of the capacity to care about others or to love others.

But what struck me was they couldn't respect other people or treat other people with esteem if they were lacking in self-esteem and self-respect. So helping them reach the point where they gained self-respect and self-esteem was really a prerequisite to their being able then to care about others enough so that they would not violate the rights or inflict harm on other people.

But that is all at the emotional level. At a more cognitive level, one major thing that we did in the jails of San Francisco when I worked there over a ten-year period was to focus on cognitive issues—namely what we call the Male Role Belief System, which we felt had underlain the violence these men had committed. And by that we meant all of the assumptions they had been taught as to how you define masculinity and what you need to do in order to be a man, what you are entitled to do, what you are obligated to do, how should women treat you, how should you treat them, and on and on—the whole set of assumptions that almost all men in our society are raised with. The assumption underlying this very skewed patriarchal, somewhat misogynistic view is that the social universe, that is, the whole population, is divided into the superior and the inferior. In that division, men are supposed to be in the superior part and women in the inferior part. And, in fact, the really superior man has also got to be superior to other men. So they are also inferior.

This is a recipe for violence because most people don't want to be cast into the role of the inferior.
RA: And it is a roadmap for feeling disrespected.
JG: Exactly. So we engaged in intensive group therapy with these jail inmates—all of them were in for a violent crime. I was amazed how quickly they grasped that point. And not only did they get the point, they began to say things like, "I've been brainwashed by the society I have grown up in." They would want to then start educating the new inmates about what they had learned.

So we said, "Great," and we would train them to lead the groups themselves, kind of like Alcoholics Anonymous where the people suffering from the problem are sometimes the best therapists. So we trained them to lead these groups, and we found the level of violence in the prison dropped to zero, and the level of recidivism after they left the prison was down 83% compared with people who had been in an ordinary jail without these kinds of programs.
We found the level of violence in the prison dropped to zero, and the level of recidivism after they left the prison was down 83%.
So that is a concrete example.

At a more abstract level, we were trying to increase their ability to be self-aware, to recognize their own motivations, to recognize how they were behaving in ways that were really self-defeating—this wasn't helping them get what they really wanted. In fact, their behavior was often costing them relationships that they actually wanted to maintain.

So, like any psychotherapy, you are ultimately trying to get at the greater sense of self-awareness and a greater degree of self-control that comes from the self-awareness. If you are lucky, that is what will happen. The goals of therapy and the methods of therapy did share those features in common with psychotherapy with any population.

Violence in Childhood: Bullying and Corporal Punishment

RA: I want to transition into talking about the earliest possible interventions. We know that violent behavior begins fairly early in life. How do you think that child and school counselors should be responding to bullying? Do you think parents are to blame? Should they be involved in the response?
JG: First of all, I certainly think that bullying is a prime example of the kinds of experiences that stimulate violence. That is hardly an original observation on my part, but I think people in general are increasingly aware how much school violence and violence out of school is caused by bullying.

I would like to see a truly cooperative effort on the part of schoolteachers, school administrators, and parents to identify and respond to a bullying situation and to get it stopped. Whenever there is a bullying situation, there are three parties involved. It’s not just the bully and the victim. The third party is the bystander, the witness, whether that is a schoolteacher or whoever. I really think that it is vitally important that nobody take this as just normal. Many of the people I saw in prison, for example, would talk about how they had been bullied in school, come home and tell their parents about it, and the parents, instead of going to the school and saying, “This is a problem we should work together to solve,” would tell their son, “You go back and beat him up, and if you don’t beat him up I will beat you up myself.”

That’s how you teach children to be violent.
RA: Do you feel that the chronic victims of bullying are at a similar risk for violence as the chronic perpetrators?
JG: That's a good question. I don't want to give you an answer that would imply that I am sure I know what the answer is. That is one I am not sure off the top of my head. Very often, bullies also have been victims. They aren't necessarily just one or the other. Often you find they are overlapping categories.

Without being able to be sure how I could predict which of those groups is most dangerous in the future, I would share pretty much an equal sense of concern for both. I would want to pay just as much attention to one as to the other—to the bully in order to get the bullying stopped, and to the victim in order to make sure that the victim doesn't ultimately turn into a bully.

Whenever I see a situation like that, I would want to intervene. But I would like to do so in a way that is not aimed at humiliating or at punishing, but is really aimed at restraining, in the sense of saying, "This is not permissible. You can't do this. We will not tolerate this. But we are not going to bully you ourselves. We are not going to beat you up or spank you. What we are going to do is limit your freedom to do this until the point you can stop yourself. If you can limit yourself from doing this, then fine, we don't need to do anything."

In other words, the only way to stop violence is with nonviolent means. That doesn't mean you don't need restraint, but it does mean that I would make a sharp distinction between punishment and restraint. I think parents who have two-year-old children running in front of traffic need to restrain the children so they don't get hurt. But that doesn't mean they have to hurt the children themselves. The whole point of restraining them is so the children won't get hurt.
RA: You mentioned not using spanking. Every time there has been a new movement to try to outlaw spanking, it has been met with quite a bit of controversy in the name of parental rights. What would you say to parents who think that spanking is a necessary tool?
JG: First of all, I think most of the empirical research on this subject has found that spanking is counterproductive. Over the last 60 or 70 years, there have been literally dozens of studies, if not hundreds, about child rearing and child development. The whole process of child development is so complicated and there are so many variables that not very many generalizations have been almost universally replicated. But the one conclusion on which there is the highest degree of consensus is that the more severely a child is punished, the more violent the child becomes. Using violent means to limit violence is just self-defeating. Violence stimulates violence. Obviously, you can talk about different degrees of spanking, and you talk about it so that it is not really painful—not going to cause bruises and so forth. But just the sheer idea that an adult can do something to a child which would be called assault and battery if they did it to another adult—I mean, the legal system recognizes the difference between a violent and a nonviolent intervention. And I just don't think an adult is doing anything except stimulating violence. To me, that is what the empirical research has shown. From my experience working with prisoners, I have already mentioned the most violent prisoners are the ones that have experienced the most violence at home. If violent punishment would prevent violence, then the people who wound up in the prisons would never have become violent in the first place, because they had suffered as much violent punishment as you could inflict on a person without actually killing them. As I said, many of them were the survivors of their own attempted murders.

I understand people who believe in spanking and say, "Well, we are not attempting murder." One problem is that people who have studied child abuse have found over and over again that it often starts just as so-called harmless spanking and escalates—parents get carried away.

I have treated parents who came to me in my private practice because they were afraid they were losing control and they were going to really injure the child more than they intended. They couldn't stop themselves once they got started. I would recommend that the United States follow the example of an increasing number of nations around the world—I think Sweden was one of the first, but by now there are at least a dozen if not more—who have made it a law that corporal punishment of children is assault and battery.

Intervening with Victims of Violence

RA: I'm wondering also whether you have any insights from your work with violent individuals that would be helpful to therapists who primarily work with victims of violence, maybe a battered spouse or adult children of violent parents.
JG: First of all, I would begin the work I do with the victim of violence with the unequivocal assertion that violence is not justified. Nobody deserves to be victimized by violence. It is important that they realize that they weren't the cause of this. No matter what they did, that doesn't justify the person who harmed them.

The second thing is that, precisely because nobody deserves to be treated this way, it is vitally important that they do everything they can to protect themselves from it and to make sure that they don't expose themselves to the risk of further violence of this sort. If they are involved with somebody who does not appear to be capable of renouncing violence as a form of trying to influence the person they are involved with, it is vitally important that they separate themselves from this person.

Otherwise, you have to then shift the focus to the question of, where is their need for punishment coming from? I would really focus on trying to prevent violence there by trying to prevent their victimization. You have heard of the Tarasoff Rule and the Tarasoff Warning—the legal rule that if the therapist has reason to believe that a patient of his or hers is at risk of being injured by someone else, they have a legal obligation to inform the patient of their concern and to clarify who it is they feel they are in danger from, and to recommend that they do everything that they can to separate themselves from that person and to protect themselves.

We had a terribly tragic situation in Massachusetts when a man was sent to the prison mental hospital because he had been threatening a woman he had had a love affair with, and he would keep breaking up with her and then wanting to get back together. Finally she got tired of it and said, "No, forget it, go away." And he couldn't, he was obsessed with her, and would keep threatening her. He was sent to the prison mental hospital for the crime of threats, which he had been convicted of.

We reported to the court that we thought this man was indeed dangerous to her. We also sent her a letter saying that we thought he was dangerous and she should do everything she could to escape from him, to not let him know where she was, and to leave. The letter went to the judge, it went to the sheriff of the jail this man went to. But the man was not psychotic. We couldn't commit him to the prison mental hospital on grounds of insanity because he wasn't insane. And he got sent to the jail with the letter in which the judge ordered the sheriff to notify the police in this woman's hometown when this man was going to be released from jail, because the maximum sentence for the crime of threats was only six months.

So this guy, after only six months, was released from jail. The sheriff screwed up and didn't notify the police in her hometown, didn't notify her, and the man went to her home and killed her.

It was a tragic, tragic case where the victim could have been saved. On the other hand, you might say it is one of the difficulties in our legal system that this man could only be locked up for six months according to the law. I could understand this woman's sense that she wouldn't want to be going into a witness protection program like where the FBI puts informants against other criminals or something. She would literally have to change her social security number, and move to the other end of the country or something, change her name—literally, because this man was obsessed with her and was very dangerous, and was willing to do something.

He now has a natural life sentence. He will never be out of a prison in his life. So clearly he didn't care; he wasn't restrained by anything. You talk about dealing with the victims—that was the worst case I think I have ever seen. It was not just frustrating, but horrendous. It was appalling. The Boston Globe reviewed all the circumstances and concluded this could have been avoided if the sheriff and the police had provided some protection as the judge had ordered. But it's even more complicated than that. “It's a very difficult thing to help the people who have been victimized to realize how much danger they may be in.”

How to Abandon the Prison System, and Why

RA: I want to give you a chance to talk about your more recent work, which is violence prevention at the societal level. You have said that prisons should be demolished and replaced with secure residential schools, colleges, and therapeutic communities. I wonder if you could briefly outline your theory behind this.
JG: The modern prison system is a fairly recent invention. It was only in the late 18th to early 19th century, starting in countries like England and the United States, to some extent Italy and other European countries, that prisons became long-term residential facilities for purposes of punishment rather than being short-term settings just awaiting trial, and at the outcome of the trial they would either be executed or tortured and mutilated, or acquitted and just let go.

But what we have now, where people come into prison and spend years there, or maybe the rest of their lives—that is a new development. It is a well-meaning experiment that has failed. It was well meaning because it was originally developed as an alternative to torture and execution. It was an attempt to protect people from such horrendous experiences. But in fact, it does not work in its stated purpose, which is to make society safer, except insofar as it certainly serves purposes of restraint. I mean, you keep somebody violent from the community—that I am in favor of, and I think we do need to do.

But if you want to look at the long-term effect on society, more than 90 percent of the people who get sent to prison are back in the community within a few years. They would have to be, or otherwise the prisons would be ten times larger than they are now, and they are already something like 7.5 times larger than they were in the mid-1970s on a per-capita basis.

Humanizing Predators

RA: Aside from the cost of doing something like that, probably the biggest resistance to that idea would be the conventional wisdom that there is a certain subset of people who are true sociopaths who are not going to be helped. You said earlier that nobody is untreatable. Is the "predator personality" a myth?
JG: Well, in one sense it is. But let me make clear, too, that I do not mean to imply that I am so optimistic about everybody that I think everybody that comes into the prison, no matter how violent they have been, can necessarily be returned to the community.

What I am saying is they can be rendered nonviolent. But I certainly have known people that I think should in fact remain institutionalized, because I think they have been too damaged. I will give you a case example. We had a man sent to us when I was running the prison mental hospital in Massachusetts, an African-American man who had been a pimp of a stable of prostitutes. He killed several people in the community, including some of his own prostitutes, was arrested for multiple murders and sent to the Charles Street Jail in Boston to await trial for murder.

He promptly killed one of the other inmates. So they realized he was too dangerous to await trial there. He had to be sent to the maximum-security prison to await trial, even though that is where you would normally be sent only after being convicted. And he killed an inmate in the prison. So they sent him to me at the prison mental hospital.

Now this man, when he came to the door, was mute—he was like a zombie. He was paranoid. He couldn't relate to anybody. Everybody was, of course, scared to death of him, knowing his history. And he seemed equally terrified and suspicious of everybody. When saw this guy, I thought, "This is someone who is untreatable. He is actively violent. You can't do psychotherapy with somebody who is mute, with his kind of history. The best we can hope for is to limit the violence that he would commit." So I had him put in a maximum-security residential unit we have where he would be in a locked bedroom at night so he couldn't hurt anybody and they couldn't hurt him. And I told people during the day to just keep a six-foot invisible wall between him and everybody else so that nobody would crowd him. One of our staff wanted to try to engage him in psychotherapy and I said, "Don't even bother. That he would experience that as a violation of his space." I said, "Give him space."

And after a month or two of this he didn't harm anybody; nobody harmed him. He found that there was a profoundly retarded 18-year-old man in the same residential facility there, same dormitory building, and this kid was so retarded he could hardly tie his shoelaces. He really needed somebody to look out for him. This multiple murderer took this guy under his wing and would walk with him to and from the dining hall and make sure that nobody abused him, robbed him, raped him, assaulted him, anything. He protected him.

And from the moment I saw this happen I said, "Thank god. This may be this guy's restoration to humanity." But I wasn't sure. He still didn't seem treatable in any conventional sense. But we let this go on, and for several months he was the caretaker of this kid, and still not talking much to anybody.

Finally he reached the point where he was relaxed enough that he did start wanting to talk. I sat down with him several times, and he basically told me the story of his life. His childhood was horrifying, blood-curdling. But he got this off his shoulders. By the way, we gave him very small doses of medication as he came in looking paranoid, but actually, he wound up to be more depressed than anything else. And we gave him very small doses of an antidepressant. As far as I know, he is probably still taking it.

But it was minimal medication involved. He really wasn't psychotic. Once he got to the point of talking, he was perfectly sane. But he had had horrendous child abuse in his lifetime. He still is at the prison mental hospital. He has several life sentences. He will never be out of prison. He will never be back in the community. Frankly, I don't think he would know what to do if somebody sent him back into the community.

So when I say that I wouldn't give up on anybody, I don't mean that this is somebody that is really going to be fit to return to the community and live in it. I think he is too badly damaged. But on the other hand, I think we don't need to keep punishing him. We can provide him a place where, for example, he has a job in the hospital. So, again, he is of use to other people. He gets some degree of self-respect from that, and people are grateful. He has filled a useful role in the hospital. When I come back to visit from time to time, he will smile and say, "Hello, Dr. Gilligan, how are you?" You know, behave like a normal human being—no longer mute, paranoid, menacing. And he has not harmed a hair on anybody's head since coming to that prison mental hospital.

So when I say I don't give up on anybody, this was somebody who was still killing people even after he was sent to prison. He has been there for 25 years now, and hasn't harmed anybody. And to me, that's success. I don't care if he goes back into the community. I think he would die if he went back into the community.

Discipline, Not Punish

RA: In a therapeutic community in a prison setting, how are rules enforced? Obviously you would have a no-violence policy. Does that mean that somebody can be ejected from the program or not be allowed to do certain group activities that they like? How do you do that in a way that manages respect but also enforces rules?
JG: I would try to focus on attempting to learn what was motivating the person to break the rules, including the most important rules, which would be rules against violence.

Again, let me give a case example to illustrate how I would approach it. We had a fellow at the state prison mental hospital who, on a regular basis, would engage in what we called sucker punching. That means hitting somebody just out of the blue with no provocation, no warning—being in an ordinary conversation with them, and then just suddenly punching them in the face, and sometimes really injuring people.

When that would happen, he would be immediately removed to a locked individual room where he would be isolated from other prisoners so he couldn't hurt anybody. Then a therapist would go over to talk with him repeatedly, day after day, until we figured out whether he was ready to come back into the community and not hurt people. After awhile, he would come back in and then he would be nonviolent for a couple of weeks or a couple of months, and then he would repeat the same behavior.

Finally, we sat down with him and said, "What's going on here? Why are you doing this? You know you get locked up when you do it." What we learned was that he wanted to be locked up. There were times that he just felt either he was losing control and felt he needed to be locked up, or he was afraid other people were dangers to him and he wanted to be saved, locked up. I think he was more afraid of himself than of others, but he knew that this was a way that he could get locked up for several days and feel safe. But everybody around him was safe.

What we said to him was, "Look, you don't need to hit anybody in order to be locked up. If you just tell us that you feel you need to be locked up, we will do that. We will put you in this room and lock the door, and we will keep the door locked until you can tell us you feel ready to come out again."

And what was amazing was that worked. He stopped sucker punching. He would tell us that he really wanted to be locked up. We said, "Fine, we will do it right now." And then we would go and talk to him about why he felt the need to be locked up. We wouldn't deny him the wish.

That would be one way in a therapeutic community that one would deal with rule violators. It's try to learn why they are breaking the rule, and to approach it not in the spirit of, "We are going to punish you for doing that," but rather, "We are going to try to help you to reach the point where you don't need to do that in order to get what you want"—and try to clarify what their goal is.

That's only one example, and I'm sure we can think of a hundred others that might not be so easily or neatly resolved. But the basic principle is you restrain people from hurting other people, absolutely. Clearly there are some people not ready to be in the group, like I mentioned with the multiple murderer. I didn't want him in a group at first. I thought he would experience that as an assault on his living space. He needed to be separate from other people for a while. So my emphasis would be less what are the rules than on what is motivating this person, what is his current mental status, to what degree is he in control of himself, what are his goals—in other words, a very psychological approach to everything, rather than a kind of rules-based approach.

I don't mean to say you don't need rules. You do need very clear rules, something that is acceptable to others. That does need to be made clear and unambiguous. But a violation of them should be not punishment but rather, first of all, restraint, and then inquiry and an attempt to learn, what was going on? Why did this happen?

Never a Boring Day

RA: You have obviously had a career full of very challenging work. What has been rewarding to you about it?
JG: That's, in a way, almost too easy to answer. It has been constantly rewarding. I have felt so fulfilled by this work. I felt so fortunate to be able to engage in it.

First of all, it satisfied my curiosity. I was able to learn a lot about things that I didn't understand earlier and I wanted to learn about. Secondly, this wish of mine that goes back to childhood to try to find ways to limit violence or prevent violence—I have certainly been able to gratify that wish through this work.

The third thing is I have talked to many of my colleagues who went into an ordinary psychoanalytic or psychotherapeutic career and finally, after 30 or 40 years of that, would tell me they were feeling bored—they were just doing the same thing over and over again, but they weren't learning anything new. I felt sorry for them, because I felt
I have never had a boring day of work in my life. I look forward to every opportunity to engage in this work.
I have never had a boring day of work in my life. I look forward to every opportunity to engage in this work. It's endlessly interesting, gratifying, moving. And I would recommend it unreservedly. And I mean I really recommend it. I'm not like Freud, who, when the Gestapo arrested him in Vienna and required him to write a note telling how well they treated him, ended it by signing, "And I would recommend the Gestapo to anyone." It's probably ironic and sarcastic, so I don't mean it in that sense. I mean that I really would recommend this kind of work to anybody.

I would love to see the mentally ill moved out of the prisons, where they really don't belong, and back into the mental health system. But I also want to see the prisons themselves really turn into therapeutic communities rather than being just places for punishment.

I think one of the biggest mistakes we have made—and when I say "we" I mean all of western civilization—over the last two or two and a half centuries has been this mistaken belief that punishment would prevent violence. I think in fact it just stimulates more violence. But that doesn't mean we should unlock the doors and let everybody run free. I do believe in restraint—in restraining those who hurt others, stopping them from hurting others through coercion and restraint and constraints and force—when necessary. But that doesn't mean violence and punishment. That is the vital distinction I would like to make.
RA: Do you have any final thoughts that you would like to share?
JG: I want to thank you for your interest in this work. Let me say one thing that I think applies to all psychotherapy. Again, what I have talked about is certainly very, very different from the population that 99 percent of therapists work with. But I do think it is worth recognizing that psychotherapy is a modern invention, a great social experiment in self-education. Sure, it has roots in everything from confession in the church to philosophic introspection and so on. There are antecedents for modern psychotherapy, but nothing really comparable.

It is a great, unprecedented social experiment, and I think we are only beginning to realize how important it is and how valuable it can be. When I first was trying to decide whether to become a psychoanalyst, I talked with a friend of mine, the late Peter Newbauer, who was a psychoanalyst in New York. I said, "Peter, if I become a psychoanalyst, I can only treat a few hundred people in my whole lifetime, and yet the need for this is so overwhelming. There are six billion people on this planet, and all of the psychoanalysts in the world can't treat more than a tiny handful. How can I think about this?"

He said, "Of course, you are right." But he said he felt that the ultimate benefit of psychoanalysis would come not simply from the actual treatment of individuals you are seeing, but from what you learn from treating them that could then be applied in other contexts such as in child rearing, in education, in the criminal justice system, and so on. Even in ordinary medicine—psychological insights have transformed so much of what we do in medicine.

