Responding to an Immediate Negative Transference

A Cold Opening

When my friend and colleague, Jessica, called to make the referral, she said, “She’s an analyst, really smart and a great person. You’re going to love her.”

Sally arrived in my office about ten minutes before her appointment began. When I opened the door to the waiting room to invite her in, I saw a tall, thin, woman with gray hair. She was dressed simply in a gray wool skirt and black turtleneck sweater, but there was something elegant, almost aristocratic in the way she carried herself when she got up from glancing at a magazine and entered my office. I felt instantly inferior to her.

I greeted her: “Hello Sally, why don’t you come in.” I invited her to sit wherever she was comfortable. Then I sat in my chair and faced her silently. I thought about the fact that she was a more experienced analyst than I was. If she had never been in treatment before, I might have waited a minute and if she was silent said, “So tell me what brought you to see me.” But since she was an analyst herself, I just waited for her to tell me why she came.

“You’re pretty cold, aren’t you–silent and cold. But maybe that’s not bad. Maybe that will be more analytic and help the transference come out faster than if you were warm and fuzzy.”

I was taken aback because I don’t imagine myself as silent and cold. I thought I was warm but giving her the space to present herself. Indeed, this was the first thing I learned in my first class in analytic training. So I was speechless when Sally accused me of not knowing how to begin a session properly; but before I had a chance to respond, she continued.

“Let me tell you about my history.” Her face was expressionless as she pulled aside her long gray hair that was partially covering her right temple and continued. “When I was five years old, I was in front of my house waiting for the school bus with my younger brother. A car ran me over and I almost lost my right eye. I was in the hospital for months. They saved the eye, but I have this scar.” She pointed to a slightly indented grayish patch of skin that started at the edge of her eye socket and extended to her hairline. I made an inaudible noise and grimaced to express my understanding that this was a traumatic experience. But she continued before I could utter a sentence. “Then when I was 15, my mother, brother, sister and I were going to California to see my maternal grandmother who was dying. My father dropped us off at the airport in Chicago and then before we got on the plane, a policeman came and told my mother that my father and his driver were in a car accident and my father was dead.” Again I gasped, this time in disbelief that so much tragedy had befallen her at such a young age. But she continued telling the story without affect as if she were giving me a chronology of what she did over the weekend. I wanted to say something empathic to her, but I would have had to interrupt her to do it. So I just decided to listen until she gave me an opportunity to speak.

When Sally finished telling me the history she thought was relevant for me to know, she turned to telling me about her present life. She told me she had a husband, son and daughter. Then she got around to why she came.

Are You Orthodox?

“I’ve come because I’m depressed. I was terribly depressed a few years ago and went into couples’ therapy with my husband John. It helped, but I’m depressed again and I’m also worried about my son. He doesn’t have a job and I’m afraid he’s not doing the right things to get one. Also, I’m going to be 60 and I feel terrible about it…”

I was about to ask her what was so terrible about being 60 when she continued;

“The thing is that I think there’s something wrong with my brain.” She started to get teary for the first time. “I used to remember everything. But now I take notes on every single session because I’m afraid to forget; I walk into a room and forget why I came. I go to get the car and realize I forgot the keys. I know something is wrong with me.”

I thought to myself, I constantly forget what I’m looking for and where I put my keys.

My impulse was to reassure her. I wanted to blurt out: Oh, that’s nothing. I do that all the time. If she were a friend, rather than a patient, that’s what I would have done.

Sally continued in a voice that sounded frightened. “I think I may be getting Alzheimer’s. I always remembered everything and now I have to make lists to remember things.”

I have to make lists to remember things too. I resisted the impulse because reassuring her might seem to her that I wasn’t really hearing her. I didn’t want to trivialize her anxiety. And, after all, “there could be something wrong with her brain”.

“I went to a neurologist and he said there was nothing wrong. But I heard about this cognitive test regimen you can take and I’m going to do it.”

I wanted to say: That sounds like a good idea. But she continued without skipping a beat.

“I don’t want anyone who knows me to know about this. Some analysts talk about their patients with each other. But I think that’s terrible. I came to you because you’re not involved in my circle. I won’t tell any of my friends except Jessica and I’m terrified of them finding out.” I felt stung by her pointing out that I wasn’t “in her circle.” But I knew I had to let that go. I knew what I should say was: “What’s the terror?” But I didn’t want to cut in. I looked at the clock and the session was over, but I would have had to interrupt her to tell her. But then, as if she knew the session was over, she said,

“You haven’t said anything all session. You just sat there like a silent analyst. I guess you’re quite orthodox or maybe you’re just inexperienced.”