When my children were born, I wasn't allowed in the delivery room. Nowadays people bend over backwards to try to increase the bonding between parents and children and to protect the bond between the father and mother and so on. That is one of gazillions of examples. The way children are treated in hospitals now is totally different from what it was when I was a medical student. These are examples of applying psychoanalytic knowledge into completely different contexts. So I have often felt that what I have done is applied psychoanalysis. It is not psychoanalysis as such—we don't put prisoners on the couch and have them free-associate five days a week—but we apply what we know from psychoanalysis in that different context, and then we can learn more things.

Psychotherapy with Former Cult Members

Two years ago, I received a late-night telephone call from a man who would give me only his first name. Bill said that he’d recently moved to Oakland and had been referred to me by a cult awareness organization in Florida. I get calls like this a few times a year—sometimes a referral from the cult awareness network, occasionally from the internet, and once in a while from someone I’d already met with. Because I was working full time as a clinical psychologist and lecturer at the university, I told Bill that he’d likely be better served calling a county psychological association for a referral to a private practice psychologist. “I’ve done that already,” he replied irritably. In fact, he had already tried therapy with both a psychologist and an MFT, but neither seemed to understand what he’d gone through. ““They couldn’t tell me what happened.””

Relenting, I told Bill that I’d be happy to meet with him, and suggested a coffee shop in Berkeley. As with each of these referrals, I was curious to hear Bill’s story. Although I would not provide psychotherapy to him, I hoped to explain to him how cults operate. Once he understood the powerful techniques of persuasion that were used against him, perhaps at least some of the guilt and foolishness he might be feeling over his cultic involvement would decrease.

The next morning I arrived in the crowded coffee shop 15 minutes early. Bill was there already, sitting at a small corner table in the Phillies baseball cap he told me to look for. He was a tall, red-faced man in his mid-thirties, with the kind of physical build that suggested a retired athlete. I introduced myself and he nodded, his eyes tight.

As I sat down across from him, he launched right into his story. “It’s about a church I joined in college,” he began. “I think it’s a cult—I read up on cults, but I just don’t know. The group I belonged to doesn’t sound like any of those famous ones, like Heaven’s Gate or Jonestown, and it’s not big or anything. But it’s a bad place.” He shook his head, gaze focused on the Formica tabletop. “I’m kind of a loss as to what exactly happened,” he continued. “I’m not a stupid man. I’m not, really. And I just can’t seem to figure out what went wrong.”

Bill's Story

Though Bill’s story was unique to him, it followed a pattern I was familiar with. He had been raised in a devout Lutheran family. As a freshman in college and far from home, he had been approached one day in the quad by a woman named Sarah. “She was real pretty and so nice to be around. She told me she was a student and we talked about school and God—we were both Christians.” She ended up inviting him to a prayer meeting that night at her church. Grateful for the attention of an attractive woman when he was struggling to find new friends, he went along.

The prayer meeting was held in a storefront church a few blocks from the campus. “Bill began attending weekly services there, and was made to feel so welcome that within a month he was visiting the church daily.” There always seemed to people there, no manner when he dropped by, and they were always glad to visit with him. The pastor, Brother Jacob, was an inspiring teacher who seemed to know just about everything about Bill, “or it seemed to me then that he did! About my spiritual struggles and my loneliness, about my trying to figure out what I was supposed to do with my life and wondering if I was even a good man.”

By the end of his freshman year, Bill had dropped out of college to live with the group. “School just didn’t seem that important to me anymore,” he explained. “I was more concerned about the spiritual crisis in America.” As he became immersed in his new church family, he was persuaded that the Lutheran religion he’d been raised in was a false religion and that his only hope for salvation and peace of mind was with Brother Jacob’s church family.

Over the next several years, Brother Jacob’s small, insular spiritual group moved often, eventually settling in Sonoma County, California. By the time they arrived, they included over 40 members. The theology of the group, as espoused by Brother Jacob, gradually morphed into an amalgam of fundamentalist Christianity and nebulous New Age teachings. In his daily sermons, Brother Jacob reinforced the belief that he was a divinely appointed prophet chosen by God to usher in a universal spiritual awakening.

Despite Bill’s initial infatuation with her, he never became romantically involved with Sarah, the girl who introduced him to the church. Once he was firmly ensconced with the group, she distanced herself from him. Only belatedly did he learn that the other members considered her and Brother Jacob a married couple.

The church members were forbidden contact with family or past friends without Jacob’s explicit permission, and the church community did not have television or radio and did not subscribe to newspapers. Bill and the other congregants relied solely on Jacob for outside news. Five years after his recruitment into the church, Bill married a church member new to the group, and they had a daughter together, six years old at the time I met with Bill. Brother Jacob officiated at the wedding and no marriage license was filed.

“It got really bad after that,” Bill told me. “I didn’t have an education and mostly did construction work, odd and ends—grunt work like everybody else.” He turned his paychecks directly over to Brother Jacob.

“I started thinking that this was pretty bad—and my wife and I weren’t getting along so good. I just prayed harder. Jacob preached to us every night for hours, and God help any one of us who fell asleep while he was talking. Mostly I was just tired all the time.” Bill couldn’t sleep and started losing weight. It was about then, around six months before he phoned me, that Brother Jacob began the ordeal he called “confession and redemption.”

Brother Jacob would choose a member of the community to be criticized and belittled by the entire community for hours at a time, rationalizing this exercise as a way to rid the community of sin and temptation and put the sinner on a strong foothold to spiritual purity. It was at one of these group confessionals, when Bill was on “the hot seat,” that he finally “cracked up. My wife went after me, along with everybody else. Brother Jacobb egged her on until she ridiculed our sex life and made fun of my unspiritual, lustful attitudes and my shortcomings as a husband. Nobody there seemed to care how horrible that was for me. I was shamed in front of everybody.” At the end of that meeting, which seemed to go on for hours, Brother Jacob ordered Bill to maintain chastity until he’d worked through all his sins and worldly thoughts—until the spiritual welfare of the planet became his overwhelming desire. He was ordered to live in the garage until further notice.

“It was then that I realized it was all like a really bad nightmare and I’d just wasted thirteen years of my life,” Bill told me. “I hadn’t spoken to my parents or brother in years, had no friends, and never finished school.” Bill was now working at two low-paying jobs and had hired an attorney to try to get custody of his six-year-old daughter, whose mother had remained in Jacob’s church. His attorney warned him to prepare for a long legal battle—he and his wife had never been legally married, and his wife disavowed his paternity of the child.

Cult Recruitment Tactics

Bill’s story illustrates perfectly the classic cultic recruitment and retention process. Margaret Singer, a preeminent 20th-century authority on cults, wrote in her definitive Cults in Our Midst about the six stages of cultic recruitment and retention.

1. Keep the person unaware of what is going on and the changes taking place.
 Bill was recruited as a college student, when he was most vulnerable. He was away from home, far from his social support system, emotionally insecure, and lonely. It’s likely that Sarah had spent days recruiting on the campus and had approached dozens of solitary students before finding Bill. When he initially became involved with Brother Jacob, Bill thought he was joining a Christian church with spiritual and ethical beliefs much like his own. He had no inkling that Sarah had been trolling for new members and that the initial stages of his involvement with the group were carefully orchestrated to reinforce the commonalities Bill felt with the cult members.

2. Control the person’s time and, if possible, physical environment.
 Once Bill actually moved in with Jacob’s group, his time was rigorously controlled as he worked multiple physically exhausting jobs. Bill relinquished his income to Jacob, had no meaningful emotional contact with anyone outside the church community, and was dependent on Jacob and the other congregants for shelter, emotional support, and food.

A cult could be in your own neighborhood and you might well not know it because the members have such superficial social interaction with nonmembers. If a cult member were to have outside interests, meaningful contact with friends and family outside of the cult, or personal interests not specifically tied to the cult, it would be a whole lot easier for him or her to just walk out when things got bad. Recruits are not allowed exposure to any people, situations or ideas that might help them look at the situation objectively; the consequence is that the ideas of the cult gradually replace independent thought.

3. Create a sense of powerlessness, covert fear, and dependency.
One of the unbending tenets of cults is the “us versus them” mentality. Cult leaders justify this insularity in innumerable ways. In Bill’s case, Brother Jacob convinced his followers that his was a divinely directed spiritual path and that all other religions, Christian or otherwise, were either well meaning but false, or were diabolical. Citing the danger of “contamination,” Brother Jacob instructed his followers that to maintain their spiritual purity and avoid damnation, they needed to avoid as much as possible all contact with persons outside the community. To do otherwise would mean impeding God’s design for world spiritual harmony.

4. Suppress much of the person’s old behavior and attitudes.
In his groundbreaking book on “brainwashing” techniques used by Communist prison guards during the Korean War, Dr. Robert Jay Lifton points out that

“Whatever its setting, thought reform consists of two basic elements: confession, the exposure and renunciation of past and present ‘evil,’ and re-education, the remaking of a man in the Communist image. These elements are closely related and overlapping, since both bring into play a series of pressures and appeals—intellectual, emotional, and physical—aimed at social control and individual change.” (5, 1961)

This is certainly what happened to Bill. He had renounced his past beliefs and affiliations, but in this case the “confession and redemption” exercise that he participated in finally caused him to metaphorically snap. Years of hard physical labor, a failed marriage, and humiliation from his wife, Jacob, and the other cult members caused such emotional exhaustion that he fled the cult to try to recoup his sanity.

5. Instill new behavior and attitudes.
With cults, the goal is to take whatever sense of morality or personal identity the person originally had and replace it with the leader’s own vision. Cultic indoctrination is gradual and incremental, just like the mind control described by Dr. Lifton. Everything happens in small, sometimes seemingly inconsequential steps. Had Bill been told at the first service at Brother Jacob’s church that he would have to disavow his family, drop out of school, perform mind-numbing physical labor for years, accept Jacob as a prophet, and be subjected to continual emotional abuse, it is unlikely he would have attended a second service. Jacob and his followers, however, kept hidden the central precepts of Jacob’s message.

6. Put forth a closed sense of logic; allow no real input or criticism.
Brother Jacob continually reminded his congregation that to desert the group was tantamount to eternal damnation. Members of the community were taught that temptation was everywhere and could come from anyone and everyone not associated with Jacob. For hours each evening, Jacob lectured on theology, the evils of modern society, and the hypocrisy of organized religion. He warned his congregation that to lose sight of his message, even for a minute, would be tantamount to suicide.He urged them to report any doubts or negative thoughts to Jacob immediately, and to assist each other in remaining spiritually pure by informing Jacob of any concerns they felt about the purity and purpose of their fellow congregants. Bill tried his best to live up to these strict rules; in doing so, he came to unquestionably accept the belief that Jacob was a prophet appointed by God.

Exploiting Vulnerability

Despite decades of research on cults, there is no typical personality that is particularly susceptible to cult involvement. You can’t say, for instance, that cults recruit only timid, uneducated, or naïve people. But one thing that continually comes up is that most people who become involved with a cult are going through a vulnerable time in their lives. In the 1960s and ‘70s, the most typical recruits were young, which makes sense as there were thousands of young people adrift looking for a sense of direction and purpose.

Today, college campuses remain good recruiting spots with young students away from home for the first time, vulnerable and lonely. But life transitions make us vulnerable at any age, and a cult can present itself favorably as a support network during these times. You might think of a woman whose husband divorces her after a 30-year marriage—her identity and sense of purpose have been focused on her family and now the family is gone; or a single parent whose children go away to college; or someone who has had a catastrophic death in the family; or a 50-year-old man who just lost his job of 20 years. These people bring job skills and potential earning power to the group. The elderly have become particularly good recruits because they have assets. If they own their own homes, the homes are probably paid off, they have Social Security and pensions, and they have free time to devote to the cult. Cults need these recruits to ensure their financial and social sustainability.

During my predoctoral internship at a day treatment facility in the San Francisco Bay Area, I came to learn that one of my co-interns, doing her postdoctoral internship, had suffered a series of personal tragedies on the East Coast and had moved to California to start her life over. There had been a lapse of a few years before she felt organized enough to finish up her internship hours. One of the personal tragedies she was running away from was an abusive sexual relationship. She settled in Berkeley and, feeling the need for friendship and quiet reflection, she joined a free spiritual meditation group. At first they met twice a week, but gradually these meetings became more frequent and took up most of her free time. When I met her, the only people she really knew in California were the therapists at the day treatment center and her new friends in the meditation group.

The group was part of a national spiritual organization controlled by a self-described guru. I realized early on that she had joined a cult, but my attempts to talk to her about it failed. She had a stack of cards on her desk, each printed with a quote by her guru. When I tried to talk with her about my research on cults, she would pick up one of the cards and read its message to me. These messages were innocuous, cloying, vaguely spiritual sayings. She was doing something called a thought-stopping technique. Followers of charismatic leaders are often taught that when they are faced with adversity, doubt, or challenge, they’re to say a specific mantra or prayer or do some specific activity that will bring the cult and its leader to the front of their minds and drive doubt away.

Since she wasn’t open to my concerns about the group she’d joined, I stopped mentioning them. I figured that if she ever did decide to leave the group, she would know that she could talk to me. The other therapists avoided her. They found her smugness, her meditating during breaks, the photo of her guru on her desk, and the little aphorism cards irritating and troubling.

When her postdoctoral internship was completed and my predoctoral internship was finishing up, she and I had the opportunity to receive funding to start a small drop-in clinic for runaway teenagers. For the first time in the 15 months I’d known her, I met with her outside the clinic. She refused to meet either at my home or at hers, so we arranged to convene at a picnic spot in a Berkeley park. When we met, she was flustered and nervous; she revealed that the local leader of her spiritual group had told her she shouldn’t trust me. We were writing out the rough draft of our proposal when it started raining. She suggested that, after all, it was okay to meet at her apartment.

We hadn’t been at her apartment three minutes when her local spiritual leader phoned and informed her that he was holding an emergency mandatory meeting for the entire group. So much for that; I left. The next Monday, she left me a voicemail message stating that she had no interest in running a clinic with me. A month later, this woman who had a Ph.D. in clinical psychology was working at the cult’s San Francisco restaurant 12 hours a day, five days a week for $280 a month, while living in a group home owned by the cult. “There was no way the group she belonged to was going to let her act independently.” She was too valuable to them. At the restaurant, they could watch over her.

Treating Former Cult Members: Common Issues

Very few of those who briefly become involved with a cult will stay. As a PhD candidate I studied a small cult for my dissertation. Along with 18 other people, I attended a free introductory psychic healing offered by a local group. Six of us signed up and paid for a psychic healing class. When I finally stopped attending the group’s services eight months later, only one other person from the original 19 was still involved with the group.

But the damage done once someone decides to break away can vary tremendously, and the challenges of providing to psychotherapy to ex-cult members can be daunting. There is no one-size-fits-all strategy for former members, and there’s no reliable data I am aware of that indicates success rates using any specific psychotherapeutic tool. Each client brings his or her own personal issues to the therapy session, which will vary depending on variables such as duration of involvement, age, educational background, and whether sexual abuse was part of the cult’s practices. Along with collaboratively developing a treatment plan that is unique to that client and which most clearly addresses the client’s pain and sense of loss, the most reasonable and helpful psychotherapy for a former cult member will involve education, patience, and case management when it’s needed.

Although I wasn’t in a position to offer psychotherapy to Bill when he contacted me, I will use his case as an example to highlight many of the issues to consider when providing psychotherapy to a person who has left a cult. When Bill exited the cult, he was 33 years old. He had dropped out of college in his sophomore year and worked as a construction laborer. He had acquired no job skills that could pay him much above the minimum wage, and now faced the daunting tasks of supporting himself, paying child support, and somehow earning enough money to finance what looked to be an expensive child custody legal battle. He was estranged from his biological family and had no friends outside of the cult.

Social Services Referrals

It is important that the therapist learn the specifics of Bill’s current living situation. Bill has met with two psychotherapists already and psychotherapy is not cheap; he may have paid a third or more of his weekly income for each visit, and clearly he can’t do that indefinitely. It’s quite possible, too, that Jacob placed little priority on his followers’ physical health; it may have been years since Bill visited a medical doctor or dentist. As a first step in the psychotherapeutic process, it may be necessary to assist Bill with basic case management services. Bill said that he’s working at two low-paying jobs, but does his income disqualify him from food stamps or Medi-Cal eligibility? And where is Bill living? He may be staying in a homeless shelter or in his car. In order to be helpful to Bill, the psychotherapist needs to know the answers to these questions and be prepared to refer him to county agencies that can assist him.

Assessing Risk of PTSD, Depression, and Other Diagnoses

For years, Bill was subjected to ongoing emotional abuse from Jacob. The consequences of that abuse, coupled with his current poverty and the dissolution of his marriage and loss of meaningful contact with his daughter, is likely causing overwhelming psychological pain. He may be experiencing difficulty sleeping and have an accompanying high startle response. Christian symbolism might remind him of Jacob’s theology. Even driving by a church with the congregation mingling outside could trigger unpleasant memories. His self-esteem was still forming when he met Jacob, and will almost certainly be low; he’s without friends and lives in poverty. All of these factors put him at risk for depression. It was already noted that Bill is quite thin. Does he have an appetite? It’s understandable that he may be feeling guilt about having abandoned the only friends and family he has known in the past decade, but is the guilt overwhelming? Does he do anything at all that gives him pleasure, or does he spend all of his time working and worrying?

At intake, the therapist should do a Mental Status Exam and perhaps use other assessment measures such as the Beck Depression Inventory screening to determine Bill’s level of concentration, document his physical appearance and affect, and determine whether Bill is experiencing depressive symptoms. The results of these screenings will indicate whether formal psychological testing is advisable. In eliciting his life story from Bill and the diagnoses based on the initial screening and psychological testing, the therapist can then formulate a treatment plan that prioritizes Bill’s problems and the diagnoses determined by the psychological testing.

While it is common for ex-cultists to experience posttraumatic stress disorder, not all of them will, any more than will all soldiers who experience combat. Depression and anxiety are very frequently found in persons who have left a cult, but it is an error to automatically assume that all former cult members suffer from these dysfunctions. Shame, low self-esteem, and anger, however, are nearly always present.

In these cases especially, journal keeping can become an important adjunct to therapy. Bill should be encouraged to keep a daily journal as a way to document his feelings and reactions to stressors. If, for example, he feels a surge of anxiety when driving past a church or seeing a parent and child, Bill and the therapist can collaboratively develop coping strategies to lessen the chances of Bill reacting adversely to such stimuli. He should also be encouraged to write down his feelings about his future and the impediments he sees as preventing him from more fully taking advantage of his intellect and ambition. Journaling will allow the therapist to better understand Bill’s dilemma as Bill views it.

Life Decisions

As an adult, all of Bill’s meaningful life decisions had been made by Jacob; Bill had no say in his education and employment and had limited say in his own marriage. Now all decisions are his. After viewing what he sees as a waste of 13 years of his life, he may feel either like he needs to make up for lost time and immediately “jump back into” the life he put on hold when he was 19 years old, or, conversely, believe it’s too late for him to make the needed changes in his life.

Although Bill is in his thirties, emotionally in many ways he is still an adolescent. While with Jacob, he’d learned to suppress doubt; now he is likely overwhelmed by doubt. Does he fear that if his decision to leave Jacob was the wrong decision, he will be damned? Does he believe that he has offended God?

In addition to focusing on Bill’s immediate psychological dysfunction, the therapist should also assist him in realizing what his long-term goals are, something that was never addressed while he was with Jacob. At some point, he may want to look beyond remaining a laborer. The therapist can assist Bill in expressing his interests and hopes for the future. Because Bill’s self-esteem is almost certainly poor, he may be timorous in talking about what he would like to do; he may feel that he is not smart or worthy enough. The therapist can help Bill past his timidity and low self-regard. Bill is an intelligent man and there are a myriad of options available to him; finding the confidence to speak to his therapist about his goals will be of great emotional benefit.

Social Reintegration

Because of the cult practice of social isolation, Bill will now almost certainly feel alienated from just about everybody. He’s left the only people he’d known for over a decade, and he has no one to replace them. As a result of his isolation as well as the cult’s “us-versus-them” mentality, he may view people with distrust, fearing that they’ll take advantage of him. Because he was also taught to harshly judge “outsiders” who did not conform to the cult’s standards of conduct, he may need help developing a less judgmental and more open approach when interacting with other people as a way to more fully re-integrate himself into society.

Finding a way to fit into a mainstream that he has spent nearly his entire adult life viewing with suspicion and judgment will be difficult. What will he talk about with people he meets at work? “How can he explain his involvement with the group without provoking ridicule and disbelief? If he chooses not to talk about his cult membership, what will he say he’s been doing for the last 13 years?”

For these reasons, group psychotherapy is often useful when working with former cult members. For Bill, group therapy would allow him to hone his social skills, which have been dormant for over a decade; he may not even know how to speak to people in a friendly, unassuming manner. Additionally, receiving feedback from the other group members will assist Bill in thinking about his experiences in the cult from a different standpoint. Good group therapy creates a safe environment Bill for to learn socially appropriate ways to assert himself. By interacting with peers in the group, Bill will learn coping skills and reframing strategies, and improve his ability to speak about his experiences and hopes for the future. Group therapy will also assist him in realizing that he is not metaphorically alone, that the turmoil he is experiencing is not unique.

Challenges in Reconnecting with Family

Bill has had no contact with his biological family in over a decade. It is not uncommon for cult leaders to persuade followers to borrow money from their families, most often by promising to use the money to return home or return to school. If this happened with Bill, the therapist should know about it; it might make reconciliation more difficult, and the shame of having stolen from his family may be a contributing factor to Bill’s emotional problems. Reconciling with his family could both decrease Bill’s isolation and ease some his guilt. His parents might not know that Bill has left the cult; they might not even know he has a daughter, and learning of a grandchild could make reconnecting with his family easier.

The therapist will also want to explore Bill’s current disenfranchisement from his family and his reasons for avoiding contact with them. Bill can be encouraged to talk to the therapist about the worse-case scenarios he envisions might happen if he attempts reconciliation. Rejection? Anger? Legal action to recover unpaid debts? If Bill is prepared to reach out to his family, the therapist can offer to meet with them together, to act as a sort of referee and to explain to Bill and his family the forces that were put into play by Jacob that led to Bill’s recruitment into the cult. It could be healing for the family to learn about tools of undue influence used on Bill, and understand that Bill’s cultic involvement was not due to Bill’s upbringing, but were rather a result of Jacob using remarkably successful tools of persuasion on a particularly vulnerable young man.

Managing Self-Blame with Psychoeducation

Persons who leave cults, or any abusive relationships for that matter, very often feel foolish and angry for having been so badly manipulated. It’s important that Bill knows that the techniques used against him by Jacob were not Bill’s fault. It wasn’t weakness on Bill’s part that caused him to join Jacob’s cult; rather, it was his innocence and Jacob’s pathology that were ultimately responsible. There is a genuine sense of empowerment when a former cult member understands the tools of manipulation that were used against him or her. While bitterness and anger may linger, the former cultist no longer feels somehow defective. This goes a long way in eliminating feelings of low self-worth.

Follow-up: A Slow Recovery

Over the next several months, I heard from Bill occasionally. At his suggestion, about a year later, I met with him again at the same coffee shop. This time he was more relaxed but still maintained a reserved, moderately nervous affect. He told me that although he had met with three more psychotherapists, he’d been unable to find one he believed understood his experience well enough to be able to help him. He mentioned that he’d joined a psychotherapy group a month earlier and felt that he was receiving support from the other members of the group, who do not see him as weak or foolish. He was hopeful that the group therapy would work out.

He still worked in construction and paid monthly child support. The courts had determined that he was the biological father of his daughter, and he’d been granted visitation privileges with her, which his ex-wife was contesting through an attorney hired by Jacob. In response to my question, he said that he still considered himself a Christian but, despite attending several churches, had not found one where he felt he belonged. He added that he still had difficult mentally separating Christian theology from Jacob and what Jacob had done to him. Bill remained quite bitter over having lost so much of his life to the cult.

I hope Bill’s story makes clear that ex-cult members are a traumatized segment of the population that needs more therapists who are educated about and sensitive to their particular experiences. Patience is a necessity in doing this work, but it is often helpful to remember that while these individuals suffered extreme measures of manipulation, their susceptibility to such influence is not surprising, or even necessarily difficult to understand. As Dr. Margaret Singer was fond of saying, anybody is capable of cultic recruitment if approached at the right time—a time when they are most vulnerable. That was certainly the case with Bill; he was young and naïve with minimal life experience, and he was lonely and cut off from his family. Jacob used an attractive woman as the initial bait and then played into Bill’s isolation, Christian beliefs, doubts about his direction in life, and his yearnings to be part of a community of friends who shared his principles.

Sources:
Lifton, R. (1961). Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.
Singer, M. and Lalich, J. (1995). Cults In Our Midst. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

 

Sue Johnson on Emotionally Focused Therapy

Foundations of EFT

Victor Yalom: Sue, it's great to be with you today. We might as well start with the basics. Can you just say a bit about what is emotionally focused therapy or EFT?
Sue Johnson: EFT is an approach that was developed in the '80s to work with couples, that now has a very strong empirical base. It's been tested. There's lots of outcome data. We know that we get results with lots of different kinds of couples. We know how we get results. As its name suggests, it's an approach that focuses very much on how people deal with their emotions and how they send emotional signals to their spouse, and then how this emotion becomes the music of their interactional dance.

It's an attachment-oriented approach. Attachment is a broad theory of personality and human development that focuses, also, very much on emotion. It's an attachment approach, so it assumes that we all have very deep needs for safe connection and emotional contact, and that when we don't get those needs, we get stuck in very negative interactional patterns; the dance music gets very complicated.
VY: Of course, humans are complex creatures. Emotions are an essential component, but we also have cognitions. Why do you focus on emotions?
SJ: We focused on emotion, in some ways, because they were pretty much left out of interventions, particularly systemic interventions—interventions that looked at relationships. Emotions were really considered the enemy. They were the things that people had difficulty with. Particularly, anger and conflict were considered the enemy. So there was a lot of focus on just teaching people skills to control emotion—to be nicer to each other.

And what we tried to do is say, "No, focusing on emotion and helping people send key emotional messages to each other that help the other person feel safe is the most important part of a relationship. It's the key part of the attachment bond. And we really need to teach people how to do that." So that's why we focused on emotion.

VY: And how did attachment theory become such a central component?
SJ: Really, couples taught us how to do EFT. We started looking at how couples got caught in being overwhelmed by their emotions, or numbing out their emotions, or putting very negative emotions out to each other, and getting caught in really negative cycles. But we didn't understand why these cycles were so powerful, took over the whole relationship and induced such distress in people. We knew there was something powerful here. And we learned how to help people get out of these negative dances and move into positive, trusting, more open dances with each other.

So we discovered how to do that, but we didn't really understand why this dance was so incredibly powerful, why it had the effect it did until
VY: And when you refer to the dance, you’re referring to the patterns that couples get into.
SJ: Yes, I think of the patterns of interaction in a relationship as a dance. And I like to think of emotion as the music of the dance. I think that is a shorthand way of talking about how powerful emotions are. It’s very difficult to learn skills and do a new dance that’s about tango when there’s waltz music playing. You end up going on with the music in the end. That’s what happens in relationships with emotion.
VY: What do you mean?
SJ: If I'm really hurting and really upset with you, and I'm vigilantly watching everything you do, waiting for some sign that I don't really matter to you and you are about to turn away from me, I discount the positive things you say, for a start. I wait for you to raise your left eyebrow and say something negative. And when you say that, I'm ready—I have all these catastrophic ideas and feelings in my body, and this felt sense of falling through space and insecurity. And I react like crazy. And you turn to me and you say, "But I was so sweet to you yesterday. Doesn't that count?" And if I'm honest, I would say no. So our emotional realities are very powerful.
VY: The kind of situation you just described is something that therapists often get tripped up on. When we’re in the room with a couple, things happen so quickly, even before we understand what’s happening and they’re off to the races.
SJ: That’s right.
VY: So how does the theory help us? How do you understand that?
SJ:
It really helps to understand that you're dealing with an attachment drama. You're dealing with dilemmas in human bonding.
It really helps to understand that you're dealing with an attachment drama. You're dealing with dilemmas in human bonding. So the emotions that you're dealing with are high-voltage emotions, because your mammalian brain sees these emotions—these situations—in terms of life and death: "Does this person care about me?" It looks like we're having a fight about parenting, but, in fact, if you tune into the emotions, oftentimes two minutes after the fight started—or two seconds after the fight started—the fight ends up being about attachment issues like, "Do you love me? Do I matter to you? If I hurt do you care? Are you there for me? Will you respond to me? Can I depend on you?"

I started to realize after we'd done the first outcome study that the logic behind these emotions was that they were all about attachment and bonding, and our deep human need for that secure bond.

Johnson's Flash of Insight

VY: How did that come to you?
SJ: It was a flash of insight, I’m afraid. It sounds corny, but it was one of those traditional corny "Aha!" things that just hit you in the head.
VY: How did that happen?
SJ: Actually, I was at a conference. We'd done the first outcome study of EFT. It had worked amazingly well. I couldn't really understand how it had worked so well, and I was at a conference listening to Neil Jacobson talking. And Neil Jacobson, who was really the father of cognitive-behavioral marital therapy, was giving a talk and basically saying that relationships are rational bargains, so what you have to do is teach people to negotiate. His theory was that you can negotiate almost anything, including affairs. And this was the theory of relationship underneath the behavioral approaches: you teach people communication skills so that they can problem solve and bargain better.

Afterwards, I and my colleague Les Greenberg, who originally helped me put together EFT for couples, were sitting in a bar, and he said, "He's wrong." And I said, "Of course Neil's wrong." And he said, "Well, why is he wrong?" And I said, "Oh, he's wrong because an adult love relationship is an attachment bond, and you can't bargain for basic responsiveness and safety and love." And that was it. And then suddenly the whole of John Bowlby, who I'd read, but who I'd never made the links—it was like somebody hit me with a sledgehammer.

I went home and wrote an article called "Bonds or Bargains," which ended up being in the Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy, even though Alan Gurman sent it out for review four times, and each time he got two people who hated it and who said that adult relationships were not attachment bonds like the bonds between mothers and children. They were adult friendships, and they were rational, and dependency was a problem, and we got over it. And the other half of the people said, "Oh, this is really new and interesting." And Alan Gurman finally said, "I can never get people to agree. They either hate it or love it. So, Sue, I like it so I'm going to publish it"—for which I bless him forever.

That was the first article—it came out in '86. And in '87 Hazan and Shaver, who were social psychologists, bought out their first little study of adult attachment. Bowlby always said adults had attachment, but we'd never really done anything with his remarks.
VY: So the interesting thing is you developed the theory and practice of EFT before you conceptualized the centrality of attachment in it, and it worked without that understanding.
SJ: It worked because, I think, we were Rogerian, and we understood how to create new interactions from a systemic point of view. But we didn't really understand why these new interactions worked so well.

And don't forget, also, in those days not much was written about adult attachment. Since then there have been hundreds of studies. It's a very rich literature now—lots of studies on adult attachment linking adult attachment to better health, feeling better about yourself, better ability to deal with stress. But in those days—in the '80s—nobody was writing about adult attachment. So there wasn't a literature sitting there that I could go to and say, "Oh, this is it." I just understood suddenly what I was looking at between adult partners, and how this paralleled the between the bonds between mothers and children, which many people still find very difficult to accept. They say, "No, they're totally different."
VY: It certainly goes against the strong sense of psychological independence that we cherish in the West and is so central to so many of our conceptions of psychological health.
SJ: Yes. I think what we've done is we've pathologized dependency. If you really think about it, though, how on earth do we get to be independent anyway?
Bowlby basically said for a child to really become independent, he has to be dependent first.
Bowlby basically said for a child to really become independent, he has to be dependent first. He has to be able to turn to other people and reach for them, and know how to connect with others in order to build this sense of self and in order to deal with how your self evolves and how big the world is. In other words, Bowlby basically said we're mammals. We need other people. A strong sense of self and the ability to be separate are tied to how connected you feel. They're not opposites—they're both the two sides of the same coin. We made a mistake in that.

In psychology and in therapy, we often see a little piece of the picture, and we go with that because that's all we can see. Then when the whole picture suddenly evolves, we can put things together in a different way.
VY: So you don’t like the ideas of co-dependency or enmeshment?
SJ: Well, enmeshment confuses anxiety about closeness and coercion, for one thing. It's a very vague concept, and a lot of it came out of watching families where adolescents were in deep trouble and the therapist was trying to help the adolescents assert themselves with the parents. There's nothing wrong with the word "enmeshment" if you put it in a very particular context.

Co-dependency came out of the addiction literature, and we used it as a global blame for people without understanding that we have amazingly powerful emotional links with the people we love. To say you shouldn't have those links is craziness. Those links are wired into our brains by millions of years of evolution. Bowlby says if you're a mammal, there's no such thing as real self-sufficiency. And there's no such thing as real over-dependency. But there are massively anxious behaviors around dependency.

What healthy people have is effective dependency, which means—and there's lots of research behind this now—the more you know how to turn to other people, the more you can trust other people, the more you can go inside of yourself and access, for example, your loved one's face when you're feeling upset or distressed, the stronger you are as a person, the better you feel about yourself and the more able you are to take autonomous decisions.
The more you know how to turn to other people, the better you feel about yourself and the more able you are to make autonomous decisions.
And I'm not making this up. I can quote you study after study, and you see it in therapy.
VY: I know that you can. And I know you can talk passionately and animatedly about the attachment literature for hours—
SJ: Yes, I can. It’s the best thing to ever hit psychology and therapy in the last hundred years, so there you go.
VY: Yes, you’re not one shy of opinions!
SJ: No. Life's too short to not put out what you think. And if someone can show you you're wrong, that's good.

EFT Techniques

VY: How did it change your thinking and the technique of EFT when you had that "aha!" moment and started to understand the significance of attachment in adult couples?
SJ: I think it helped me understand, on a deeper level, how powerful these emotions were that I was seeing in the couple. It helped me understand the power of fear in a couple—fear of abandonment, fear of rejection. It helped me understand the logic behind some of the apparently self-destructive positions people take in relationships.
VY: Can you give an example of the fear or the self-destructive positions?
SJ: For example, one of the classic ones in relationships is, "I feel lonely. I feel unsure that you care about me. I don't even know quite how to put that into words because I'm an adult—I'm not supposed to feel that way. But I somehow feel like I'm starving emotionally. And I decide that what I'm going to do is I'm going to make you respond. Ironically, I'm feeling all these feelings inside of abandonment and loneliness and fear, and what I say to you is, 'You never talk to me.'"
VY: What you're describing is what's underneath, unconscious, as it were—not what the person's actually saying, but what you posit is driving their behavior.
SJ: You don't have to posit it if you slow people down, and you say, "In the second before you get angry and tell your husband that he's ridiculous because he can't talk to anyone—in the second before you attack him to get his attention and to make him listen to you—what's happening to you?" If you just slow people down, there are enormously powerful universal patterns that you can see, and they fit very well with what John Bowlby saw in situations between mothers and infants.

There are only so many ways we have of dealing with our emotions. If I'm in a relationship with somebody and I want them to respond to me, and suddenly I'm not getting responsiveness and connection, I've got to reach for them and say, "Where are you? I need you." If somehow I'm afraid to do that or that doesn't work too well, then there are really only two alternatives. I get angry and shriek—children shriek or they get mad or they get aggressive with the mother, and so do we. We say, "Why don't you ever talk to me?" Unfortunately, if that gets to be a habitual pattern, I end up pushing you away. And in classic marital distress, the other person hears, "I'm being rejected. I'm disappointing. I'm messing up. I'm not pleasing this person. I don't know how to please this person. This hurts like hell. I want this fight to stop. I'm just going to stop talking."

So one person numbs out. And the more he numbs out, shuts down, shuts his partner out, the more his partner gets angry and pushes.
So one person numbs out. And the more he numbs out, shuts down, shuts his partner out, the more his partner gets angry and pushes. And that is the most classic dance of relationship distress in North America. It's a hot number. We all do it a lot.
VY: This is what you refer to as a cycle?
SJ: That's a cycle. And in Hold Me Tight, which is the book I wrote for the public a couple of years ago, it's one of the main "demon dialogues." What's important is if you understand that that drama is not about communication skills or your personalities, or that you're deficient somehow, but rather that drama is about both of you being caught in feeling disconnected from each other and not knowing how to handle it—if you understand that, what we first teach people to do in EFT is to basically understand they're scaring the hell out of each other. Then we teach them how to step out of the negative patterns, and then deliberately learn how to reach for each other—which is what mothers and infants and bonded partners and people who love each other in positive relationships naturally do—learn how to reach for each other and create loving, responsive, open emotional communication where they can get their needs met.
VY: Sounds nice.
SJ: It is nice. It’s fun to do, as well. As a therapist, it makes you feel like you’re actually really doing what you wanted to do in grad school when you decided to be a therapist.
VY: So how do therapists do that? The first thing, I guess, is to start to be able to identify, in your own mind, this dance—this cycle.
SJ: Yeah. At this point, we’ve been doing EFT for 25 years. We’ve set it out pretty clearly and we’ve even done research on what you have to do to make this work. First of all, you’ve got to create safety in the session.
VY: Okay, safety is number one. So how do you do that?
SJ: You do that by being empathic and by being emotionally present. Really, this is a Rogerian therapy. So you do that in the traditional Rogerian way, but I think it's more intense than Rogers really created because you also help the couple understand the drama that they're caught in. So you're a relationship consultant. You follow the couple's drama. You make it clear to them the steps they're doing in the dance.
VY: That's "Rogers plus," because you're not just reflecting back—you're starting to explain to them what you see that they're doing.
SJ: I think you have to do more than explain. You have to give them a felt sense.
You have to catch it as it's happening, and you have to help them see the dance they're caught in and how it leaves them both alone and hurting.
You have to catch it as it's happening, and you have to help them see the dance they're caught in and how it leaves them both alone and hurting. You also have to help them see that underneath this dance they're both in pain, and that this pain is just built into us. It's part of who are as human beings. So that is key. You have to create safety in the session. You have to help people explore their emotions so that they can talk about some of these softer feelings.

If you're always telling me that you don't want to hear me because I'm so angry, after a while all I show you is anger. And all I see you do is be cold and indifferent. And what we help people do is talk about the softer feelings that they don't even know how to name sometimes, and certainly don't know how to share. So the reactively angry partner will start talking about how "I feel lonely. I don't know what to do. I do get angry. I do get critical because underneath I'm so scared I don't matter to him."

And we will help her not only access that and work with those feelings, regulate them differently, integrate them so she can talk about those softer feelings—we'll help her turn and share with her partner in interactions where we scaffold the safety in. We help her share that, and we help her partner hear it—because one of the reasons you need a therapist is that sometimes you do give these clear emotional messages to your partner, and because of the negative music playing in the relationship, your partner doesn't even hear it. Your partner doesn't trust, doesn't respond to it.
VY: When you say you help them share these feelings with their partner—this is what you refer to as enactments, á la Minuchin, right?
SJ: Yes, although they’re much more emotional than Minuchin’s enactments usually were. To really summarize it, the EFT therapist creates safety, deepens people’s emotions using the attachment frame, to the soft feelings, the fears, the sadnesses, the hurts, sometimes even the shame underneath their reactive responses to each other, and then helps them send clear signals to their partner in very powerful interactions about their fears and their needs. Really, we teach people to help each other deal with these difficult emotions in a way that brings them closer.
VY: So if all goes well, you identify their pattern, you help them feel safe, you observe their pattern, you help them identify it, and then you help them start to express their deepest, vulnerable, unmet needs with each other. Then what happens?
SJ: It's basically the prototypical corrective emotional experience. And the reason it's so powerful is that we have these key change events in the second stage of EFT. In the first stage, we de-escalate the negative patterns so that people can stop and say things like, "Hey, we're caught in that thing again—that thing where I get angrier and angrier and you get more and more silent. This is the place where we both get hurt." And they start seeing the dance is the problem.

So they can have control over the negative interaction pattern, but that's not enough. I think lots of couples therapies get people there one way or another. The important bit for me is the second stage, where we actively use an attachment frame to help people to distill their attachment fears and their attachment needs, which in the beginning of therapy they are often not even aware of. And then we help them share that.

When that happens and the other person can respond,
sometimes for the first time in people's lives they actually feel that another person is there for them, that the other person cares, that they matter to someone.
sometimes for the first time in people's lives they actually feel that another person is there for them, that the other person cares, that they matter to someone. This is a huge event. It starts to redefine the relationship as a secure bond. And it's incredibly positive for people because we have mammalian brains.
VY: It can be. But take the example where one of the partners gets to the point where they can be incredibly vulnerable and open and express their unmet needs, and the other partner has their own intimacy issues and blocks, and that’s too much for them, and they reject it or they withdraw.
SJ: First of all, the therapist is there dealing with that. Secondly, you titrate the risks people take in EFT. You don’t ask people to take huge risks before they’ve done Stage One. So ideally you don’t let people get into that position. But, nevertheless, if someone shares and the other person can’t respond, the good EFT therapist will go in and help that person slow everything down. See, emotion’s fast. If you want people to regulate it better and integrate it and deal with it differently, you’ve got to slow it down.
VY: Yeah, and I’ve seen you work and you’re very good. You track people very carefully, and you’re very good at slowing it down.
SJ: Yes. So in that case, I would turn to the person. I would say, "Could you help me? Did you see your partner just turned to you and said, 'I am scared. I am. And that's when I get into my tank, but inside I'm always so terrified that you never really chose me. I never understood why you married me. I'm always terrified by the fact you could leave me any minute'—did you hear your partner say that?"