I felt “put down” and misunderstood. I needed to say something, but the session was over and I was feeling furious at her. I was afraid I would blurt out something angry. I dug my nails into the palms of my hands to try and get control over myself. “Well, we’re going to have to stop in a minute. But I think it’s a good thing that you’ve come because it sounds like you’ve experienced a great deal of trauma and loss. Turning 60 seems to be a catalyst for re-experiencing those feelings again.”

I sat in my chair for a few minutes after she left and thought about what I was feeling about her and what my friend Jessica had said about her. “You’re going to love her.” But I didn’t love her; I was struck by how controlling and critical she was during the session. I wondered about the disparity in our perceptions of Sally. What’s was going on here?

A Transference Blooms

When Sally returned the following week, she seemed calmer and less frightened. My back relaxed. But then she began the session by noticing that my chair seat was higher than the other chairs in the office.

“No therapist has a chair higher than her patient. It’s such a basic thing.”

I felt like my mother had slapped me across the face. I could feel the sting in my cheeks. I wondered if my cheeks were red and if she could tell. It had never dawned on me to consider the height of my chair in comparison to the other chairs in the office. Sally’s criticism made me feel like a fool. Once again I dug my nails into my palms to try and get control of myself. I spoke very quietly:

“What does it mean if my seat is higher than the others in the room?”

“You must be insecure and need to be higher than your patient. I have never been in a therapist’s office with seats of different heights.”

I bit my lower lip, trying to control my rage. “You seem to equate the height of the chairs with differences in status.”

“Yes, I feel like you’re trying to be superior to your patients.”

After what felt like a long pause during which I was trying to tamp down my anger, I said: “To my patients, or to you?”
“Yes, of course, to me.”

Trying to keep my composure, I spoke slowly and quietly: “Are we competing?”

“Yes, I guess we’re competing. I don’t want to feel lower.”

There was silence for a moment. She seemed to immediately understand that her feelings about the chair were more about her than me. Then she went back to the story about her father’s death that she had told me about the prior week which indicated to me that we had come to some transferential understanding of the importance of the height of the chairs in my office. I could feel the muscles in my back relax.

“My father had a driver. They drove Mom and me to the airport because we were visiting Grandma in California. The driver hit a truck and my father wasn’t wearing a seat belt so he was thrown from the car. He was probably decapitated.”
I felt stunned and I’m not sure if I gasped. Part of what staggered me, aside from the inherent horror of what she was saying, was that Sally said it without affect as if she were saying: “My father was probably wearing his blue suit.” That amplified my shock because I was completely unprepared for it. “I had an image of her father’s bloodied head flying onto the highway” while his disheveled body was thrown to the side of the road. I was speechless and Sally went on to another topic.

“I’m really angry at John because he keeps saying my anxiety about losing my cognitive capacity is silly.” She's worried about losing her head, I thought.

“That must feel like he doesn’t understand how frightening it is for you…" I said. "Unfortunately, we are going to have to stop for now.”

The next session I was afraid to open the door to my office and invite Sally in. I could feel myself tightening up in expectation of her criticism. She was consistent.

“You know it’s really odd that your magazines are old and you cut off the address label on the magazines in the waiting room.”

I felt exposed. What did this mean about me?

“I’ve never seen such a thing.” She continued, “You must order the magazines for your house and then bring them here!” She was outraged at the idea.

It was true; she was right. I didn’t really understand what was wrong with doing that.

“What is it about taking the mailing labels off the magazines," I asked, "that is upsetting to you?”

“It means that you don’t subscribe for the office, you subscribe for your house.”

“What is it about that, that’s upsetting?”

She took a breath; she was trying to figure it out. “My parents had a very romantic relationship. Every night they had a cocktail in the living room together when my father came home from work and we weren’t able to talk to them or even go in the room during cocktail hour. I think it feels the same to me. Your patients are secondary to your real life. We get the magazines with the label torn off.”

I felt that something important was happening. Each week she came in criticizing me and I felt exposed and inadequate. Each time we were able to understand what these criticisms meant to her, but we had not talked about what it meant that she was always criticizing me. I felt a dread that reminded me of how I felt when my mother came home from work. There was always something I had done wrong. I wondered what it meant that I was dreading Sally’s next criticism of me. Was this my countertransference or was this what she felt about her mother? Or both!

Fits and Starts

The next session Sally came in saying she felt very depressed. She realized that she forgot to put on make-up or comb her hair before she came to my office. She analyzed it herself:

“That’s very interesting. I’ve never done that before. I seem to want you to see me without any decoration.”

I thought that was a great breakthrough; she wanted me to see how she really feels underneath her façade. I decided to take a risk and make an interpretation.

“You’re critical of me, but I think you’re hyper-critical of yourself.”

“You mean you think I’m projecting my own feelings of inadequacy on you?”

“Yes exactly. I think you’re treating me the way your mother treated you.”

“I feel so relieved. Yes, that’s right.”

I felt that was an important moment in our work together. I finally addressed how critical she was of me. I was much happier to see her when I opened the door to my office the next week.

Sally handed me the check to pay the bill for the prior month. I took the check and crossed off her name in my book to indicate she paid.

“What are you doing that for?” She said in an outraged tone.

“Doing what?”

“Writing down that I paid you. I’ve never heard of anyone doing that.”

“I don’t know what you mean.”

“You mark it down after the patient leaves, not while I’m here.”

I was feeling speechless once again. I never noticed what Anna did after I gave her a check because I always turned around and walked over to the couch to lie down. I was barely able to utter: “What does it mean that I’m marking down that you paid while you’re here?”

“It’s unprofessional that’s all. Anyway, I’ve been thinking about whether I want to see you or not. It’s a big trip from where I live to get here.”

“Do you think there might be something more to it?”

“Well, I liked what you said last time. It made me feel much better to think that you’re not inadequate; I’m just projecting. But “I think I liked you better when you didn’t talk”. I want to know what you think, but when you tell me what you think it’s what I’d say if I were you.”

“Is that good or bad?”

“I don’t know. When you were silent it gave me room for my own associations.”

I felt damned if I did and damned if I didn’t. It felt just like my situation with my mother—whatever I did it would not be right.

“Do you think not wanting to see me might be related to my saying something that was helpful to you?”

“Yes, I think I’m competitive with you. I want you to help me, but I don’t want to feel you can help me. Especially because you’re so much younger than I am.”

Well, I thought, she’s certainly not like my mother. Sally’s able to consider my questions and look at her own behavior.

The next time I saw Sally she told me she was feeling much better about herself and about me. She realized that her family was very focused on status differences. Her parents were contemptuous of blacks and Jews.

“Do you think that’s related to your feelings about me?”

“Well, you’re probably Jewish and I seem to be competitive with you.”

In the next few sessions Sally told me she felt I was “too nice” and “not analytic enough.” Once again I felt like she was poking a finger at me. It took energy to find something to say to her that wasn’t defensive and angry. Finally, I was able to remove myself and see what this was about. I suggested that “analytic” was her term for cold and uncaring. I was the first female therapist she had and she was ambivalent about whether she wanted a mother who was cold and critical like her mother or warm and “too nice.” Of course, Sally continued to criticize me, but we had developed a working alliance and now the work could continue.  

Joseph Burgo on Shame, Narcissism and the Art of Empathy

A Personal Journey

Lawrence Rubin: You’ve been a practicing psychotherapist for over 30 years and have authored several best-selling clinical books. You seem fascinated by the clinical concept of shame. What’s its appeal to you personally and professionally?
Joseph Burgo: I guess it begins personally because for the last 15 years I’ve been coming to terms with my own shame, learning to recognize the role it has played in my life that I didn’t quite understand even at the end of my analysis. During that time I’ve been applying my new understanding to my clients in my clinical practice, and writing a book about it that would be helpful to people who aren’t necessarily in therapy. So, I suppose it’s the case that when you’ve been researching, and writing and thinking about something for a while, it takes a central role in your life.
Right now, it seems to me like shame explains almost everything
Right now, it seems to me like shame explains almost everything.
LR: It seems to be a really elastic concept that can be applied to all forms of pathology and client presentation. What kind of therapist do you think you were before you worked through your own shame issues?
JB: I was a blank-screen, classical sort of psychoanalyst trained in the object-relations school—Melanie Klein, Donald Winnicott, those people. I focused on issues of need and dependency because, from the object relations framework, everything is viewed in the context of maternal-infant relationships—what it’s like for a baby to depend upon her mother and the emotional impact when dependency doesn’t go very well. This is when the infant must protect itself from unbearable feelings of pain and disappointment.