You'd be amazed at what people hear sometimes. I had one man who basically said, "I heard that she can leave me any minute." So you have to slow it down. You have to help people get clear, and then you have to say to the person, "What happens to you?" And often people don't know what to do with it, so they'll go cognitive. They'll say, "Well, she had a very difficult family, and it's really not my fault." And you say, "No, I'm going to slow you down." So you help people focus on what matters. You support them. And I help the person hear it. I might say "My sense is that's hard for you to hear."And then the person will slow down and focus and say, "Yes, I don't see her that way. It's so strange for me to really see that she's afraid of me. I can hardly take it in. I see her as so powerful. I don't even know what to do with it. It confuses me. I actually feel dizzy. I feel like there's no ground under my feet. I've been with this person for 30 years. I never see her as—you mean she's vulnerable and scared? I don't know what to do with that."

So you listen to him. He's going to the leading edge of his experience. I'm keeping him there and helping him process it. Then I help him distill that and say, "Could you tell her, please?" And he says, "It's so hard for me. I don't quite know what to do with this new message. I don't know what to say when you tell me that. And I almost don't know whether to trust it. That you would be scared of me—that's so strange for me." And that's fine.
VY: This is where, as a therapist, you have to be very grounded to stick with it.
SJ: Yes.
VY: And really go slow with them, be patient, but also persist in insisting that he not withdraw.
SJ: Yes, that's right. And we're pretty systematic now. We've got training tapes, we've got a workbook, we've got the basic 2004 text. It's laid out in a lot of detail, and we have a whole procedure for training therapists and registering therapists. You can watch people do this on a tape. But you're right. EFT takes a lot of focus, and you have to be able to work with people's emotions, and help them stay with them and develop them and deepen them. You also have to be able to track interactions, and help them create these new interactions with their partner.

So it's a collaborative therapy. You're doing it with people, but it's certainly not a laid-back reflective therapy. It's a therapy where you're dancing alongside your client, and the music's going, and you understand the music, hopefully. But it's an active therapy, because there's so much going on.

Training Couples Therapists

VY: I understand that you’ve put a lot of thought into how to train therapists and set up a systematic program of training, ranging from your externships to supervision, et cetera. What do you find are the most difficult things for therapists to learn?
SJ:
I think our profession has developed a profound distrust of dependency, and we don’t understand it.
I think our profession has developed a profound distrust of dependency, and we don’t understand it. We still are hung up on, "We have to teach people to regulate their own emotions, be independent and separate, and define themselves." I think that’s one thing. We don’t really understand people’s deepest needs.
VY: So just conceptually having a shift in this idea of dependency, autonomy—that gets in the way.
SJ: Yes. You’ve got to be able to accept that we’re interdependent and we need each other. Otherwise, you’re going to have a hard time with EFT. You’re not going to be able to listen to and validate people’s needs. You’re going to blame them for their needs. But the second one is you have to get used to staying with emotion and deepening it. There’s a beautiful quote by Jack Kornfield. He writes about Buddhism and he says something about, "I can let myself be borne along by the river of emotion because I know how to swim."

I think therapists have been traditionally quite scared of strong emotion because we haven’t really known what to do with it. And at this point in psychotherapy in general, and in EFT, I think, there’s been a big revolution understanding emotion and human attachment. And we do know what to do with it. There’s nothing illogical about emotion. And, actually, there’s not very much unpredictable about emotion if you really know how to listen in to it. But many of us have not been trained in how to really stay emotionally present with somebody and track emotion, how to deepen emotion and use it. I think that’s the biggest one that people struggle with in EFT.
VY: So it’s just being more comfortable with emotion and trusting yourself to stay with it.
SJ: That’s a big part of it.
VY: That’s in terms of the comfort of the therapist. In terms of the techniques to help people work with it, what are the hardest things for therapists to learn?
SJ: I don’t think the techniques are hard per se. They’re a combination of Rogerian empathic reflection, validating, asking process-oriented questions like, "What’s happening for you right now? How do you feel when this person says this? How do you feel in your body? What do you tell yourself in your mind? Do you tell yourself this means this person doesn’t love you?"
VY: What I see is the skill that refer to as "slicing very thin"—tracking emotions on a very minute, moment-to-moment level. Not just asking someone how they feel, because many people, as you know, can't articulate that.
SJ: No.
VY: So you go at it from many angles.
SJ: Well, we know what the elements of emotion are. The elements of emotion are initial perception, body response, a set of thoughts, and then an action tendency.
VY: Now you’re sounding like a behaviorist.
SJ: No, I'm not. That comes from the emotion literature. A good EFT therapist will go and ask simple questions about the basic elements of emotion. Somebody will say, "I don't know how I feel right now." And the EFT therapist will say, "How's your body feel?" The person will say, "I feel tense." And the EFT therapist will say, "What do you want to do?"—because there's an action tendency in emotion. The person says, "I want this to stop. I want to get out of here." So you know what's happening—there's some version of fear going on. So the therapist will ask simple questions, and constantly empathically reflect to help people hold onto their emotional experience and continue to work with it.

Sometimes a therapist will interpret—add a piece. "This is very difficult for you. Could it be a little scary?" And then the therapist will help somebody hold their emotion, distill it. And then will create an enactment: "Could you turn and tell your partner, 'When we start to talk about this some part of me just wants to run away'?" You make the implicit explicit. You make the vague concrete. You make the vague vivid.

It's much better, from a relationship point of view, for me to turn and say to you, "Victor, I don't know what to do with what you've just said, but there's something a bit scary about it and I just want to run away." That's much better than for me to just feel that and not be able to talk about it, and turn and leave the room. If I turn and leave the room and you are a mammal and you're in a relationship with me, your brain says that's a danger cue. "This person who I depend on can walk away from me any time." And you start to get really upset—whereas if I turn and say to you, "I don't know what's happening with me. This is a bit scary. I just want to leave," you're probably going to feel compassion towards me.

It's all about helping people learn how to hold on to that emotional connection. Our mammalian brains experience emotional connection as a safety cue. There's lots of neuroscience behind this now, by the way. This emotional attachment stuff is creating a revolution in our field.

The New Science of Love

VY: I just heard David Brooks speak. He’s done a great job with his book, The Social Animal, summarizing a lot of the attachment research, but he also warned of the danger of over-reading brain science. He said something to the effect that brain science is in such a state of infancy that to draw any definitive conclusions from it can be riding the next wave of popularity, but to make precise conclusions from it is overreaching.
SJ: I agree with David Brooks that you can't draw conclusions. Sometimes when I listen to people and they say, "Oh, we change the brain in psychotherapy," I don't know. I just feel like saying, "Well, you know, eating an ice cream changes your brain."

On the other hand, when you look at research like my colleague, Jim Coan, has done, that if you lie alone in a computer in an MRI machine or you hold a stranger's hand, your brain goes berserk when you see a sign that you're going to be shocked on your feet. And when your partner, who you feel safe and connected with, holds your hand and you can see that signal that tells you you're going to be shocked on your feet, because you're holding your partner's hand and you feel connected to them your brain does not go berserk, and the way you experience the shock is much less painful.

Now, David Brooks is right. We're not quite sure what it all means. But it's fascinating stuff, and it's taking us into new territory. And, just by itself, that one study supports all the hundreds of studies that have been done on adult attachment and infant and mother and father attachment that says that we have connections with very special others, and that it's basically all about safety and danger. We use that connection as a safety cue. And what I just said has huge implications for couple therapy, psychotherapy in general, education for society. So, yes, David Brooks is right and we are in the middle of a revolution.
VY: Speaking of that, I hear you’re writing a new book on the science of love.
SJ: Yes, because we really do have a science of love. It's in its infancy, but it's a strong, bawling little infant. It's not a fragile child.
We really do have a science of love. It's in its infancy, but it's a strong, bawling little infant. It's not a fragile child.
When I think about it, in the last 15 years our understanding of our most important adult relationships has absolutely gone crazy. It is a revolution.

And it's so important. I was just looking in my local newspaper today, The Globe and Mail in Toronto, talking about how the Canadian government is struggling with the fact that there are rising levels of anxiety and depression and we can't deal with it in our healthcare system. Well, I know what John Bowlby would say. John Bowlby would say, "Absolutely, because we're facing less and less social connection, less and less community connection, and 50 percent of us divorce. We haven't learned how to create these safe, loving bonds. We need to belong." And the way to deal with that sort of thing, from my point of view, is not for the pharmaceutical companies to get better pills. It's for us to really understand our need for human connection, and start educating people for that and understanding how crucial that is in terms of basic mental health problems like anxiety and depression.
VY: Can you give a little sneak preview of your book? One or two morsels?
SJ: I'm going to talk about oxytocin, the cuddle hormone. I'm going to talk about how sex is an attachment behavior. I'm going to talk about how we're basically monogamous and that those people who say that we're not suited for monogamy are out of their minds. I'm going to talk about all the science behind what happens when you have one of those little arguments with your partner in the morning that ends up wrecking your whole day, so that when five o' clock comes along you're not even sure why you married this person. That's what I'm going to try to talk about.
VY: We'll look forward to that coming out. Thanks for taking the time to talk today.
SJ: You're welcome.

Lonnie Barbach on Sex Therapy

Early Years of The Human Sexuality Program

David Bullard: Lonnie, as we start this interview I should acknowledge that we’ve known each other a long time as friends and colleagues.
Lonnie Barbach: Well, we met in late 1974 at the Human Sexuality Program at the University of California at San Francisco—that is a while ago!
DB: Yes, and you were one of my post-doctoral instructors, along with Jay Mann, Bernie Zilbergeld, Harvey Caplan, and Rebecca Black. Actually, you all were more important therapist role models to me than anyone I had encountered in graduate school.  And it was an exciting time to see how you all were bringing a kind of San Francisco humanism to sex therapy.
LB: That was an incredibly exciting time in human sexuality research and therapy and it led me to write my first book.
DB: Yes, For Yourself  was your timely and incredibly successful book that empowered women to take charge of their own sexual pleasure.  Not to linger too much in the past, but are there any impressions you can share when you think back to those days of the UCSF Human Sexuality Program, which for awhile was the largest training program in the country for psychotherapists, physicians and nurses in the newly-emerging field of sex therapy, post-Masters and Johnson.
LB: Well, for me, it changed my life; it was a pretty formative and important time. I didn't fully appreciate its significance at the time, but I knew that it was exciting.

DB: You graduated with a doctorate in psychology from the Wright Institute.
LB: I had done everything but my dissertation when I began at UCSF. I ended up designing this format for pre-orgasmic women's groups at UC, Berkeley where I worked with a small group of UC students in women's consciousness-raising groups using masturbation as a learning technique, but no one believed this form of therapy could work with middle-class housewives! So I was challenged and had to find a different environment in which to do my dissertation research.  Jay Mann was a psychologist and director of the HSP at UCSF and he said, “Well, if you pay us rent to use the space, you can run your research groups out of here and be under the umbrella of UCSF.” Then, as part of recruiting subjects, I was a guest on Don Chamberlin’s radio talk show called “California Girls.”  Thereafter, whenever someone mentioned having an orgasm problem, he would refer them to me. Within a few months, I had hundreds of women on a waiting list at UCSF.

Women’s Preorgasmic Groups

DB: So his show really jump-started your work with women’s preorgasmic groups.  Prior to your contributions, the professional diagnostic terms for a woman who had never or rarely had orgasm were “nonorgasmic” or “frigid.” Your use of “preorgasmic” instantly re-set more hopeful expectations and dropped the pejorative labels that almost all women had been oppressed by one way or another.
LB: Yes.  The semantics were oppressive, and we had to push over several years to get the medical and psychological establishment to drop those old labels. 
There was a great need in our society for people to drop shame about their sexuality in order to enjoy it….
There was a great need in our society for people to drop shame about their sexuality in order to enjoy it and for general self-acceptance. I learned a lot from the women in the groups–they were my teachers also. After completing three research groups with great results, I suddenly had this large number of women wanting help, so Jay Mann suggested we do a large group educational program. By then he realized that UCSF would earn more if they hired me and directly took in the money the women were being charged rather than my just paying them rent.  So I was brought on as co-director of clinical training in charge of their first women's program; later they added a men's program that Bernie Zilbergeld headed.
DB: You and I were both in graduate school in that era and I can remember what a powerful idea this was: empowering women to learn to take charge of and enjoy their own sexuality.  
LB: And I didn't realize that at first! All I knew was that I needed a job. It was actually a fluke that I even got into the field of sexuality. A woman came to a volunteer educational program I was leading for Planned Parenthood. At the end she said “you really should apply for my job because I'm leaving a position at UC, Berkeley as a sex therapist.” I was trying to finish my education at that point and really needed to earn some income. Two male colleagues of mine, Jim Purcell and Bob Cantor, both agreed they would do Masters and Johnson couples therapy counseling with me.  In that format, you needed both a female and male therapist for one couple. We got the job and I read the few books that were out and talked to everyone who knew anything about sex therapy, although there weren’t many of them at that time.  Shortly, Jim and Bob told me that they were too involved with their other jobs and graduate work and had no time to do the couples sex therapy. So I had a job I could not do as a single female. 
 
At the same time six women who also had no partners applied for sex therapy at the student health service. Some were single, some had partners but the partner wasn’t willing to come into therapy.  And one woman was faking orgasm and didn’t want her partner to know. Women’s consciousness-raising was really big at the time.  It seemed to me that Lo Piccolo and Lobitz's nine-step masturbation program could be used in a consciousness-raising group format.  So I tried it and led the first group with Nancy Carlson. Our first group was ten sessions long and we only had five weeks in order to fit it in between midterm and final exams! They were all “primary pre-orgasmic” women (never having experienced an orgasm by any means); by the end of this group they were all orgasmic by themselves and most of them were also orgasmic during sex with a partner. That was the beginning…. and if I had been on the East Coast, I probably never would have done anything more because, as I learned later, other professionals couldn't believe what I was doing out here–there was really a negative, critical reaction to working with women in groups and teaching them masturbation. But I was in California! So it all grew and developed.
DB: LoPiccolo and Lobitz had used this behavioral approach only in individual therapy?
LB: Yes. And then Jay Mann said I should write a book about this approach.  “But this stuff is so basic,” I said, and while he agreed, he believed that women needed permission to approach it so simply. So he was entirely responsible for my writing career. 
DB: Well, many therapists have ideas and talk about writing books, but actualizing it is quite a different matter!
LB: The power of the book is that it gives permission to women and to their partners to explore themselves. I did not realize that this was so needed because I did not come from a particularly sex negative or repressive family or religious background, so sex seemed natural and normal to me.
DB: And you were a couple of years ahead of the publication of Jack Annon’s book, in which he spoke about the PLISSIT (Permission, Limited Information, Specific Suggestions, and Intensive Therapy) model. 
LB: Yes, his wonderful book, The Behavioral Treatment of Sexual Problems, came out in 1976.
DB: How many copies of For Yourself have sold and in how many languages?
LB: It has been translated into 8 languages and a couple of million copies have been sold worldwide. I don't keep track of the numbers, but I do know that I’ve sold over 4 million copies of the total of my books in the United States.

A Career in Human Sexuality

DB:  I hope you don’t mind if I repeat a comment made at a professional meeting, when you were introduced as the person who has been responsible for more female orgasms than anyone else in human history!
LB: Yes that was either Bernie Zilbergeld or Jay Mann; it was very funny.
DB: That has led to a long career and interest in couples and sexuality, as well as in individual therapy. You do everything in your private practice.
LB: You can't separate out sex from a person’s life context. So we go into the psychological issues, the relationship issues, and perhaps the medical or physiological and neurophysiological issues.  Half the time it's not just a sexual issue but also a relationship issue. So that is the majority of my work.
DB: I don't imagine you've done a women's group in a long time.
LB: Probably not for 25 years. Group therapy is not as popular as it used to be and it's difficult to get a group together around one particular sexual issue. And it is not as needed. More basic information and permission about sexuality is now out there in every Cosmopolitan issue and in many books and the media in general. The culture is more open to the topic of sex.
DB: It's interesting to see how psychological issues evolve over time as a result of the culture changing, not just from research findings and technical changes.
LB:  
Yes, for example, trans-gendered, gay and lesbian issues are being discussed in high schools and now most people have a friend or cousin in one of these sexual minority groups because people are more open about it so it has become more natural. Look at the opportunities given to all of us to learn about other ways of being human that television and the internet have brought to us.  The culture is more accepting and it's infiltrating into the job market and the military.
DB: You wear several hats that I know of:  you have a partner and colleague of 26 years in David Geisinger, you are a mother of a wonderful daughter, you are a therapist with a private practice, you are a lecturer and workshop leader, and are an author and writer….
LB: And I used to be a producer of educational as well as erotic films.  I was a consultant for K-Y [a manufacturer of personal lubricants]. And a teacher at UCSF and at Antioch West.
DB: You then focused on male sexuality and couples sexuality as well.
LB: One thing just naturally led to another.

Couples Therapy

DB: Switching to your couples work and sexuality, are there any particular influences other than your own ongoing work with clients?
LB: I’m process oriented. For example, there can be a negative kind of power or withholding.
Not wanting sex and/or not having orgasms can be powerful ways of impacting the relationship, especially if there is a power imbalance in the relationship.
Not wanting sex and/or not having orgasms can be powerful ways of impacting the relationship, especially if there is a power imbalance in the relationship. If the man seems more powerful and has a larger personality, this negative withholding may be a way for her to balance out the power. So I tend to look at and work with the system in a relationship although power may be only one aspect of it. If one person is more forward, talking a lot, I may have them talk less and have the partner talk more. You have to move the process of the relationship in therapy. David and I wrote a book together called Going the Distance, Finding and Keeping Lifelong Love and in that we described our theory of working with couples and it has deepened over the years. Since then, other therapists have come up with similar approaches, such as Sue Johnson’s Emotionally Focused Therapy. The main premise is that intimacy is no better than the dialogue between two people and the dialogue has to be one based on vulnerability, so an important task is to help couples learn to be vulnerable and to make it safe to be vulnerable in their relationship. You look underneath anger for the more vulnerable feelings and help them express what's going on at that level so that people can hear each other and really respond without being pushed away and without getting defensive. It works really well.
DB: When you give a talk to graduate students who are interested in couples therapy, what particular ideas do you suggest, especially for dealing with any sexuality component their clients may be struggling with?
LB: One reason I think couples therapy is fascinating is that there are so many parts: each partner has his or her relationship history, each has their own personality issues, and then there are the ways they fit together. This is true for all aspects of their relationship including their sexual relationship. So I would suggest dealing with sex in the same way you deal with other issues: talk about it directly and specifically. See how early history may be contributing; how their relationship dynamics such as power struggles or just plain chemistry may be contributing, in addition to taking in real-life practical constraints such as job stress, children, medical issues etc. So it's wonderfully complicated and you play with that in order to get change and that’s all fascinating to me.
DB: Your enthusiasm and passion for working with couples is evident. I'm glad you also use the word “complicated” to describe couples work.   I have another very successful psychotherapy colleague who has written several books on therapy but doesn’t do couples therapy, saying “They are too complicated.” And you're now saying couples are “wonderfully complicated”!
LB: I have a road map in my head when I'm working with a couple and it’s a lot like writing a book. I know where I’m headed and I’m trying to figure out best how to work with them to get there. I believe that an intimate relationship is really the place where people can be healed most effectively–where emotional wounds are healed. So you are involved in a process where each partner is able to heal the other.
DB: Does that mean you've seen instances where you see an individual as part of a couple who might've been somewhat or completely resistant to individual therapy, but within the couples therapy format, that person was healed and got what they needed? Perhaps they could not have gone to or been successful in individual therapy.
LB: Absolutely! And sometimes with couples I also like to see them individually for a session here or there if there are individual issues that are contributing and both partners are very reactive to each other, and they take the other’s feelings too personally. So the couple dynamic comes into play when the reactivity keeps us from going deeper in the couples work. An individual session with that person may bring some clarity so they may be less reactive to their partner’s words.
 
If I were to speak with graduate students, I would suggest that they not start out with couples. As we’ve discussed, it is very complicated. One of my first internships was working at a Synanon-type program at Oak Knoll Naval Base in Oakland. I was working with drug users who were pretty hardcore. I had standard intern responsibilities and was the only female on the ward. I was also leading a couples group for the men and their wives or girlfriends. I was so lost that the guys kept having to explain to me what was going on! I was so over my head. I loved working with the guys and actually signed up for a second go around–the learning was amazing.  However, I would recommend you learn psychotherapy with individuals first and get comfortable with that before attempting work with couples.
 
When I do individual work, I’m always thinking about what is going on with my client’s partner, presuming innocence about them and not just seeing things from my client’s point of view. Also if you're not comfortable talking about sex, you are really limited in the kind of help that you can give couples because so many couples with relationship problems have sexual problems. I've had people come to see me who say, “I went and saw a couples therapist but when I talked about sexual stuff he said, ‘I don't do that’" and they were referred to me.
You're very limited in the kind of intimacy work you can do if you are not comfortable dealing with sex.
You're very limited in the kind of intimacy work you can do if you are not comfortable dealing with sex. The more depth and breath in your skills, the more you can be of assistance to the people you work with.

Sexual Issues in Therapy

DB: Can you give any advice to graduate students and therapists who may feel they have not had enough sexual experience themselves, or somehow feel that their sexual life is not up to some standard, or are just uncomfortable and may have a taboo sense of talking about sex. Any recommendations?
LB: I would say to people to read the books that are out there to get the basic information. Read Bernie Zilbergeld’s book The New Male Sexuality – still the best male sexuality book that's out there. Read For Yourself and For Each Other. Read a book on menopause, like The Pause. Read The Sexual Healing Journey by Wendy Maltz on sexual abuse and about sex and aging so you know about the changes people experience in their sexuality. 
 
And then explore experiential exercises within a graduate program or workshop, such as sex history giving and taking. It can really help to be in a course situation where students ask each other and inquire into the specifics of someone's sexual history and life. Or just practice taking sex histories with friends or lovers. The idea is to get more comfortable talking explicitly about sex.  Most of us need to get over feelings of shame that we are different or not normal or we may be otherwise anxious because we are comparing ourselves to some mythology about others. The more information we have, the more we realize that sexuality has a huge range. It’s not about right or wrong or better or worse, but what is right for the individual person and how their body functions and how they fit with their partner.
DB: In the beginning of the sex therapy revolution in the 1960s and 70s, the focus was on the sexual dysfunctions: erection problems, orgasm problems, ejaculation problems. Over time, desire problems seem to have become preeminent for couples. Is that what you're seeing in your work?
LB: Every now and then I'll get a rapid ejaculator or someone who's not having erections or orgasms. But the vast majority of the people I see are concerned with their lack of sexual desire. There are so many causes for a lack of desire: relationship and communication problems are the most common cause, then there is menopause, lack of chemistry, poor sexual communication, interfering medications, etc. etc.  Half the problem is figuring out the cause.  For example, psychotherapy won’t work if the problem is caused by low testosterone.
DB: So much of you and your work has been showcased in the media, that I have to ask what it was like for you to be on shows like Oprah?
LB: Well, she was lovely, but the most memorable show I did was the Phil Donohue Show.  Before the show he came and said, “ Look, you're the only guest for this hour but I'll be out there with you. You’re not alone.” It was great to have a whole hour on TV with nothing but questions from the audience that I could address. At one point, Donahue started going off on something and then he stopped, looked at me, and said “Can you help me out here?” So I jumped in.  I figured, you’re going to help me, I’m going to help you. It was such a lovely relationship working with him. The questions from the audience were so real. There was one eight-month pregnant woman who asked about sex during pregnancy, “What can you do?” And I got to talk about oral sex and manual stimulation and all sorts of things on national television. So it was a great educational opportunity.
DB: On regular network television! Was anything bleeped?
LB: No nothing was bleeped at all, and a friend who had seen it called me up later to say, “I can't believe on national television you were talking about hand-jobs and blow-jobs.” Not with that language, but that's what happened. On Oprah, other guests get in the discussion and it goes in different directions so you don't get into the depth of coverage and aren’t able to educate the same way that I was able to with the Donahue show.
DB: I'm thinking of the cultural changes. In 1959 on the Jack Paar Tonight Show, they bleeped the word “pregnant!” And years later you get on television and are able to talk about hand-jobs and blow-jobs! 
LB: I have done maybe 20 book tours over the years, and I still remember that at one live local morning show in Seattle, I think, the interviewer asked me, “How do you have oral sex?” I asked her “Do you want me to describe it right now on the air?”  And she said “Yes, I think that would be educational for our viewers.” So I said,“Okay” and I explained how to have oral sex. I gave a “how to.” So that was the most startling for me. At another show the female host of the program introduced me as being responsible for her own first orgasm.
DB: Wonderful!
LB: Yes, it was very sweet.
DB: Is there a current book project that you're working on?
LB: I may have waited too long to actually put a book together, but I'm working a lot in the area of sex after 60.  Also, David [Geisinger] and I have a second book on relationships that we need to write, but haven’t had the time to get to. 
DB: Speaking in generalities, perhaps, is there one overall sense you have of what helps couples feel better about their sexuality?
LB: Self-acceptance and connection. First, you need to feel connected to your partner, to feel safe with them and cared for by them and turned on to them.  Second, the more compassion you have for yourself and the more self-acceptance, the more comfortable you are with yourself the more comfortable you are likely to be with your partner and the better your sexual relationship is likely to be. It all fits together. 
DB: Do you routinely get detailed sex histories from each person you work with?
LB: I get my own kind of sex history from a person. I don't get a formulaic one, because I think a lot of it's just not relevant. I follow my intuition, but almost always ask about the person’s first sexual experience, relevant previous sexual relationships and look for any kind of molestation or negative sexual experience or trauma. Trauma of any kind can affect a sexual relationship. I also want to know about the initial sexual experiences with their current partner. Absent a history of abuse, if the sex with this person was never good, if there was never any chemistry, I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to create it down the line.
DB: For couples therapy, do you do this sex history individually?
LB: Yes, I find it easier for people to open up completely when I meet with them alone and I may learn about other significant sexual experiences or problems within the current sexual relationship that the person might not be open about in the presence of their partner.

Buddhism and Other Influences

DB:  What aspects of Buddhist psychology and philosophy have you found helpful and intriguing?
LB: I would say that Buddhist philosophy makes sense to me. It’s fairly new to me as I've only been working in a meditation group for 3 years, so I don’t claim to be terribly knowledgeable. Certainly, the Buddhist concept of suffering has been useful in my practice; that we all have to endure suffering but that we actually create suffering through our attachment to impermanent things.  Meditation is very useful with a lot of my clients, especially those who are very reactive. So I teach my clients how to meditate and how to be more in the moment.  Also the importance of compassion for oneself and others. And the necessity of presuming your partner innocent before getting upset at them. I’m not sure this last one is specifically Buddhist in origin, but it seems that way to me. 
DB: How do you approach suggesting meditation techniques?
LB: I just say, “Try this,” then I give them a short hypnotic induction, and have them focus on their breath, especially that peaceful and spacious moment after the exhale and before the next inhale.  I explain how it can help them and work with them on incorporating it into their daily lives. I also find EMDR useful, especially with sexually abused clients
DB: You've also been interested in and studied NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming).
LB: NLP works very well for me.  NLP and EMDR are both techniques, where as Buddhism is a philosophy and psychology.  I keep a whole store of Silly Bandz, which are these little colored rubber bands which come in different colors and shapes. I have clients put one on their wrist and use it to remind them to practice whatever we have been working on to help them stay aware of.  
DB: They don't have to snap it like the old behavioral aversive technique?
LB: No, it is just an awareness enhancement.  For example, maybe you say “yes” to the requests of others automatically; and since you may not even realize it, it can be hard to break that pattern. The Silly Bandz can help someone in between our sessions to stay conscious of what we are working on.
DB: Is there an overall sense you have of what helps people change in couples therapy?
LB: I believe we can start to move when we have compassion for ourselves, our defenses go down, we can relax, be more ourselves, and be more present in our relationship. Of course, there are also physical issues to stay aware of.  For example, since we've gotten Viagra, Cialis and Levitra, there are a lot fewer erection problems that I see. Sometimes men may have low testosterone and other medical or physical issues. And then we have relationship issues.
DB: No drug for that yet? 
LB: Not yet one for women.  Let’s end with a New Yorker cartoon I’ve seen: A couple is lying in bed, next to each other with their arms crossed. And the woman says, “I wish they would develop a pill for conversation.”
DB: I’ll trade you:  I saw a cartoon with a husband and wife where she has her arm around him, looking at him and she says, “I would agree with you Leroy, but that would make us both wrong.” Lonnie, thank you so much for allowing us to get a sense of what it is like to be doing the kind of work that you have done and are doing. 
LB: The pleasure was all mine.

Frank Ochberg on Treating PTSD

Defining Trauma

Rebecca Aponte: You have obviously had a very long and fascinating career. I’d like to touch on some of the moments of insight that you have had that inform us about how to understand traumatized clients and how to help them heal.

To start, trauma is a word that is thrown around a lot these days. What does it mean when we say someone is traumatized?

Frank Ochberg: I was part of the team that wrestled with that definition, and I think it is still an interesting challenge because the word is in general use. I think most of us consider something traumatic as usually something frightening, difficult, that could have relatively minor or huge life shattering consequences. Let’s compare it to stress. We get stressed by minor things that get us upset, sometimes mobilized with a lot of energy. But those of us who were part of a new generation that defined Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder really wanted trauma to be way beyond the usual stress.

In the beginning we said a traumatic event is something that is beyond the realm of usual human experience. But then we discovered it isn’t—not in terms of living our whole lifetime. You live long enough and something happens that is terrible, unless you are very, very fortunate. And some people are having terrible things happen with great frequency.

So to try to define this, we said at the time that you have to have been very scared, or horrified, or feeling helpless. And it had to have the characteristic of the kind of thing that could kill you, or kill somebody else, or radically change you in a biological way. We walk through life with the wonderful myth of invulnerability and we think our humanity is something special, sacred and precious. And then all of a sudden you are treated like a piece of meat, like you are prey to another human being or to a devastating natural event: you are just a bunch of muscle and bone. And when you visualize that transformation in yourself or in a loved one, it is traumatic.

That is the meaning of trauma to those of us who were in the field of traumatic stress studies and are doing therapy with people who have been traumatized.

RA: How would a therapist assess trauma? How do you know when you are seeing trauma in another person?

FO: Well, by the time somebody comes to see us, they have made a decision and we know something—there’s been a telephone call, there’s been some form of referral—unless we are in a very, very different circumstance, like being a Red Cross worker or an emergency worker, and then you are exposed to the traumatic event at the same time that the traumatized person is.

But that is relatively unusual for those of us who are in the fields of psychiatry, psychology, psychiatric social work, psychiatric nursing. We usually come on afterward. So our introduction is through a person who is going to become our client—I’m a medical doctor so I still use the word patient, and some of my patients prefer that. They don’t think of themselves as clients. But I know that terms matter and people have different attitudes about those terms.

So, early on we’re told, “I want to see you because of something that happened.” Now, I find that it is usually best for me to delay hearing the trauma story with all of its emotion until the person has a certain sense of comfort and trust.

RA: Is that because you are worried about re-traumatizing them?

FO: It’s not so much a worry about re-traumatizing. I want to show respect for the trauma that happened. I want the person who is coming to see me to experience a certain amount of comfort. And some of these people, bless them, they really don’t want to traumatize the therapist.

RA: Right.

FO: Now there is a little bit of a back and forth, like a dance that goes on. I know that I am quite senior in the field; I usually get to it explicitly and say, “You know, I’ve heard a lot—nothing that is exactly like your story—but you don’t need to worry about my mental health.”

Let me come back to your original question: how I think about the trauma in this person that is coming to see me. And it is usually a mystery to me. I don’t know the details. I may have a general sense, but I am looking for important details and distinctions. I’m looking for symptoms. I’m looking to get to know their person and to understand their resilience, their family as a resource. A lot of trauma takes place in the family, so we therapists can’t assume that there are loved ones who make things better.

We are always trying to get a sense of who is out there who is going to help my client, my patient, who is going to help me. I take delight in finding a family member who is a great asset. And ultimately it is going to take a village, so I’m thinking about who else is there in this person’s life who helps them feel good about themselves, who helps them overcome the obstacles that they are bringing to me.

RA: So I presume that you would ask your patient about the people in their lives and who does this for them. Is there a way, by talking about experiences from before the traumatic event, you can kind of get a sense of what is different in the person now? Because obviously that is a challenge if they are coming in once the traumatic event has already happened and you don’t know who they were before.

FO: Oh, absolutely. It is terribly important. All of us who are therapists have had various kinds of training, and some of our training placed a very, very high importance on formative years—who was there and the roles that they played.

It’s early in our conversation now, but let me bring up something that I have formulated and written about the person’s “board of directors.” I think of this as my patient’s conscience. It is the same as a superego.

Even though these events happened when we were very young, I have had patients in their seventies and they still visualize their mother or their grandmother who judges them. It is like a board of directors that holds meetings in your head, somewhere in the frontal lobe. They sit around a table and they say, “Bad girl,” even though the girl is a former Circuit Court judge and she is 65 years old. She still can remember, “You put that stitch in wrong; you will never amount to anything.”

As I get to know the board of directors, I try to say, “You don’t really need to have that grandmother in the director’s chair. I don’t think you can get her out of the room, but why does she have to be the chief judge of your virtue?” This is not our ego—this is the superego. These are the folks who will keep telling us we are good or we are bad—we amount to something or we don’t.

Now, trauma and trauma work are not specifically about self-esteem. But that is always lurking in the background. Trauma survivors who have very good, solid self-esteem are going to deal with flashbacks and nightmares and anxiety and a somewhat diminished capacity for feeling joy and love—they are going to deal with that so much better than those whose self-esteem is marginalized. So, I find that, even though I am a trauma specialist, I have to pay a lot of attention to those ghosts who live in our heads and judge us all the time.

RA: That obviously has a lot to do with resiliency—whether they have a good board of directors or have taken the chairperson’s seat themselves.

FO: Well, all of these members of the board are ourselves. Once we have incorporated them, they are us. But I find it helps a lot to have this conversation and then to help trauma clients improve their own board of directors.

I remember Maya, who had been raped several times by a sadistic psychopath who inserted himself into her life. She was my patient in the early ’90s. We talked about the board of directors and she said, “I know. I’m going to put Arlo, my gay brother, in the chair. He likes me.” I remember the name, I remember the way she referred to him. And she did it and it helped. It was a breakthrough.

RA: Is that the client who is in The Counting Method?

FO: Yes, it is.

RA: I was fascinated watching your session with her, because the technique is so similar to EMDR, which I have a little bit of exposure to. One of the things that I liked so much about it is that by counting out loud you filled the verbal space—it felt like there wasn’t the pressure on the client to be talking.

FO: I think it is a very useful method. Hadar Lubin and David Johnson in New Haven are the people who have the most experience in doing research with this method, and in training others. They have written the handbook. At Yale a couple of decades ago they trained a group of residents in how to use EMDR, prolonged exposure, and the counting method, and randomly applied these methods over a period of time to a patient pool. It turned out that the counting was the easiest to learn—it was favored by the user. It was really no better in reaching a good outcome, but it was no worse. So it is probably the most efficient and equally effective way of dealing with what I believe is the core element of PTSD.

I think what really harms the person who qualifies for the PTSD diagnosis is this inability to escape the trauma memory. There is fascinating research now by Apostolos Georgopoulos that suggests that this core symptom of PTSD—the inescapable episodic memory that sometimes feels like it is in the present—originates in a disturbance in the discharge of neurons originating in the right temporal lobe. He needs the money to replicate and expand his research, but it suggests that even though PTSD involves several different things, the feature of this inescapable memory, which only occurs in PTSD and not in adjustment disorders or dissociative states or anxiety or depression, is caused by an extreme of perception at the time of traumatization, if you will. It is analogous to being blinded by light that is too intense, like looking at the sun in an eclipse or being deafened by noise that bursts your eardrums.

RA: Is that the moment when the survival instinct takes over?

FO: Well, yes, that could be at the same time. But the symptoms of PTSD are, first, having this trauma memory that won’t quit; second, having numbing and avoidance; and, third, having anxiety that isn’t necessarily caused by reminders of the trauma—your anxiety mechanism is too easily triggered. EMDR may be better than counting at helping a person control his or her anxiety. I don’t think EMDR does much for numbing, but it is a good aid to diminishing anxiety and experiencing a sense of control over it. Prolonged exposure is a way of desensitizing to a number of the features of PTSD.

And counting, I think, is primarily for the flashbacks, the nightmares, the imagery of the trauma itself. But one element of PTSD feeds into the other. As you reach a tipping point and you feel a sense of mastery and control and self-understanding and self-regard, then recovery follows.

A Comprehensive Approach to Trauma Work

RA: It seems like there are some common threads to a lot of these approaches to working with trauma, whether it is EMDR or the counting method. We haven’t really touched on cognitive behavioral therapy or psychodynamic approaches. What are the common threads? What matters the most regardless of the approach?

FO: I have a certain reluctance to support what is called evidence-based therapy because the evidence-based issues have to do with elements of therapy rather than the whole of therapy. Back at Johns Hopkins Medical School, we were told by the surgeons, “We can teach you to take a lung out in seven days, but it is going to take you seven years to know when to take it out.”

There is a lot of judgment that goes into the timing of opening up certain doors for exploration with someone who has been badly traumatized. And most of our clients have been traumatized more than once. They are vulnerable because of things that happened in childhood. They may be part of a group or a gender that receives way more than a fair share of abuse, and then they become our clients. It is not a simple thing of dealing with one symptom at one point in time. A lot of these evidence-based therapies are elements that work—we don’t want to encourage a whole group of amateurs to be flying by the seat of their pants. They should be well trained. They should have a good sense of what makes a human being tick and then know how to deal with all of the parts that are affected in a way that makes sense.

In my paper on Post-Traumatic Therapy, the therapist is advised to have an overall philosophy that is as normalizing as possible, as collegial as possible, but also attends to individual differences, and then to have an outline and to cover a number of elements of the traumatized person, and to teach your traumatized client about PTSD and related conditions.

Just having a conversation of what this syndrome is is empowering. And it is a good place to start. Years ago, in 1980/1981, I had a patient in Lansing. I took out the DSM-III, and I showed her the PTSD diagnosis. She had been raped in South Lansing. I remember she looked at it printed up and she said, “Oh my god, that’s me in that book.”

It was so important for her to see her symptoms in a book. It took away the mystery. It let her know doctors know something about this. As I am talking to you now I am getting a little chill running up the back of my spine; it was so moving for me. We were talking about something that was over 30 years ago, and she was sitting in this office and looking at the diagnosis in this book, and she smiled probably for the first time since she had been raped. What a gift for her and for me. So sharing something about just the definitions was extremely useful.

Then I think therapy has to include attention to physical situations. When you are traumatized you don’t eat right. You don’t always get agoraphobic, but agoraphobia is literally a fear of the marketplace—people don’t shop where they used to. They don’t necessarily wear the clothes that they used to wear. So you help a person analyze and recover good eating habits, good exercise and health habits. You look into sleep hygiene. And then you can deal with other issues like spirituality, sense of humor. All of these are important elements to consider prior to the counting method or EMDR. Some of these methods feel a little gimmicky, and to suggest that you wave a finger and someone is better—to me that needs to be timed right and introduced right.

And these other parts of a comprehensive approach—analyzing somebody’s circle of friends and the strength or the threats in their family—are terribly important. Sometimes we actually end up creating a new family through introduction to a therapy group. We have a Michigan Victim Alliance. People who participate in that are working together and helping others together—creating a network if the natural network is insufficient is part of therapy.

RA: It sounds like the overarching thing that is most important is to have this full, comprehensive approach where you are really understanding the person as a full person and their experience and all of the different ways that it affects them, rather than focusing on one or another specific technique for attacking one specific symptom or problem.

FO: Exactly. That is what I am advocating now.

RA: Sometimes you hear about vets suffering from PTSD for years or even decades. Is it really that intractable of a condition? Or if not, is it that treatment isn’t going well? What is going on in those cases, in your sense?

FO: Well, there is a lot of research into how long the condition lasts, and it is a little bit like depression. If it lasts a month, the odds are it will last for three. If it lasts for three, the odds are that it will last for a year. If it lasts for a year, the odds are it will last for more than that.

It is very, very misleading to think about the average length of PTSD. Look at how different it is to be called in the middle of the night and told that your child has been murdered, and to go through a trial, and then you deal with the imagery of how your child was murdered. And there may be a period of time where the murderer is at large.

I know these people. These have become my friends. I have spent hours and hours with groups of parents of murdered children. That is not the same as being raped. A predatory rape and a confidence rape are very different. Being drugged and raped so that you didn’t know what was happening when it happened and then you wake up and you learn about it—that’s different. Being raped by a family member is different. Being in a bus that crashes and you are alive but someone else is dead. So we are talking about vastly different trauma scenes.

And we think of Japan now. Most of us who are senior therapists in this line of work end up being called one way or another when a top news story happens. So you identify with those people and your heart goes out to them. And thinking about kids who are drinking milk and the mothers in Japan don’t know if this milk is safe or not—a very special kind of threat. The mothers may or may not qualify for the PTSD diagnosis, but that is trauma. So it is all different kinds.

And with the veterans, there are a lot of special circumstances. I now have a lot of friends who are veterans. Some are my age, which means that they fought in Korea or in Vietnam. And some are younger—they are coming back from Iraq. There is a culture in the military of not exaggerating your wounds. Even though there are people who think that soldiers and marines and sailors with PTSD are exaggerators, it is very few who are.

From a therapist point of view, you deal mainly with people who keep it in. One of the diagnosis criteria is a reluctance to talk about it. So of course there are many people who get no help, who keep it all in, who suffer in silence, and every once in awhile they suffer deeply.

The worst kind of suffering is the survivor guilt. On April 1, 1970, my client Terry had his best friend die in his arms. Terry feels that his best friend wouldn’t have been on that mission with him had Terry not decided to go back to the front—he had been wounded, he didn’t have to return. He decided to do it, and he knows that that decision has something to do with that strange adolescent thought that he could get himself killed and his father would be proud of him.