That was the old paradigm. I wouldn’t say that I don’t think that way anymore, but I focus more now on shame and self-esteem. I don’t like the word self-esteem but it’s the word we’re stuck with. I focus more on shame and defenses against shame, the way we protect ourselves against feelings of defect and unworthiness, rather than defending against feelings of neediness and helplessness. 
LR: If your personal work on shame has allowed you to be freer of its pull, would you say that, irrespective of the type of therapy you practice, you’ve become a better or different therapist as a result of your own resolved shame issues?
JB: I like to think so. I’ve become a more empathic therapist for sure. I’ve always been empathic and had the ability to empathize with what my clients were going through, but for too many years I regarded that as information I needed to use in order to formulate interpretations. I still do that, but often now it means that I need to say something a little more personal or more directly empathic like speaking to the agony of their shame and letting them know that I have felt that way too. I understand what they’re going through in a way that isn’t distant, isn’t intellectual, but is immediate and authentic.
I’m much more likely to communicate my affection for my clients because I think that feeling joy and interest from another person is a very healing experience
I’m much more likely to communicate my affection for my clients because I think that feeling joy and interest from another person is a very healing experience. It isn’t enough just to make interpretations.
LR: That’s interesting because somewhere in my readings about or by you, you said that clients must wait for their therapists to grow enough to be able to help them. Is that what we’re talking about here?
JB: It is, and when I wrote that I was thinking in particular about two of my very long-term clients who went through a fallow period in their therapy until I addressed my own shame, and then understood shame better and could help them address theirs. That took a while. And it’s interesting that one of them will sometimes refer back to that period when I hadn’t quite figured it out as a fallow period, when we were kind of spinning our wheels.
LR: That fallow portion of the therapy was in part influenced by the growth that you had not yet made!
JB: I think eventually I was able to communicate that to them. However, in the beginning of that fallow period, I defended myself. I had been giving the correct interpretations, but they weren’t making use of them. I didn’t say that, but I think that was my attitude, and it was a somewhat blaming attitude.
LR: It must have been very empowering for you and those particular clients to reach out of that fallowness and find your ways to growth.
JB: It was. It was very productive. It was very moving and relieving that we found a way through that impasse.
LR: You also mentioned that you’ve been most successful in helping those clients whom you have found endearing. Has your own growth around shame allowed you to find clients more endearing and maybe, by association, have you felt more endearing?
JB: I don’t think so. I think this has been a feature of my work from the very beginning. The longest-term client I’ve dealt with, who I’ve mentioned in some of my writing, is very difficult, very volatile, probably in the realm of borderline personality disorder. And yet, endearing to me from day one for some reason. I don't know why, and that was many, many years ago.
LR: Do you find that you’ve become more endearing as a person and a therapist as a result of the work you’ve done on your own shame?
JB: It’s something I hadn’t thought about before. I know I’ve become warmer, more accessible, less intimidating for sure. I don't know if I’ve become more endearing. I think to my closest friends, yeah, probably. They will remark on how I’ve changed.
LR: What are some of the signs that a therapist is being overly influenced by their own shame to the point that it’s adversely affecting their work?
JB: I would say that one of the most common ways is for the therapist to hide behind their professional role and to allow clients to view them in an idealized light–as if they’ve got it all together. This sustains a therapist’s own defenses against their shame. I think this is common, and you hear about therapists who are amazing to their clients, adored by them, and their personal life is a disaster.

The Value of Shame

LR: What do therapists need to understand about working with clients whose pathology is shame-based? Clients don’t come in wearing t-shirts saying, “I’m shame-based.”
JB: I think there are several things. First, I think we need to expand our idea of what shame is.
We’re stuck in this paradigm in which shame is viewed as this uniformly bad thing
We’re stuck in this paradigm in which shame is viewed as this uniformly bad thing, and it usually has to do with some intolerant social perspective, some way that people are influenced by perfectionism and intolerance in the broader culture, and the work of John Bradshaw and toxic shaming. That’s the way we view it. That’s one of the things I try to challenge in my new book, to help people, both clients and therapists, look at shame as something else. The other thing I’m trying to do in that book is to look at the ways that everybody defends against shame. There are a consistent set of defenses that people use when shame is unbearable in their lives. I talk about as avoiding shame, which is in the realm of social anxiety; denying shame, which focuses on narcissistic issues; and controlling shame, which is more in the realm of masochism and self-deprecation.

I think you have to learn to recognize a defense against shame, understand what it is, and then help the person to gradually, over time, defend less against it, understand what it is that they’re running from and learn from it. Sometimes, when we’re behaving in ways that we don’t respect, we have a lesson to learn about our behavior, and shame is a message to us that we need to take a look at ourselves. Sometimes shame is telling us we need to try harder and that we’re not holding ourselves accountable. Sometimes shame is telling us that we have some room to grow. That’s a way I really try to reframe shame as an opportunity for growth rather than this uniformly bad thing.
LR: If we look at shame as part of being a human, we can then consider whether it is serving us and how we can develop a new relationship with it so that there’s more room for growth.
JB: I think so. I think that’s a good description.
LR: You wrote about a client named Caleb, the one we highlighted in the excerpt on this site in a chapter called “Superiority and Contempt.” Upon reading, I didn’t like him and know that you struggled to feel connected with and empathetic toward him. What impact did he and clients like him have on you?
JB: It’s a challenge working with a client like that because your own feelings of worth are impacted. Intentionally and inevitably, when a client like Caleb is in flight from their own shame and defending against it, they will often project it onto other people and then hold them in contempt as inferior and defective. Even though I’ve evolved a lot, I still see the transference and the working relationship between therapist and client as a microcosm of the client’s issues, and often the best way to address them.

Caleb was always trying to make me feel inferior, that he was better than me, that I wasn’t very smart and that I wasn’t very insightful
Caleb was always trying to make me feel inferior, that he was better than me, that I wasn’t very smart and that I wasn’t very insightful. If you’re not aware it’s very easy to become defensive and to make the sort of interpretation that might be shaming to the client, or to sort of shore yourself up, and end up in a tit-for-tat relationship. It’s a conversation that’s being had beneath the conversation in therapy.
LR: Exactly. This very morning, I had to decide to delete a contact from my phone contact list, a guy that I’ve known for 50 years. We are in a constant tit-for-tat, but it seemed that at the core was his need to shame me. He finally stopped communicating with me, and then I texted him on his birthday and got no response. I texted him again yesterday with no response, and this morning I was thinking, and this was my own shame talking, “What can I say that will shame him the most deeply?” And I came up with a perfectly crafted text that would have probably put him through the roof, but instead I decided that that’s sort of a poison you take waiting for someone else to die, so I just said “the heck with it,” and deleted his contact.
JB: The difficult thing about that experience is when someone doesn’t communicate with you and ignores your texts, what they’re saying to you is that you are unworthy of their attention, which is shaming. It’s painful when you express interest in somebody else and they don’t return it. That’s a kind of shame, and it’s natural for people to want to retaliate in kind and to say, “No, you’re the one who ought to feel ashamed.” But you did really do the right thing, which was to recognize that you wanted to shame him, and then decide not to do it.

The Flip Side

LR: We seem to be in a golden age of narcissism. A few years ago, you wrote, The Narcissist You Know. Why are we all so fascinated by narcissism? 
JB: Well, I will start off by saying that nobody wanted a book on shame. I originally tried to sell a book on shame about 10 years ago. It was called Learning from Shame: The Less Traveled Road to Self-Esteem, and nobody wanted it. I was told by agents and editors that the book was a downer and that nobody wanted to read about shame. So, I said, well okay, I will then write a book about narcissism, which I see as the flip side of shame, because everybody’s interested in narcissism right now.

I think that
as a culture we’re fascinated by narcissism in the wrong way. I think we’re not horrified enough by it
as a culture we’re fascinated by narcissism in the wrong way. I think we’re not horrified enough by it. We’re not repelled enough by it. We’re fascinated by it because we really enjoy these images of people–particularly celebrities–who seem to have it all, who are beautiful, rich and successful, and we like to believe that somebody actually does get to have that ideal life. Then we spend our time on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter convincing everybody else that we’re leading this incredible life, that we have these amazing vacations, and we go to these fantastic parties, and here’s this amazing meal I’m having at this incredible restaurant. It all feels really unhealthy to me. 
LR: So, narcissism is a destination for people in hopes that once they are on display and revered, they will be able to escape shame? So, as you say, narcissism the flip side of shame?
JB: Yes it is. It’s the primary defense against shame, to disprove to everybody else and yourself that you’re damaged in any way.
LR: What’s interesting to me is that both are equally illusory and not tangible, though both can have tangible impacts on the body and mind. They seem so illusory but so powerful in their ability to just take over a person and deprive them of a true sense of self.
JB: Well, I agree. I think the problem is that for the narcissist, shame feels like an actual condition, an actual state of being in which they’re damaged, defective, ugly. It’s felt on an almost physical level to be a real sort of damage, a deformity, and that’s unbearable. So, they try to create this opposite steady state, this idealized self, that’s perfect and complete, which completely denies the existence of that other steady state: shame and the sense of being damaged.