We finally got to that memory after a considerable amount of time working on a trauma problem. Terry feels terrible that he brought his best friend into that adolescent and mythical kind of wish. He is doing better with it, and some of it is through the counting method. But a lot of it is through reframing and working with some of his spiritual beliefs, things that are not ordinarily talked about from therapist to therapist.

Terry is very religious. I asked him if he felt that he determined the length of someone’s life. He said, “Oh my god, no. It is a much higher power that determines that.” And as he realized that, he shifted his whole way of looking at this episode that occurred 40 years ago. And he started to realize that it wasn’t up to him, but he was there for Billy when God called Billy. What a different belief.

RA: That changes the experience in so many ways if that is the way he is looking at it: “I was there,” rather than, “It was my fault.”

FO: Absolutely. And that doesn’t mean that you can somehow turn this into a therapy technique, but through paying a lot of attention to your client’s spirituality, religious belief, sense of self, sense of honor and dishonor, it can be possible to help a man in his sixties rethink and re-experience an event that happened in his twenties. That is part of the privilege and the joy of this kind of work.

Advocating for Veterans

RA: Of course, the more that society understands the way that humans respond to trauma, the less stigma there is for victims of traumatic stress. But there is always the risk that people coming back from war with PTSD are only going to face the betrayal of bureaucratic resistance from those who are supposed to help them heal. You have mentioned filling the role of victim advocate as well as psychiatrist. What does that mean?

FO: Very specifically it means to me this year working with Tom Mahany and Tom’s group, Honor for All. Tom has gotten a permit for a gathering on June 25, 2011. It is roughly a year after the US Senate passed a resolution, thanks to Senator Conrad from North Dakota, of National PTSD Awareness Day. But nobody was aware of it last year.

So Tom wants to have a celebration, and not just for veterans with PTSD. It is for any veteran. It is honor for all. But there will be no discrimination against those veterans whose wounds are invisible. PTSD is an invisible wound; traumatic brain injury is an invisible wound. These wounds deserve as much honor as any other wound. We are going to have speakers and music, and I’m the medical advisor for this particular initiative.

If you go through the World Wide Web, there are hundreds of groups that are all doing special things for veterans with various obstacles. We are all in this together. I don’t think any one group is any more important than another. We are going to do something to make sure that no one is left out. There is a military mantra: No one left behind. You don’t leave anybody on the battlefield dead or alive. That is terribly important. And somehow, symbolically, we have left out the service men and women with PTSD.

There is a fair amount of attention now, and it is the attention that comes from realizing that we didn’t do the right job. We didn’t do it after Vietnam. We missed it in World War II, also. This condition has been around forever. And I think it is biological, it is physical. As I mentioned earlier, I am beginning to think it actually involves a recognizable condition in the right temporal lobe, but we don’t have enough proof of that yet.

It is going to help for PTSD to be understood as a medical injury. I think when it is a medical injury the stigma will be reduced. But there is stigma for breast cancer, so we need to learn from the women who have created a breast cancer awareness campaign so that the NFL is playing in pink sneakers and gloves. You get that to happen, you have really started to revolutionize things. I’m going to see what I can do to get the architects of that campaign to help us with de-stigmatizing PTSD.

RA: Still, it is outside the realm of what many therapists would consider doing. Do you think their roles should be more active when dealing with clients who are facing PTSD?

FO: No, I don’t. I don’t want to suggest that therapists who are very comfortable and who are talented and compassionate and like working in their own setting need to get out of that setting. But I will tell you this: I do teach the psychiatry residents at Michigan State University this particular subject. I do encourage them to write letters on behalf of their patients.

Don’t think of it as an onerous task if you have a patient who needs a disability determination, who needs a letter to her employer. You are a doctor. And this is true of other mental health professionals who are not MDs—you have a degree. You have a certain power in your community and you do need to use it for your client. I don’t think you can practice in this area without advocating effectively as a therapist.When you are asked by your client, “Can you document something for me? Can I have a note for my employer?” we have laws in which employers have to give certain accommodations to people with handicaps. You don’t have someone who is going to be so startled that they will have to dive under a desk, returning to work in a setting where those particular noises are going off.

So, yes, I do think, at the individual level, to be a trauma therapist is to be a client advocate. But when it comes to participating at the local, national, and international level and trying to change conditions, there are some of us who accept political roles. I have been a cabinet officer in the state of Michigan and I was fairly high up in the hierarchy in the National Institute of Mental Health. In those respects I have experience in public policy and in legal advocacy. I had to testify before Congress on behalf of the constituency that the National Institute of Mental Health stands for.

So I think that is different. There are some of us who work in those two worlds—the clinical world and the political world.

RA: You described getting involved initially in trauma research following the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King and President Kennedy. Right now we are watching the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. How do events like these portrayed through the media affect the mental well-being of individuals?

FO: In my case and in the case of my colleagues at Stanford, they affected our mental health by lighting our fuses. We were so shocked and stunned, I think traumatized, if you will—in a good way. We were living through an epoch in history and our collective response was to say, “Let’s do something. Now, what can we do?”

So we formed a committee on violence. We read everything we could get our hands on. We wrote a book together—Violence and the Struggle for Existence. Our department chair, David Hamburg, a wonderful leader, was away on sabbatical. He came back and his residents had accomplished what he could have never assigned us. We were moved by events that touched us deeply and we did something. And we are proud together that we were able to do that.

I would certainly encourage anyone who hasn’t had the opportunity as a clinical professional to join the Red Cross, or something that takes you to another part of the world—the other part of the world may be another state. If you have never been part of an emergency response and you have something to offer, it is fulfilling. It can change your life.

I think when you asked the question, you were thinking, “But what do these world events do in a negative way, as well?” They do have a particular upsetting impact on a lot of my patients. And I am sure general therapists have noticed that certain world events upset their patients.

A lot of their patients are sensitive. I try to interpret sensitivity as a blessing and a curse. It means that a stimulus causes a greater reaction. And that means, in a way, you are going to get more out of life—the subtle things are going to affect you deeply. You are like a Maserati—a car that is better but hard to drive. You are like a fine violin—it’s out of tune, takes a master to play it—a wonderful, fine instrument, but from time to time you will suffer. It is a special burden to have that sensitivity. And indeed, my sensitive patients perhaps empathize more, identify more, and hurt more than the average person when the world news brings us tragic events.

Vicarious Trauma and Burnout

RA: Now, when that highly sensitive people are the therapists, they especially have to take care of themselves.

FO: That is a very interesting point. I work with journalists nowadays. I have been specializing in helping journalists see all that there is to be seen in a trauma story, and to develop a great appreciation and almost joy in doing it well. This is called the “Dart Center” and the “Dart Society,” and Dart is the name of the philanthropist—we have been doing some interesting things over the last 10, 20 years. Well, journalists are sensitive. They don’t like to think of themselves that way, but yes, they have their own PTSD, and we therapists can have it, too. It is sometimes called Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder or Vicarious Traumatization. We aren’t there for the actual trauma, but we listen deeply to others, and eventually, through accumulation, we start to have symptoms.

These are not technical, recognized medical terms, but Secondary Traumatic Stress, which can become a disorder, is a disorder of identification with a client or loved one. And to a certain degree it happened in 9-11—people just surfeited with images of New Yorkers jumping to their deaths, or identifying with a widow who had to watch a building crumble and know that her husband was inside.

So secondary trauma exists. Vicarious trauma exists. But burnout is something else. Burnout usually means you have had relentless responsibility, and it just was too much. In the course of this on the job, you become embittered—you lack your elasticity, your sense of humor is gone. And I think if it goes too far we’ll have to consider a job change. And maybe it is a matter of definition. But if the damage extends to the point where you can’t bounce back, you really are doing a disservice by staying in that job.

These are the police officers who use excessive force. These are the managers who create a hostile work place because they become so embittered. Burnout is bad for everyone around you.

RA: Definitely. Are there warning signs of it? Are there things that people can do if they feel themselves starting to get sucked towards that—is it just a matter of cutting back their responsibilities that have grown to be too much?

FO: Well, there are books written about this. My colleague Joyce Boaz produced a film, When Helping Hurts. It is a good one and it’s in its second edition. The message is, yes, you can see it coming.

In the beginning it is compassion fatigue, or it is vicarious trauma. And if you pay attention to just what you are advising your clients and patients to do, you take a break, you get exercise. You may need to go into therapy. You pay attention to these things.

Part of what I have been doing in journalism is talking to the leaders of the BBC and the New York Times and NPR and places like that, so that it can start at the top. When there is sensitivity to the burden that the reporter carries, that the editor carries, even someone who is part of the technical operation of, let’s say, NPR—they listen to a lot that doesn’t go on the air. They take that home. Somebody has to care about them.

RA: Do you feel like the media is in a particular position where they have to be especially careful since they are funneling the story to the rest of the world?

FO: Absolutely. And I guess those people who are media critics—and everybody, it seems, is a media critic—often express discomfort or distaste with something that has been put on the air or pictured in the newspaper. But I find it is often a matter of telling more rather than less. Telling the context. Portraying someone who has lived through a horrible newsworthy event with their own humanity.

And the best of the journalists rally to this. There is a DART award for the best media portraits of victims of violence. These are not sanitized, antiseptic or censored accounts. These are full accounts where you can identify with the strength of the character and the personality of a survivor who tells a story. It is often a tragic story, but tragedy is ultimately uplifting. It gives us the world as we experience it, and we see elements of nobility and sacrifice. We see mistakes that cause downfall. And we are enlightened.

My point is good trauma journalism is like good literature. It does a terribly important job. It does it by telling the truth in a digestible, sensitive and accurate way.

Stockholm Syndrome

RA: I wanted to talk a little bit about your work in the 1970s that led you to Europe where you helped define Stockholm Syndrome. I was especially surprised to learn that in a hostage situation this is something that is encouraged. Can you briefly define Stockholm Syndrome?

FO: In the mid-’70s I was part of the National Task Force on Terrorism and Disorder that reported through channels to the Attorney General of the United States, and it happened at a time after the Munich massacre in the Olympics of 1972. After a spate of hostage holding conducted by terrorists, we needed to examine hostage negotiation, SWAT practices. This was an emerging and terrible technique to extort concessions from governments by holding hostages, by executing hostages, by torturing people, and a group of us were commissioned to study this. I was the representative of the NIMH and of mental health—I was the only mental health professional. There were a number of lawyers and police officers, people who had diplomatic experiences.

We held hearings all around America and one thing led to another. I ended up having something a bit like a Rhodes scholarship that was available to public health employees. I spent a year with Scotland Yard and with the psychiatry program at the University of London, and I worked on these issues. I debriefed many people who were held hostage. I had a lot of consultation with the FBI. I helped teach detectives at Scotland Yard and at the FBI hostage negotiation techniques.

Along the way, in Stockholm there had been a bank robbery and people were held hostage, and one of the hostages appeared to fall in love with one of her captors. Several people came up with the name “Stockholm Syndrome.” What I did was I wrote a memo to the FBI, defining Stockholm Syndrome from the perspective of us who were engaged in negotiation and rescue.

The syndrome begins with one or more hostages experiencing terror. Then there’s infantilization—I heard a lot of intimate stories about the meaning of not being able to use a toilet without permission or having to defecate in a bucket in front of these people who were holding them hostage. This was part of the experience. But then, little by little, the hostage who survived was allowed to speak, or—I will use the terms that they used—allowed to have a pot to piss in.

And these became part of the negotiation strategies. But these little gifts of life were creating something paradoxical, ironic, astounding. I met with the senior magistrate of Rome who was held hostage by the Red Brigades. I met with the editor of the largest paper in the North of Holland, who was held hostage by Moluccan terrorists. I met with an older woman who was held in the Spaghetti House siege. And what they were telling me was, “I didn’t realize it at the time, but I felt a growing attachment, affection.” Sometimes, depending on the age and the gender, it was sexualized. That happened in the original Stockholm case—Kristin had sex in the vault with her assailant. That is somewhat disputed, and after the fact some of the stories changed. Patty Hearst’s story has various explanations one way or another. But this is not a result of brainwashing. This is something fundamental.

RA: I’ve read in your work that it goes way beyond this idea of identification with the captors.

FO: Anna Freud described something that she believed occurred in the concentration camp in which there was identification. I distinguished the Stockholm Syndrome from identification with the aggressor because these people don’t necessarily become aggressive. They become bonded. There is a bond, and it is ironic. They have a certain affection for their captor during captivity and afterwards.

So first, there is the bond that the hostage feels to the hostage taker. That bond is a result of terror, infantilization, and then small gifts of life, which are interpreted as gratitude, but gratitude that few adults have experienced. So it has got to be like the gratitude that an infant can’t express but feels towards the mother who provides all of these elements of life.

The second part of the Stockholm Syndrome is it is reciprocated. And that’s why at one point when I was in the command center when the Moluccan terrorists were holding hostages at a school and on a train, I was advising on something that could promote the Stockholm Syndrome. One of the hostages had a panic attack that looked like a heart attack. I wanted the hostage taker to be telling us through our transmitter what the pulse and the respirations were—in other words, I wanted the hostage taker to play doctor, because I thought that would promote the Stockholm Syndrome. But a medical student played doctor. We had no way of telling her, “Back off, we want to do something here.” So we lost that chance.

The last part of the Stockholm Syndrome is that both the hostage and the hostage taker are allied against us. Here we are, we are doing everything we can to rescue them, to help with a safe resolution, but we are suspect and we have to know it. And that does affect the tactics and the choices that are made when you are involved in hostage negotiation. Now, decades later, we look around and we say, could the Stockholm Syndrome play a part in why people stay with a batterer?
RA: That is what I wanted to ask you next. Is Stockholm Syndrome analogous to the special bond between a child and an incestuous parent or battered spouse and their abuser?

FO: I think it is. I think we have to be careful if we want to be precise about Stockholm Syndrome as a part of the analysis in a hostage situation or a kidnap situation. For example, in Singapore people are wondering, is the tolerance for a regime that appears to be autocratic or abusive to some—is that tolerance like Stockholm Syndrome? I think sometimes these are valid conversations but the analogy can be taken a little bit too far. There are lots of reasons why people accommodate brutality. They may not have known anything else. They may feel that through that kind of identification their psychological status is improved. Why do people still support royalty? There is something deep within us that affects some of us more than others—the order that comes with tyranny. And Erich Fromm had a whole thesis on escape from freedom. There are countries, there are epochs, in which people sacrifice freedom for the certainty that comes with despotic rule. I don’t want to say that is all Stockholm Syndrome. To me Stockholm Syndrome explains when an adult is forced into an infant-like circumstance and emerges from that circumstance with ironic attachment.

RA: How is that bond unwound? Is that possible?

FO: It seems to go away with time, and when it goes away there may be depression. I have dealt face to face with people who told me, “How could I have done this? I actually admired the person. I felt affection. Now I don’t anymore.”

I have heard from people who through time overcame the Stockholm Syndrome and felt a certain amount of loss. I think you would experience some grief whenever you lose an object of love, and this was a love bond for survival. It was artificial, it was created in a hostile, deadly environment, then it goes away and you feel the loss. But then, I think, after that comes understanding and appreciation of what a person went through.

I was asked, what is the cure for Stockholm Syndrome? This was in the dialogue with some people in Singapore. And I said the cure is rescue. So if you are subject to any form of tyranny, what you really need is to overthrow the tyrant that is dangerous. Then, when the tyrant is no longer there, you can begin to experience the psychological recovery. But this is so commonplace with seriously abused women, children, and there are some men who are seriously abused, too. But primarily the battering problem is the battered spouse. And she needs safety, rescue. The psychological recovery happens afterward.

RA: Rescue is a complicated concept. How can therapists use that if they are seeing someone who is a battered spouse or who was a sexually abused child? How does the concept of rescue come in?

FO: Sometimes it comes in quite literally. I helped create a residential treatment program for victims through the Sisters of Mercy in the Lansing area, and we had meetings with a group that called themselves Mercy Pilots. They weren’t part of the Sisters of Mercy, but they were in the business of providing medical aid through their own private airplanes as needed. They did what was like a witness relocation program, helping to take a woman who was sleeping with the enemy away to another location by private plane and help her get to a new life.

Now, that is not easy to do, and it is dangerous. I remember talking with these pilots about the dangers that might be involved. There are at least two different kinds of battering situations. In roughly two-thirds of the cases, the batterer gets drunk or gets enraged, and then sobers up or calms down and is very apologetic and forgiving. And that is a different situation. That one I think is a little bit more like Stockholm Syndrome, where you go through the capture and then the release, and you can have positive feelings that come from having the threat removed.

But the outcome of a study that was done in Seattle shows that there is another kind of batterer who is relentless and terribly controlling. This one sniffs his wife’s underwear looking for the smell of another man. He may have a delusion, and he will track this woman down and kill her if she attempts to escape him. It is a very, very dangerous situation.

When I first became aware of those differences I called my local shelters to see if they were aware of it, and they weren’t. It is very important that the professionals who deal with the battered women distinguish between the more common variety and this relentless, obsessive, deadly form. We don’t have a witness protection program for the women who unfortunately have been captured by these highly controlling and dangerous men.

But safety is very important for them. If they do choose to leave, it is beyond the experience and the expertise of most therapists, but I think a therapist who has someone like that in his or her practice needs to be aware of what we are talking about now, and does need to educate himself or herself and try to find competent safety resources that can be afforded to those victims.

Now, there is a book by Gavin de Becker called Gift of Fear. He is a very sophisticated security consultant, and writes about the importance of having your fear, which can keep you alive. As therapists we sometimes have a job of helping the person who has been raised in a terribly hostile environment to learn how to trust trustworthy people and maintain fear of dangerous people. This is not easy. But as therapists gain experience with all of these different circumstances, they get better and better at helping their clients reinforce coping mechanisms, good choices, having in their own human environment reliable and kind people.

It’s obviously very, very difficult if you have been raised in a part of a city, in a family, in a situation where the only people who kept you alive were criminals or really disturbed people.

RA: Right—that environment looks normal to you.

FO: And this is not too different from the challenge of helping a veteran become a civilian.

RA: Say more about that.

FO: You are moving from a circumstance in which you had a certain set of instincts and the enemy was there to kill you. The job was to kill the enemy, and you had a team that you could trust. And you had others in your life who may have been interested in you but hadn’t a clue of what you were going through and how all of your psychological and biological instincts return to deal with combat.

So to help a combat veteran, particularly a young combat veteran, face an entirely different set of challenges—marriage, fatherhood, school, job, going to school with people who don’t appreciate the military—it’s enough to make some military so enraged that they have to get into a fight. A therapist has to respect these clients and know where they are coming from, and gradually help them learn to master a different set of skills.

I don’t want to say that that is similar to a person who comes from a youth and adolescence of crime family. I’m just saying that the job of therapy can be very complicated when you are not dealing with a single trauma and a set of symptoms, but with an adjustment to a certain lifestyle that was necessary for survival and how the rules have changed.

RA: Looking into the future of this field, what makes you feel hopeful?

FO: I just had a conversation with my old boss, Bert Brown, who is over 80 now—I’m in my 70s. Burt was the director of the National Institute of Mental Health for seven years and I helped him with deinstitutionalization and trying to build a community mental health system. We have to admit that we failed in many ways to deliver for America a mental health system that we could be proud of.

But many of my colleagues from that time have moved into the trauma field. There is something about the trauma field that is calling on the best and the brightest, or at least bright enough to deal with these issues. These are the issues of human cruelty, of war, of crime, of trying to be decent in the face of outrageous provocation, which in most normal people calls forth feelings of hatred and disgust and disrespect. In the face of that kind of provocation, how do you help people be humane and to cope and call forth love?

This has been the challenge of all the great nations and religions and movements of all time. So it is exciting—our tools are increasing. We now have journalists as colleagues. It is a wonderful field, the trauma field. Lots of rewards, and still a lot of progress to be made.

RA: Thank you so much for such an interesting and inspiring conversation. I have really enjoyed it.

FO: I have, too. Thank you.

The Gossamer Thread: My Life as a Psychotherapist

Below are three extracts from my book, The Gossamer Thread: My Life as a Psychotherapist (Karnac, 2010). The book describes my personal journey as a psychotherapist, how I started as a bumptious behaviour therapist, young, inexperienced and highly confident, and ended as a psychodynamic psychotherapist with a more reflective and intuitive way of working. Along the way I trained in Beck’s cognitive therapy although I found myself almost immediately doubting the rational simplicities of this approach.
The first extract describes my attempt to demonstrate the wonders of behaviour therapy to one of my students by treating an elderly lady, a chronic agoraphobic stuck in her flat on a run-down estate in south London.
In the second extract, Frances, a model cognitive therapy patient up to that point, becomes suddenly depressed and I behave in a not very therapeutic way.
In the third extract I take on my first psychodynamic psychotherapy patient, a charming, narcissistic young man, and discover how tricky it is to get through well-established defences.
 

Working as a behaviour therapist, London, 1970s

I park my car on the road that borders the estate, thinking that the safer option. Graham and I walk down the hill seeking to locate Arlington House where Mrs Hewittson lives. I’m aware that we stand out, dressed in our smart, professional clothes, each carrying a leather briefcase. But no one bothers us and we find No. 7, a ground floor flat fortunately, so we don’t have to negotiate what I imagine to be urine-smelling lifts or flights of bare concrete stairs. I ring the bell and wait.