That’s the problem I see.
The quandary for the narcissist is that either you’re perfect and you’ve got it all together—you’re fabulous; or you’re so damaged and defective that you’re beyond hope and there’s nothing to be done
The quandary for the narcissist is that either you’re perfect and you’ve got it all together—you’re fabulous; or you’re so damaged and defective that you’re beyond hope and there’s nothing to be done. 
LR: And it makes sense that the dichotomy of shame and narcissism are part of borderline functioning, this either-or, black or white, idealized or brutalized images of others.
JB: Absolutely.
LR: Is that why in your writing and thinking you’re drawn to borderline pathology–because it is the epitome of this dual narcissism-shame quandary?
JB: I also see the same issue in bipolar disorder. You see people vacillating between thinking that everything about themselves is so damaged, so screwed up that it’s hopeless, and then going on a manic flight into some magical state in which none of that’s true; they’re super powerful, super capable, they can do anything. I see the polarity not only in borderline symptoms but also in bipolar symptoms.
LR: We seem to be so caught up in seeing bipolar disorder as a so-called emotional disorder of dysregulation, so we medicate people for it. But the medication is not going to modify the core dynamic that drives the bipolar behavior, which is the vacillation between shame and narcissism.
JB: Exactly.

The Challenge of Treatment

LR: What are the clinical challenges of working with narcissistic clients, especially those whose narcissism is considered toxic? It must be very trying and demanding for a therapist.
JB: Well, yes. But the truth is that the people who have extreme narcissistic symptomatology usually don’t come for therapy. They think they’re fine or they’ve got some other mechanism for dealing with it that doesn’t involve acknowledging their own difficulties and asking for help. But when they do come, it is a challenge, whether or not you’re dealing with someone like Caleb, the therapist client we were talking about who projected shame into me, or some of the clients who struggle with borderline symptom.s People who have struggled with borderline symptoms are challenging because they go back and forth between idealizing you and hating your guts. As the transference gets underway, it’s a very volatile and emotionally immediate relationship in which what’s going on between you and how you’re viewed is at the core of the work. It’s very painful to have clients say, “Fuck you. I hate your guts. You’re a leech feeding off my neediness,” and on and on and on. I’ve had clients say the most vicious things to me over my career, and the hard part is that the clients I’m describing often are very insightful in certain ways, like they’re able to identify something true about you but use it against you in a really hurtful way. So, your own issues get stirred up. Are you going to defend against that because it’s so painful? Or are you going to hear it and maybe learn something from it yourself? I don't know. I would say
I’ve grown the most with my clients who were the most difficult
I’ve grown the most with my clients who were the most difficult.
LR: I can imagine that a therapist who’s not done their personal work around shame and whose self-esteem vacillates would have the most difficulty and be caught up in the most damaging counter-transference relationships with clients like this.
JB: I think so, and I think those clients probably don’t stay very long with that type of therapist.
LR: I briefly had a client who I really messed up with because he was like Caleb, but younger and much more energetic, and I constantly found myself trying to prove myself. And there are some clients I’ve had that I wish I could call now and say, “I’ve grown. Can you come back and give me another try. I think I could help.”
JB: Oh, do I know that feeling. And the shame of failure. I feel that.
LR: Some people reify therapists, perhaps out of their own shame and inadequacy. We are the mental health celebrities, the equivalent of the celebrity athletes who they idolize. Then when we fail in their eyes we also fail in our own.
JB: Yes, absolutely. It’s kind of nice to be idealized in the beginning. It can easily feel great that somebody thinks you’re a really together person, and you’re full of insight and empathy, and they look up to you and want your attention. That’s flattering, right?
LR: Until it’s not.
JB: Until it’s not. Until they flip to the other side.
LR: You got that little thing there, doctor, in your teeth and now I’m going to just tear you to shreds.
JB: Exactly.
LR: It seems that working with these complex, characterologically involved clients is not about going to an evidence-based manual and pulling out a couple of techniques drawn from a meta-analysis. It’s not that kind of approach. Can you say a few words about the orientation, beyond technique, that’s necessary to work with narcissistically damaged or shame-influenced clients?
JB: It’s a very personal experience for the therapist because inevitably you’re going to be triggered and your own narcissistic issues are going to be stirred up. So, working with that kind of client means that you have to be paying a lot of attention to yourself. You have to be learning and growing from your shame experiences and acknowledging when you’re off base, when you make a mistake, when your interpretations aren’t helpful, and modeling a kind of ability to tolerate shame experiences and to learn from them for your client. So, it’s really personal, I think.
LR: I’m just sort of wandering back to this morning and how I spent 15 minutes crafting the most toxic, shaming message I could to someone who seemed hell-bent on diminishing me over the years, five decades, and how liberating it was, although painful, to delete his contact. Not that I couldn’t find him if I needed to, but the symbolic gesture of saying to myself, “I won’t allow myself to be shamed in this way anymore because I don’t need to pursue shame.” It came with the package.
JB: But they key element there, I think, is that you said it was painful.
Too often I think we want to take flight into some sort of superior position where we don’t feel any pain
Too often I think we want to take flight into some sort of superior position where we don’t feel any pain. We want to think “In fact, they weren’t worth wanting anyway. They were a terrible friend and I don’t really care about them.” That’s an understandable position to take. I always think that allegory of the fox and the grapes explains so many things. That’s one position we can take but what you said is, “Look, this isn’t good for me because this hurts me.”
LR: The allegory of the fox and the grapes?
JB: It’s the “sour grapes” story. There are some grapes hanging over the wall and the fox keeps jumping up to try and get them because they look so yummy. And then when he can’t he finally decides, well, they were probably sour anyway, I didn’t want them.

Rebuilding Esteem

LR: You have been interviewed by countless folks like me. You’ve offered your words in a public venue. You’ve written, so your words are out there. Does this feed your narcissism in a good way or bad way?
JB: I’d say both. In my new book I talk about how the real antidote to deep feelings of shame is to behave in ways and achieve things that build self-respect and pride to sort of off-set this sense of defect and damage. That has been absolutely true for me. I was at a low point in my life following the economic downturn in 2008 and 2009, following the end of my first marriage. I was just feeling bad about myself. The temptation was to sort of give up and to sink into despair. But I worked hard instead to build my website, rebuild my practice, write my first, second and third books, and to become an authority in some sense on a number of subjects that matter to me. I would call that healthy narcissism, building pride and self-respect, and I feel so much better about myself now than I did 10 years ago.

At the same time there’s a part of me that wonders: Why aren’t I Brene Brown? Why don’t I have my TED Talk?
At the same time there’s a part of me that wonders: Why aren’t I Brene Brown? Why don’t I have my TED Talk? And why aren’t I a public authority who’s making lots and lots of money off very similar ideas? So, I think there’s an unhealthy sort of narcissism that wants me to be bigger and better than I am. 
LR: I understand in ways that sort of transcend this interview. My work with Psychotherapy.net came at a really good time for me. I was a low point professionally, just tired and drained. Teaching but not giving, more withholding than anything else, and wondering how much I really knew and protecting what little was left of my energy and empathy. I feel good about what I do know and what I’ve learned. I feel better about myself, so I think there are those of us who, like you said, embrace opportunities to escape shame and others see shame as sort of a deceptive friend that we can’t quite let go.
JB: That illustrates exactly what I’m trying to say in the book. There was a choice point in your life. You could have continued in that kind of ungiving way. You could have abandoned your profession and looked for something else, or you could find this opportunity that allowed you to apply everything you knew in this new framework where you felt good about yourself. You built self-esteem by doing something you feel good about.

Exploring Defenses

LR: We’ve been talking about shame and narcissism, your training, and your own professional evolution. It seems that at the core of your understanding and your work is the notion of defense mechanisms. You wrote a book called, “Why Do I Do That?: Psychological Defense Mechanisms and the Hidden Way They Shape Our Lives.” Is it always necessary to attend to a client’s defense mechanisms? And if we don’t, is the therapy doomed to a lesser level of effectiveness?
JB: No, I don’t think so. We all have defenses. We couldn’t get through life without our defenses, and some defenses are healthy and helpful. I don’t think those need to be pointed out or challenged. But, when defense mechanisms are deeply entrenched and pervasive, they get in the way of everything. And that’s why we have to draw our clients’ attention to them and help them understand what they’re defending against, so that they can deal with the pain in a more constructive way. For example, narcissism is a defense against shame, and we need to help our clients see how their defenses—their narcissistic behaviors that are meant to defend against shame—are causing all sorts of trouble in their lives, and that the solution is worse than the problem.
LR: So, if a therapist is not psychodynamically trained, and does not understand how to work with defenses and is themselves shame-based or defended against shame through narcissism, is the therapy doomed to a lesser level of positive outcome if for whatever reason defenses don’t get acknowledged or worked through? Is it just going to be patchwork?
JB: I think that a lot of growth and development can occur even if somebody doesn’t think the way I do. Even if they don’t view people in terms of their defensive structures or they don’t see shame in narcissism the way I do, lots of growth can occur. There are a lot of great cognitive behavioral therapists who are helping people, but certain issues aren’t going to get addressed, that’s all. I think that the deeper, more profound issues aren’t going to be addressed. That doesn’t mean it’s not helpful.
LR: The book itself is a self-help manual. I agree, as you said, that a lot of good work has been done by CBT therapists. There are apps for CBT. There are self-help manuals for CBT. Is a self-help manual for dealing with defense mechanisms really going to be helpful without the supplemental work with a real live therapist?
JB: I have clients who have asked me the same question and challenged me on having written self-help books. I don’t know. I do know that I hear from people all the time who have read my book saying how helpful it was to them and how it opened their eyes to themselves and they saw things they hadn’t seen before. You know, I just feel that most people can’t afford therapy. That’s the bottom line. Are we just supposed to say, “Well, you can’t afford therapy, so you’re doomed?” Or do we try to find some way to bring these ideas that inform our practices into a book that people can read, and offer them exercises that they can work on? I feel kind of obligation to do that.