I had briefed Graham beforehand. This is to be an assessment. Given that this is behaviour therapy, it would of course be a behavioural assessment. My plan was that flanked by the two of us, Mrs Hewittson would come out of her flat. Then we would send her off on her own as far as she could go until she couldn’t go any further. And I was going to be really scientific about this, for we would note down exactly how far she went, how long she took and how much anxiety she experienced on a scale of 0 to 100. This would be the baseline against which her recovery would be measured. In my mind, I fantasised Mrs Hewittson going further and further each week until we had her travelling all over London.

The door is opened cautiously by a young girl, no more than nine. I explain that we are psychologists and that we have come from the Maudsley hospital to see Mrs Hewittson.
“‘Nan,’ she yells back into the flat, ‘there’s two psychos from the hospital to see ya. Waddya want to do?’”
We hear the sound of talking from inside the flat, two voices, one female sounding very tremulous. Graham and I exchange looks. The door opens wider. ‘Nan says you can come in.’ The girl disappears into the gloom of the flat. When we get used to the darkness, for the curtains are drawn and the main lighting comes from a TV blaring away in the background, we see that the room is full of people. There are three girls, including the little girl who opened the door, playing around a Wendy house in one corner. A woman, barely in her teens, is seated at a table holding a baby who is guzzling milk from a bottle. A tiny, wizened man in an old grey suit sits on a huge settee, a cigarette dangling from his hand. And, in a rocking-chair in the centre of the room, there is a woman in her fifties, strands of mousy brown hair straggling down either side of a pale, thin face in which watery blue eyes stand out like on those odd goggle-eyed fish one sees in aquariums. She is staring at us unblinking. Mrs Hewittson I presume.

It is an unnerving situation, not what I’d expected. I’d imagined Mrs Hewittson stuck on her own, lonely perhaps, even pleased to have a bit of company. Not in the midst of a melee of people. But I’m the professional. So I take charge. ‘Mrs Hewittson?’ I say, addressing the lady in the rocking chair. ‘We’re psychologists from the Maudsley. We’ve come to help you get better.’
The woman says nothing. ” She rocks forward and back in the chair. I am uncomfortably reminded of the Bates motel in Psycho and the skeletal mother in the basement.”
‘Your daughter,’ I press on, ‘arranged for us to come and help you.’
‘Did she now?’ Mrs Hewittson says. It’s a rasping, throaty voice, the product no doubt of thousands of cigarettes smoked in the gloomy flat. ‘That was nifty of Jean.’
Somehow I feel that being ‘nifty’ is not something Mrs Hewittson approves of. The tiny man on the settee leans forward. ‘My Madge is not well, you know,’ he says confidentially as though she cannot hear him. ‘Trouble with her nerves. Had it a long time.’
‘That’s why we’re here,’ I say triumphantly. ‘To get her better.’
‘How are you going to do that then?’ puts in the woman with the baby.
‘First, we’ll go out for a short walk, say, to the post box.’ We’d passed the post box just twenty metres along the road. I turn to Mrs Hewittson. ‘You might have a letter you want to post and we could do it together.’
‘Sammy takes all my letters. He delivers them and takes whatever I’ve got. Don’t need to post anything, thanks all the same.’
‘Anyway, it’s an assessment, a sort of test, to see how far you can go. You don’t have to go far,’ I add hastily. ‘Just as far as you feel you can go.’
‘I can’t do that, doctor. Sorry, I can’t do that at all.’
‘Oh.’ This blanket refusal takes me back. ‘Well,’ I press on gamely, ‘what about going out of the front door and down the path to the gate? It’s only a couple of yards. I’m sure you could do that with our help.’
‘I would do it, sir. But it’s the fits, you see. Can’t risk it. I have these terrible fits.’
‘She does,’ interjects the man in the grey suit who I take to be her husband. ‘She has these fits. She’s a martyr to them.’

I sense I am losing the battle. What are these ‘fits’? Could they be epileptic fits? If they are, what do Graham and I do if she has one? I have never seen an epileptic fit. All I know is what everyone else knows from the films, how you have to grab the tongue, but then what? I curse myself. I should have read Mrs Hewittson’s case file before we came. Before I have time to say anything, the front door opens and in breezes another youngish woman with a two-year old in tow.
‘Madge, darlin’,’ she starts, then stops having spotted us. ‘Sorry, love, didn’t know you had visitors.’
‘They’re from the hospital. Psychiatrists,’ says Madge.
‘Psychologists.’
‘Sorry, didn’t mean to offend and all that.’
‘No offence.’
‘Thing is,’ says the new arrival, ‘I was hoping you’d look after Darren while I go to the Social.’
‘No problem, love. You leave him here with me.’ Mrs Hewittson turns to me. ‘Very sorry about the walk. But you see I’ve got my hands full. Another time, doctor.’
‘Yes. Right,’ I say decisively. ‘What about Friday morning? At 11?’
‘That would be ticky-tack. I’ll be more meself then, I expect.’
Unfortunately, that’s exactly what worries me.
 
Friday morning comes and Graham and I make our way back to the Dog Kennel Hill estate, to Arlington House, No. 7. I have found Mrs Hewittson’s case file. A bulging, tattered, beige-coloured, wallet with letters, documents, case notes, and other bits of paper loosely packed into it. I have waded through it all. There is no mention of epileptic fits. Just panic attacks, which I suspect is what Mrs Hewittson meant. As we approach the door, we see pinned on it a scrap of white paper, fluttering in the wind. I fold it down so we can read what is on it.
Too the Doctors. Very sorry, had too go to the dentists for me tootheyk really bad it is. Mrs Hewittson
We try to peer in through the windows but the curtains are closed. There is not a sound from inside. But I knock a couple of times anyway.
““It seems,” Graham says, “that a visit to the dentist is preferable to a visit from us.””
“Maybe it was an emergency.”
“Yes, of course that might be it.” He gives a half smile.
I take the paper off the door and, beneath Mrs Hewittson’s scribbled message, I write:
Sorry about your toothache. Hope you get it fixed. We’ll come again on Monday at 11.
I am not about to give in so easily.
 
On a bright, sunny Monday morning Graham and I are again standing outside No. 7 Arlington House. This time there is no scribbled note on the door. We knock but there is no response. The curtains are not completely drawn on one of the windows. Peering in, I see that the front room is empty and the TV is off. There is no sign of occupation. I step back and look at Graham. He shrugs. Just then a young girl, a similar age to the ones we had seen playing around the Wendy house, comes skipping down the street towards us. She skips right up to us and proceeds to skip round us as though we are part of some game she is playing.
“Are you,” she says as she skips, “the doctors?”
“I suppose so. Yes, I mean.”
“To see Mrs H?” Skip, skip.
“Mrs Hewittson, that’s right.”
Skip. “She left a message.” Skip, skip.
“And?”
Skip, skip. “She’s gone to the Isle of Wight.” Skip. “To visit her brother-in-law.” Skip, skip.  “For the whole week.” At that she skips off the way she came.
As we trudge back to the car, Graham says: “You could say we had a great success. After all, we got her out of the house.”
“Drove her out,” I say with a grin.
“And in one session.”
“We should write a paper. ‘One session treatment for agoraphobia: a breakthrough in behaviour therapy.’”
We did not write a paper, of course. Nor did we return to bother Mrs Hewittson again. It had taken me a while to get the message but I did get it in the end.
 

Training as a cognitive therapist, Oxford, 1980s

One week Frances fails to attend a session, something she has never done before. We are well into the therapy. We have moved on from changing negative thoughts to identifying the underlying beliefs, what Beck calls schemas. These are the major drivers of depression, ideas that are often formed in childhood and become reactivated in current crises. They can be encapsulated in key phrases or prescriptions like: To be happy I have to be accepted by everyone all the time, I must succeed in whatever I do, I have a fatal flaw in my personality, I am fundamentally a bad person. According to Beck, to produce lasting change it is essential to get to these core beliefs and deal with them.

In the session before Frances failed to attend, she had complained that her work as an administrator was boring. I asked why she didn’t try to get a more demanding and interesting job, something that drew more on her academic ability perhaps. She said vaguely that there was no point. Puzzled, I pursued this and we came to an example of a powerful underlying belief. Life is meaningless, she claimed. In the end we all die.
‘How do you know life is meaningless?’ I ask.
‘I just do.’
‘Come on. You know that won’t do. Let’s do some cognitive work on this. List ‘pros’ and ‘cons,’ for example.’
Frances says nothing. I try to read her face but I can’t. It’s expressionless.
‘Don’t you want to challenge this belief?’
‘I can’t see the point.’
‘To get better. To deal with your depression.’
Deal with it,’ she says sarcastically. ‘You don’t deal with the meaningless of our existence.’

I am startled by Frances’s tone. It’s the first time I’ve heard her talk in this angry way. I backtrack. ‘Okay. I’m sorry. A poor choice of words. But I do think we should examine this belief, don’t you? It seems central to your depression.’
Frances stares at me. For the first time in the therapy I feel unsure. More than that. I have a sense of unease.
‘Maybe,’ she says at last. ‘But not today. Can we leave it to next time?’
‘Okay.’
Later, I wonder if I should have agreed so readily. Was this avoidance on my part? Up to now the therapy had been going smoothly. Frances was the model patient. This was our first glitch. I’d told myself that it would be better not to push this. We could work on it in the next session. The only problem is that Frances failed to turn up for the next session.

I ring Frances. I don’t normally do this when patients fail to show up. I wait a couple of days and if they don’t contact me, I drop them a line. But Frances is a special case, my first cognitive therapy patient, and I’m worried about her. The phone rings on and on. I’m about to hang up when at last she answers, a slow ‘Yes, who is it?’ as though I have just woken her up.
‘Frances, it’s John. I was wondering if you were okay.’
‘What time is it?’
‘Just after two. Have you been asleep?’
A long pause. ‘Sorry. Just very tired.’
‘You didn’t make the session this morning. I wanted to know if you’re alright and if we should reschedule.’
Another long pause.
‘Are you feeling depressed?’
‘You could say that.’
‘Is that why you didn’t come to the session?’
‘What’s the point? I’m not going to get better.’
‘That’s your depression talking, Frances. You’ve had a downturn in mood. All the more important for you to see me at this time. We can work on it together and help you get out of it.’
‘I don’t know.’
‘I do.’ I’m being the decisive, no-nonsense therapist though it’s the last thing I feel at this moment. My shoulder muscles ache with tension. My heart is beating fast. At the back of my mind is the thought that Frances will kill herself. ‘How about later on today, at 6? Or tomorrow morning?’
‘No. I need a bit of space. I’ll come to next week’s session. Don’t worry, John. I’m not going to do anything stupid. I haven’t the courage to do that anyway.’
I try to persuade Frances to see me earlier but she’s adamant. She promises to come next week. I wring a further promise from her that she will contact me immediately if she feels suicidal.
What has happened? The therapy was going along really well. Is it just a blip, a random change in mood? Has something happened to Frances to trigger the increase in her depression? Was it related to our discussion of her core belief that life is meaningless? I ponder these matters but come to no conclusion.

When Frances comes to our next session, I immediately notice a change in her manner. There’s a slowness to her movements, a hesitancy that I have never seen before. She doesn’t look directly at me and when I study her face, all I can see is blankness. I ask her how she is. She takes a while to respond. She says she feels lousy, tired, depressed, no energy, completely zonked. All signs of depression.
‘I’m sorry you’re feeling so bad but I’m glad you came,’ I say. ‘It’s a chance to do some work and improve your mood.’
She looks at me and sighs. ‘The good doctor’s going to make me better. Hooray.’
‘Well, I’m going to try. Tell me right now and in all honesty what you think of coming here.’
‘A waste of time.’
‘Why?’
She shrugs. ‘Nothing works and anyway what’s the point. I get better for a bit and then I get worse. I’m just useless.’
‘Several very negative thoughts in that statement, I’d say. Do you remember how we dealt with, I mean, worked on your negative thought, I’ll never get better? We listed the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ and came to a more realistic thought. I have it here.’
I search through my notes and read it out to her:
I can’t know that I’ll never get better and I recognise that this absolutist negative thought is a product of my mood state rather than a realistic appraisal of what will happen.
‘Do you believe that now?’
‘It’s irrelevant what I believe,’ she says in a lethargic tone. ‘Life’s meaningless anyway. We are microbes in the vast universe. Specks of cosmic dust. What does it matter? What does anything matter?’
‘Something mattered enough for you to come here today. You’re depressed, Frances. Something brought you right down in the last week. I don’t know what. But I am absolutely convinced that your view that life is meaningless is caused by your depression.’
‘It’s not,’ she says emphatically. ‘Life is meaningless. It’s not a product of depression. It’s true. And anyway I’ve always believed it so it can’t be a response to a change in mood.’
For the moment I’m stumped. I’m also feeling pissed off with Frances, with her certainty and resistance to my attempts to help her.
‘Always?’
‘Always.’
‘So you sprung from your mother’s womb with the thought Hey, why am I here? Life is meaningless. Let me back in?’ I have spoken without thinking. I’ve let my feelings show. I’ve broken a cardinal rule: don’t mock your patient. I’m a crap therapist. But a small smile appears on Frances’s face.
 

Training in psychodynamic psychotherapy, Oxford, 1990s

Sitting opposite me is Matthew, a tall young man, in a scruffy white T-shirt and faded jeans. In his hands he has a Rubik cube.  Each side of the cube is subdivided into nine coloured squares, the puzzle being to twist the arrangements to produce sides of all one colour. Matthew is fiddling with the cube, a frown of concentration on his face. He is my first proper psychodynamic psychotherapy patient. This is our first session.
“I wonder if it might be best if you put the Rubik cube down.”
I leave the faintest of inflections at the end of my remark to try and soften the suggestion. Matthew drops the cube into a battered shoulder bag that he has draped on the side of the chair.
“There,” he says, flashing me a brilliant smile. “I solved it yesterday. I thought I’d see if I could do it again. I must have gone wrong somewhere.”
I could pick up on the wider meaning of his last remark but decide that it is a bit too early to do so and, moreover, it is Matthew who should do the running, not me. I have already introduced myself and explained that we are to work together for up to a year, meeting once a week, holidays apart.
“How about you kicking off,” I say. “Just say whatever’s on your mind.”
We are seated face-to-face. There is a couch in the room but Matthew declined it. I was disappointed as the couch seemed so much a part of the psychodynamic approach.
“What do you want me to say?” he says brightly as though he is here to audition for a part in a play.
“The idea is for you to talk and we take it from there. Whatever is on your mind.”
This produces a long silence during which Matthew gazes around the room as though seeking something to latch onto.
“Crap painting,” he says pointing at a Monet print of a mother and young girl walking through a bright red poppy field. “I hate reproductions.”

Is Matthew saying something about himself in this remark, I wonder? That he is not a reproduction, but the real thing, a true original. Whether he is or not I decide not to comment. I think about what I already know about him from the assessment that Dr Franklin, the Psychotherapy Department’s senior registrar, carried out. He comes from a well-off, middle-class family. He is particularly close to his mother. She gives him a generous allowance and has let him stay, rent free, in a flat she owns in Headington. His father, a successful businessman, is largely absent from home. At school Matthew was regarded as very bright but dropped out in the 6th form. There are suggestions of drug taking and gambling. Since school, he has had periods of temporary work, mainly on building sites, though most recently he worked in an office. None of his jobs have lasted long. He is currently unemployed. Matthew’s major complaint is of extreme anxiety, often in the form of panic attacks. These have caused him to retreat to his flat, sometimes staying there for days on end, not seeing anyone.

My reverie is interrupted when Matthew says, looking quizzically at me: ““You’re not like Doctor Frankenstein. He asked me lots of questions, most of which, actually all of which, were stupid. In the end I just made things up. It seemed to make him happy.””
Jesus! Now I do not know what of Dr Franklin’s assessment is correct, which is, I suspect, exactly what Matthew wanted.
“I wonder why you did that.”
“I wonder why myself.” A cheeky smile, inviting me to join in the joke. I cannot help smiling back. There is something very disarming about Matthew. 
“When I was at school,” he says after a while, “I would make things up. Entertain the troops by telling a few fibs, playing the joker. It got to be a habit. I had this great ex-army greatcoat and me and the other lads hung about, doing dares and that. Wicked!”
He sounds about 16. Stuck in an adolescent time warp.
“Only I lost the coat. Then the bastards threw me out.”
Why did they throw you out?It’s on the tip of my tongue to ask but I stop myself. Above all, I want not to interfere, to let Matthew talk and me listen. So far he has not told me about anything serious. Not about his uncertain sexuality. Not about his intense feelings of panic. Nor about the time when he took an overdose of antidepressants (the tablets were his mother’s prescribed by the family GP). Dr Franklin had noted all these in his assessment but Matthew does not seem to want to talk about any of this. Of course they might all be fabrications (fibs to entertain the troops) but somehow I doubt it. Beneath the veneer of jokiness I sense his vulnerability and unhappiness. The difficulty might well be getting him to talk about it.

Matthew talks more about his school even though it is over three years since he left. He was brilliant at English and had two poems accepted by the school magazine. But he stopped working in the 6th form because it was all so puerile. Then the teachers tried to get him to see a school counsellor who turned out to be a real wanker. I am cast in the role of the eager listener to his tales of schoolboy derring-do. He tells a good story and I think I could just let him do that. But where would we have got to and what purpose would it have served other than to pass the time? The dilemma with the passive stance of the psychodynamic psychotherapist is that someone like Matthew could entertain the troops all day long. At a pause I venture to stir things up, unsure if I am doing the right thing and wary of how he will react.

“From what I’ve heard so far everything seems so hunky-dory that I wonder why you are here in psychotherapy at all. It hasn’t been all sweetness and light, has it?”
Matthew does not say anything, which causes my heart to beat faster. I run through the statement I have just made and castigate myself for its anodyne quality. Could I not have been more incisive?
Hunky-dory,” he says, drawing out the word in a laconic manner. “Now that’s not a word in the psychotherapist’s lexicon, I would have thought? Or is it?” ” He looks at me expectantly, all sweetness and light of course.I feel the stiletto sliding subtly into me.” I tell myself to stay mum and then wonder at my choice of words. Mum’s the word. The phrase floats through my mind as though magically Matthew has projected it into me. Is this an unconscious communication? Do the words mean that we will be okay as long as I mother him, admire his precocity and wit, but if I, taking the paternal role, challenge him, he will hit back? All this flits through my mind in seconds, a blur of semi-conscious thought, as Matthew looks me straight in the eye and waits for me to respond. I say nothing, holding his gaze until he looks away. My beating heart gradually slows. In my previous persona as a cognitive-behavioural therapist, I would have been more active. I would have probably said that hunky-dory was certainly not a psychotherapeutic term, just a word that seemed appropriate. I would have smiled, wanting to maintain good rapport. I would have asked Matthew whether he minded the word or if he preferred another. Why do I not do this now? Because my primary role is not to be Matthew’s friendly helper, not to make him feel at ease. As a psychodynamic psychotherapist I am seeking to create a space in which we can explore deeper feelings. For that to happen I have to dispense with the niceties and tolerate the discomfort just as Matthew has to do too. I am finding this difficult. It is not just that Matthew, with his air of vulnerability and his boyish charm, invites me (and others, I imagine) to look after him. I realize I like looking after people. That is why I am in this job. Only in this instance looking after people means something very different. It is not about making them feel better, at least not immediately, but getting through their defences to the heart of their problems. To achieve this I shall have to use a few stilettos of my own.

The session stutters on. Matthew’s breezy insouciance dissolves. He retreats into scowling silences. When he speaks, there is anger and more than a hint of despair. He rails against both his parents, his father for his crass insensitivity and his mother because she is a very silly woman. I hear nothing of his brothers and sisters. He brightens up only when he talks about his best friend, Tom, who is about to return from college. Tom is going to stay with Matthew and they’ll have fun together again. I cannot help thinking that the fun will be rather hollow. A feeling of sadness pervades the room. Matthew’s defences are pretty brittle, I realize. I feel daunted at the task of treating him. After all, I am a novice at this form of therapy. Yet I desperately want to help him, not just because I am on a course and anxious to do well, but because I sense his despair. I end by saying a few words about the task ahead.
“These are your sessions, Matthew. We have up to a year to work together.”
“But what’s the point? It’s just talking. What can talking do?”
“It’s an opportunity for you to take a look at yourself, to explore how you feel, to examine what has happened to bring you to this point.”
“But I’ve told you all I know.”
“I don’t think so,” I say more assertively than I had intended. “Do you really think you have?”
A pause. “No. There are other things. Stuff I haven’t talked about. Horrible stuff. But I don’t think I’ll ever talk about that.”
“Let’s see. Next week at the same time?”
“Okay,” Matthew says. A flutter of hope, faint and tenuous. “I sit for a while in silence after Matthew leaves. I feel drained and empty.” Then I pull myself together, reach for my pen and start making the detailed notes I shall need for supervision.
 
John Marzillier
28 February, 2011

Working in the Here-and-Now of the Therapeutic Relationship

When clients arrive at our office, they’re hoping we can help them feel better. Often they assume it’s their outer conditions they need to change: “if only my husband would…” or,  “once I find a new job…” or, “I don’t know why I’m feeling bad because I have a great life, but…” It’s not that we don’t listen to their concerns, but these are all situations that exist outside our consulting room.
 
In order to help clients change, we have to allow ourselves to be changed by what we, in the therapeutic relationship, do together. Working in the present, in the room directly with what is happening, demands that the therapist emotionally connect with the client and not just sit back, hidden by our professional role of “helper” or “expert.” It requires emotional involvement, reflection, vulnerability, transparency, and risk.
 
Research repeatedly tells us the therapeutic relationship is the curative factor over and above all theoretical orientations. A figure commonly cited in the literature is that up to 50% of clients drop out of therapy after the first session. These figures are established regardless of finances: in private practices, agencies, and free clinics. Researchers attribute these high numbers to two things: lack of emotional engagement and failure to deal with ruptures.1            
 
If the therapist and client only talk about relationships that exist outside the consulting room, they miss many opportunities to deepen their work together. As therapists, we need not make generalizations or assumptions about what the presenting problems of our clients mean or how they came to be. These scenarios are acted out and worked with in the transference and counter-transference of the therapeutic relationship.
 
We also risk losing our clients through impasses and unattended derailments. “The first phone call can be a deal breaker before things even get started, because clients’ relational patterns begin to be reenacted from the minute they make contact with us.” If we let these moments go by and don’t address them at an appropriate time, we sacrifice the teachable moment as it’s happening between us.
 
The mutual engagement in the here-and-now of the therapeutic relationship is a deep, internal conduit for change, and it entails our clients experiencing the impact they have on us. It empowers them in personal ways we can seldom predict that speak to the uniqueness of who they are. It’s different from a prescriptive, goal-oriented, solution-focused model where we therapists are the all-knowing ones with advice and answers. It is instead dealing in the moment with things as they are, in the client, in the therapist, and the space between the two.
 

Nick: A Case Study

We can see how this way of working played out with Nick, a 48-year-old divorced man who came to treatment complaining of “loneliness and relationship problems.”2 He wanted to know why he always ended up alone and what he did in relationships that made women leave. He was also confounded by his rejection of women before things even got going. An additional problem that came up later in our treatment was his compulsive overeating. I wondered why it had taken several months for his concern about his weight to come up between us. Later I learned he had tremendous shame around his body, had been cruelly taunted as a kid about being fat, and became inured to his body as if he was destined to carry this “dead weight” around.
 
In our first session, Nick appeared overweight, with little attention given to grooming: a rumpled denim shirt, an unpressed pair of chinos, and well-worn tennis shoes. His hair was combed but hadn’t seen a pair of scissors for a while. He sat near the door, in the chair furthest from mine. As he settled, his movement seemed labored and uncomfortable, squirming in his seat, as though his body was a rough place to inhabit. It’s bound to be painful in there, I thought as I observed him.
 
“I don’t seem able to sustain intimate relationships,” he said softly, gazing down at his shoes, puzzled by his own incapacity. When I asked why he thought this was the case, he replied, looking everywhere but at me, that he didn’t know, but then mentioned he was too picky when it came to women. He realized he was a perfectionist—not that he thought he was perfect, but he always found something about the women that became objectionable.
 
“They don’t have a decent job, or we have little in common, or they’re not smart enough, they have no sense of humor, they talk incessantly about themselves…” “He said this staring out the window, as if talking to the trees. I didn’t feel like I was in the room with him.” His list was endless, and I wondered if it was the tip of the iceberg, saying more about him than the women he was rejecting.           
 
During one session after we’d been working together for a year, he shook his head and proclaimed, “Relationships are too much work.” Much of our conversation took place while he fidgeted with his clothes, his hands, or the couch. Inquiring into these nonverbal motions in the past had yielded little information and alerted us to the likely disconnect he had with his body. He acknowledged however, he thought the nonverbal gestures were about his “discomfort with intimacy.” I had seen him through two short romantic skirmishes, only to find him alone yet again.
 
“I must be afraid to get close to people, so I’m always discovering excuses to find something wrong with them.”
 
I nodded, suspecting he was on to something. “Sounds like a good insight.” Then, almost wondering aloud, “How is it trying to get close to me?”
 
He thought as his leg started kicking back and forth. “Well, it seems easier compared to others.”
 
“How so?”
 
“You’re not judging me, you accept what I’m saying, don’t need anything from me.”
 
I confess I was pleased to hear this, but suspected there was more to the story.
 
“Do you feel close to me?” I literally felt my body heating up, as if we were moving closer to something important happening between us in the room.
 
“I guess,” he said, looking out the window, fidgeting in his seat.
 
“You’re not sure?” I asked, trying to keep him present and accounted for.
 
“Well, I know we’ve talked about coming twice a week and I think I’m afraid to do that.”

The last several weeks we had been discussing his aversion to adding a session, making it a twice-a-week treatment, an opportunity for us to become more intimate. I could see him bristle at my suggestion when he mentioned “not enough time” at the end of the last few sessions. I suspected this was one version of how his fears of intimacy got re-enacted between us. “And what scares you about being together twice a week?” I asked.
 
“That you will discover something really wrong with me,” he said softly, picking at his buttons.
 
“And what would I see that’s wrong with you?”
 
He thought. “I don’t know––that I’m missing a gene that’s required for intimacy and a healthy relationship,” he said. “Maybe I have some incapacity, or I’m damaged goods, unable to be resurrected for a real marriage.” He said this with a big sigh, hanging his head, shaking it back and forth.           
 
We explored what he meant by “damaged goods.” This was a painful process with long silences and quiet tears running down his face.
 
“Once you see that, you’d give up on me, feel I’m unable to change.” He said this under his breath, choking down the tears, almost as if his words are stuck in his throat. “Maybe you’d think I’m a hopeless case, give up on me and want to get rid of me.”
 
He was barely audible. Were these new thoughts for him? My heart ached for himNow we were getting to how fear of intimacy played out between us.
 
“Is that what you think? Are you the one who thinks you’re a hopeless case?” I asked. He was afraid I’d reject him. Perhaps this was why he rejected some women so quickly so they didn’t have a chance to reject him first.
 
The conversation segued into his first marriage failing. For the nine years they were together, it had been harder and harder to extend the intimacy, both sexually and interpersonally. Here in the room, elbows on his knees, head in his hands, he was unable to say why he had withdrawn from his wife. I also wondered about the pain he had been holding regarding his failed marriage. He didn’t understand why he felt so bad about himself; he just did. He always remembered feeling this way: not wanted, made fun of for being heavy, not feeling worthwhile or responded to. I imagined his weight, which had been with him his entire life, was an insulator for many of these feelings.
 

Ruptures

A few weeks later, Nick came rushing in late—highly unusual for him—and stormed across the doorway to my office. He appeared excited, invigorated, as he waved his arms around and stumbled hard onto the couch.
 
“I don’t know what’s going on,” he said breathlessly, “but recently I’m feeling angry—angry all the time.” My eyebrows rose as I nodded, suspecting this was a good thing.
 
He settled himself, took a breath and added, “Truthfully, I think it’s just I’m aware I’m angry.” Normally, Nick struggled to connect with his feelings and suffered with a blunted affect that resulted in a lot of fatigue and apathy. I suspected the overeating fueled the fatigue and depression and served to numb out painful feelings. “Since our work together,” he continued, “I see how there’s always been this under current of anger, but now see I’m allowing it to register. Not the usual denial of how I feel, and so I’m seeing how pervasive it is.” I can see how the food allows me to bury my frustration. He appeared animated and incredulous.
 
“Sounds like a good insight,” I said. I waited. Silence.  “Are you feeling angry now?”            
 
He considered this. “I…I don’t know. I guess I am,” he said surprisingly, almost as if to himself. I waited.
 
“Is there something you’re angry with me about?” I asked, not having anything in mind, but thinking about his being late and coming in angry.
 
“Well, no,” he pondered, “that seems like a stretch. Why would you ask?”
 
“You’ve come late today, which is uncharacteristic of you; in fact I can’t recall you ever being late, and you’re talking about being angry right now. We’re the only two here, so I thought it might have something to do with us.”
 
“I’m thinking it’s more about the spat my boss and I had this morning. I’m feeling stirred up by that,” he said, repositioning himself. After a minute, he stilled himself, focused and continued, “You know, now that I think about it, I did leave here kind of ticked off last week.”
 
He talked about his disappointment with me because I hadn’t had a chance to read an article he had written. I had told him I’d be happy to read it, but hadn’t done so between our two appointments. I certainly understood his disenchantment with me; had I been honest, I would have told him I couldn’t read the article for a couple weeks. I now realized my counter-transference had prevented me from saying anything, not wanting to disappoint him—an old habit of avoiding and pleasing people so they’ll like me.
 
As he said this, I remembered the look of disappointment and surprise on his face at the end of our last session, after asking me for my feedback on the article. I had since forgotten this moment, his facial expression being so subtle and fleeting. The moment had slipped by me; it was possible I didn’t want to see or feel his anger coming at me, a feeling that’s difficult for me.
 
“I felt unimportant and dismissed by you, not valued,” he said somewhat sheepishly, as if I were going to explain myself or make him wrong.
 
In this situation it was necessary to feel my own frustration and guilt for not reading the article, watch how this impacted my client and not collude (by evading his anger), retaliate, or defend myself. I stayed with what was happening between us to further explore his anger and frustration with me.
 
“Here was a rupture between us, and if I hadn’t made a point of contacting what was happening in the room, this incident would have gone underground.” I suspect our relationship would have hit an unconscious impasse, creating a lack of trust and distance between us. As we talked about his anger and hurt with me, he saw he could acknowledge it, feel it, express it, and that I could hear it, and we could still stay connected despite the difficulty.
 
Tracking Nick’s feelings in the context of the intersubjective field showed us how my need to please and avoid anger and Nick’s unspoken hurt and disappointment manifested unconsciously between us. Coming in late and angry, despite neither of us knowing why, acted out Nick’s feelings. I represented the “Bad Mother,” as Melanie Klein calls it, by not attending to reading his article. This re-enacted the parental relationship he had growing up. In Nick’s formative years he hadn’t had responsive parents as a mirror to reflect what his own thoughts and feelings were. This left him feeling devalued and ignored, as well as cut off from his own sense of self—a feeling that had a long and painful history and showed up in his depression, isolation and eating habits.
 
As we can see in this re-enactment, it was not just Nick’s feelings being acted out, but mine as well. In my attempt not to disappoint him, I had done just that. The disjuncture was something we’d created together, a common experience within the therapeutic relationship. As therapists, we’re going to make mistakes. The important part is how we bring the current experience to good account. This is the working through of therapy in the relationship, in the moment, in the room—the unpacking of what just happened.
 
“As therapists, it’s important to carefully monitor what gets stimulated, not only in the client, but in ourselves as well.” We allow ourselves to be moved, provoked, bewildered and, above all, impacted by our clients. What emerges in a session is a result of our unconscious subjective world colliding with theirs. We notice our personal reactions and distinguish them from our clients’ in order to help our clients with theirs. Each session is a mutual discovery. This creates a present aliveness, illuminating the issues lurking in both of us, often occurring under our radar of knowing.
 

The Past as Present

A few months later, after Nick’s hours were reduced at work, he requested to see me every other week. He said he was feeling on shaky ground with finances and didn’t want to risk spending more money at this time. Money had never been discussed between us, other than the initial payment, and I was curious what his financial situation was. He reported that his house was paid for, no alimony, and he had investments, but felt it wasn’t a “good time” to be spending additional money.
 
I understood his concerns and wondered with him if there might be any other additional reasons for wanting to cut back sessions. To ask for additional reasons beyond the cost of therapy can be a rich window into emotional issues obscured between the therapist and client.
 
“No, it’s really just a monetary thing,” he said with a shrug.
 
During the transition to therapy every other week, I mistakenly charged him for an extra session, perhaps a result of my own anxiety about money or disappointment about the reduction in sessions. Since Nick didn’t mention my mistake, I brought it up towards the end of our next session and asked him if he had noticed it.
 
“I did, but figured you were the therapist and knew best so I wasn’t going to say anything about it.”
 
I told Nick that I felt bad about my error, let it go, and imagined we had handled it.
 
But here was a reenactment. He was going to ignore his own need and accommodate to mine, a painful, reoccurring pattern established early in his life.
 
At every moment in therapy, there are multiple levels to which the therapist can respond, including the content, process, body language, affect, or relational field.  Looking back, this moment with Nick was a missed opportunity to explore our relationship. Nick had a hard time speaking up for himself and was often oblivious to his emotional needs, looking to accommodate and please others before knowing or asking for what he wanted.  We had discovered together over the months how overeating often took the place of his ability to be aware, feel and speak up about his own needs. But one missed opportunity is no reason for despair; core issues undoubtedly find a way to come around again, especially when they aren’t handled.
 
A couple months went by and Nick neglected to pay for the month’s sessions. When I billed him for them, he objected, saying he remembered writing me a check. After several phone conversations, which I found stressful, afraid I hadn’t calculated correctly, he came to see he had indeed missed the payment. The check he wrote had been buried on his desk and was never delivered.
 
The following session he came in with a check, sat quietly and finally said, “I feel the therapy is moving along too slowly and not making enough of a difference. I’m not sure I should keep coming,” he said flatly, without affect.
 
Not feeling he’s getting his money’s worth, I thought. Aloud I said, “I’m surprised to hear this since you’ve repeatedly remarked how much therapy is helping you change by speaking up for yourself, feeling more (mostly anger,) and reaching out to people.”
 
“I said those things because I figured you wanted to hear them,” he said as his face reddened.
 
“What makes you say that?” I wondered out loud.
 
“Well, I like to keep people happy… it’s automatic pilot for me and easier than figuring out what I want or think.” He’s trying to give me what he thinks I want, while dismissing how he feels.
 
Again, I suspected this had something to do with how he learned to adapt to his early caregivers. I realized I had missed the transference and might lose him–– and was not feeling good about that.
 
His anger and disappointment with me were being acted out through his non-payment. His affect and compliance had been well hidden from me. As uncomfortable as it is for me to be the object of anyone’s anger, I knew it was necessary to endure. This was another window into working with Nick’s anger that had prevented anyone from getting close to him, myself included. He’d make a decision, not always conscious, to withdraw from relationships so he wouldn’t have to deal with his own aggression, and to soothe a hurt, scared self.
 
“At times the unpredictability of the here-and-now encounter in the therapeutic relationship forces us to emotionally confront ourselves in a way that no amount of training fully prepares us for.” If I had not allowed and distinguished my own internal responses from Nick’s in this moment, we would have been more prone to an unconscious enactment. In these scenarios, one of the likeliest impediments in the treatment is therapists’ fear of their own feelings, which could potentially steer the therapy in the wrong direction.3
 

An Ending or a New Beginning

Not long after that, Nick left me a voicemail saying he was dropping out of therapy. I called him back encouraging him to come in for at least one last session to wrap things up.  He did come in, and much to his credit, he was finally able to say what was on his mind, allowing us to complete the final chapter in the therapy. This was a tremendous achievement on Nick’s part, being willing to stay connected, even if only to terminate and tell me what was going on. He felt I didn’t have any answers for him and that he couldn’t get comfortable being the only one doing the revealing. We eventually came to understand how his acting out was an unarticulated way of telling me how angry he was with me for not giving him more direction. Nick felt I was too concealing and he wasn’t happy with the relationship being “so one-sided.”
 
The vulnerability had become intolerable for him (like in his marriage?) despite the knowledge that intimacy was something he longed for. It had become too uncomfortable emotionally; he felt exposed and at risk (i.e. with money). I wondered if it was easier for him to find fault with me, as he did with other women in his life, than to take a chance being vulnerable with me. Better he reject me first than be rejected by me.
 
“How do you think this reluctance to jump into ‘risky waters’ helps you?” I asked.
 
“It keeps me safe. I can stay home in my cave, play computer games, and eat junk food rather than come here, face you and feel how screwed up I am.”
 
“I can see how courageous you are to come in and admit all of this to me,” I said, knowing how true this was. I was touched by his admission.
 
As we talked, Nick began to see how his reluctance to engage with people let him off the hook; he could retreat to his comfortable, numb solitude by reducing sessions. He would distract himself with Sudoku, crossword puzzles, computer games, etc., and saw now how this contributed to his shutting down and isolation.
 
As we continued to discuss times he had been uncomfortable with me, for instance ending a session on time even if he was in the middle of something, or initially not being able to address his food issues, “Nick came to see how he erected a “demilitarized zone” around himself so he wouldn’t be hurt and judged by me (and others).” He saw how the distance “helped” him not to have to live with uncomfortable feelings, the meaning it had, and how he was the only one who could change it. He came to see his loneliness was located inside himself—self-imposed in an attempt not to be hurt anymore.
 
As Nick became aware of his loneliness, rather than making others responsible—particularly his ex-wife, imperfect girlfriends, or even me—he saw how the pattern was an unconscious state of mind and body that protected him. Once we linked his thinking and behavior to his history, and the template of habits it created, he recognized how it had been a successful strategy for survival growing up. This unconscious strategy had helped him live through the emotional neglect of his childhood, and protected him from the constant hurts of unresponsive, dismissive parents. He realized the distance he felt earlier with his ex-wife, and now with me, was an outworn way of taking care of himself so he wouldn’t be hurt again. Staying isolated allowed him to avoid the grief, shame and anger that got stimulated in close relationships; food became his biggest comfort and companion.
 
By linking what was happening in our relationship with his history, Nick’s behavior made sense to him. This changed his relationship to himself, replacing his anger and internal saboteur with compassion. Instead of hating himself, eating to dull the pain and withdrawing from relationships, he came to see how hard he was struggling, not only to connect with others, but to himself as well. By working with the relationship in the present, we saw how his past was alive today in the present.
 
Nick also saw how his protection of extra weight helped him adapt to the deprivations of his early life. What was once a strategy of soothing and protection now became a lifetime of habits, using food, withdrawal and emotional numbing in an unconscious attempt to avoid being  hurt. We had worked for two years without any success with his weight, however, this realization was the beginning of a life-long effort and success at slow weight loss. He no longer needed the extra padding to defend himself and terminated therapy shortly after he lost 40 pounds. It wasn’t that all his issues had been resolved, particularly the relational ones; but he felt he could manage things going forward. I felt good about the work we had done together, and he successfully terminated.
 

Working with Disjunctions and Derailments

Tracking the derailments in the therapeutic relationship is a way to bring the life of the transference and counter-transference right into the here-and-now of the inter-subjective field. The disjunctions between the therapist and client have to happen so we can understand how they’ve developed. We therapists stand in for the internal object through which the client’s conflicts are experienced. And then we get to repair what’s happened between us.  Nick wasn’t used to anyone wanting to know about his needs, so he tried to stop having them. When this became impossible, he simply walked away, a pattern that left him painfully lonely.
 
The disjunctions that occur in sessions usually have a long history attached to them; making the pattern explicit, in the present moment of the therapeutic relationship, helps the client identify the pattern. Just as a mother must hold, contain and partially work through the experience her child cannot hold and work through by himself, so must a therapist help digest and metabolize experiences for the client. While the relationship creates moments of disruption, we can use our mutual attentiveness to help the client own formerly disavowed feelings.4
 
For me the challenge comes when I get caught in my own complexes, my own feelings of inadequacy, anger, helplessness, of not knowing what to do, or of wanting progress to look a certain way. I have to set my agendas aside of wanting to help, heal, or have a specific outcome. I keep my meditation practice active so I can concentrate on the here-and-now, notice my own feelings and not let them intrude on my client’s, continue with my own growth and development and utilize consultation/supervision when I suspect my own material is interfering.
 
Noting what gets acted out in the therapeutic relationship, and helping the client to articulate what this might mean, is the working through that reveals these old patterns and frees the client to make healthier choices. Staying present in the relationship helps clients release long stored up affect, integrate the disowned parts of themselves, and inhibit the reactive patterns that spoil the natural joy of being. As clients learn to tolerate and digest their internal world, their connections with themselves and their world transform. More creative aliveness becomes available. As a result of sharing and participating in the joys and suffering together, discovering what’s unknown, unfelt and unpredictable, I feel humbled, privileged, and enlivened by our encounter. We are changed by each other.

Footnotes
1 Barrett, S., Wee-Jhong, C.,  Crits-Cristoph, P., & Gibbons, M.B. (2008). Early withdrawal from mental health treatment: Implications for psychotherapy practice. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training,45(2), 247—267. 

2 I have constructed Nick as a compilation of people, events and situations to protect confidentiality.

3 Russell, P. (1998). The role of paradox in the repetition compulsion. In J.G. Teicholz & D. Kriegman (Eds.), Trauma, repetition, and affect regulation: The work of Paul Russell(pp. 1-22). New York: Other Press.


4 Riesenberg-Malcolm, R., ed. Bott Spillius, E., (1999) On Bearing Unbearable States of Mind, London: Routledge.