Digital Empathy

LR: As we wind down, I want to draw attention to your involvement with distance therapy for these last five years. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages that you see in this delivery method?
JB: Mostly I see advantages because it gives people the opportunity to have contact with a professional when there isn’t anybody they can see face-to-face. I’ve worked with ex-pats in other countries where there isn’t anybody available. I’m thinking of a client I work with who is married to a Japanese woman and lived and taught in Japan. He couldn’t find anybody there that really would be able to understand him and his culture. So, there’s that great advantage, or there are places where there just isn’t anybody.

It’s usually very convenient for everybody involved, but sometimes there are obstacles. The client might live with somebody else so privacy can be a challenge. When I was in analysis it was really time consuming because I had to leave enough time for traveling and parking. When you do it digitally, you can log on and have your session and then you’re done with it.

Other therapists are often very skeptical about the fact that you’re not in the same room and feel that that might mean there’s a lack of immediacy and lack of a real personal empathic connection. I understand that, and I understand that’s got to be true to some extent but, especially after researching how empathy works in my last book, it’s not magic, and it doesn’t necessarily have to do with physical proximity. When we empathize with other people, we are reading their emotional experience on their faces, and we are unconsciously bringing our own facial expressions into alignment with theirs, which stimulates an echo of their experience inside of us. You can do that on a video screen, and I do.
I do feel a deep empathic connection with my clients when we’re face-to-face over a computer
I do feel a deep empathic connection with my clients when we’re face-to-face over a computer. I have worked by telephone. I won’t do it anymore because it’s so inferior if you can’t see somebody’s face.

The other thing is there’s often an extra bit of information that comes with seeing a client in her own milieu that you don’t get when they come to your office. That’s your terrain, right? I wrote an article for The New York Times about some of my clients who have pets and who connect from their homes, and how I get to watch them interact with their animals and I learn things about them that way. You learn things about people by what they choose to include in the video frame for their sessions. You sometimes have intrusions from people who forget that your client is in session then and they’ll come into the room or there’ll be sound from another room in the home. There’s all these extra bits of information that make it a very rich experience.

I do understand the reluctance of some therapists to work this way, and the sort of mystical view of empathy as this kind of ESP that happens when people are physically in the same space, but my experience tells me otherwise.

One of the personal bonuses of working in distance therapy is just this exposure to all these people I never would have had the chance to meet and work with on the west side of Los Angeles. It affords me the freedom to transcend the only thing I have never liked about my job, which is that I’m stuck in one place. I spent two months in Europe this summer and I worked the whole time. It’s always been my dream to not be a tourist but to just go somewhere and have my daily life there. I would do what I would normally do but at the end of the day rather than being home in Los Angeles or Palm Springs, I’d be in London or Paris, which is what I did, and it was fabulous.
LR: So, doing distance therapy can be liberating in that you’re in many places by virtue of the clients with whom you’re working, but you can also be in many places and sort of get filled up in that way.
JB: That’s a good way of putting it.
Distance therapy feeds me, and it makes me a happier therapist to be able to do that
Distance therapy feeds me, and it makes me a happier therapist to be able to do that.
LR: A happier therapist is a better therapist.
JB: Yes.
LR: Has it expanded your world view as a therapist in addition to making you a happier therapist?
JB: I like to think so. It’s kind of a humbling experience. I remember I was working with a man who came from a wealthy family in India. He had grown up in India, then been educated at boarding school in England, and was presently working in a family business in Dubai. There were so many aspects of his experience that I had to keep reminding myself that my set of cultural assumptions really weren’t going to hold true for this guy. I just had to listen and learn a lot about his experience and not try and impose my own fully Westernized values on him. It was challenging.
LR: I would imagine that the ability to rise to that challenge is based on one’s humility, but as you said, it is about empathy–the willingness to open yourself to others no matter who they are, where they are, and how they struggle.
JB: People might have different sets of cultural values and assumptions but their faces all express emotion in the same way. That’s biological.
LR: I guess that is as good a place to stop as any. Thanks so much for your time today and the wonderful conversation.
JB: I really enjoyed this interview, it was different from many that I’ve had before. Thank you for reading my books and for giving me the opportunity just to go on at length about subjects that mean a lot to me. This was very enjoyable.

Introducing Multi-Lens Therapy

What’s Going On?

What exactly is causing the emotional difficulties that your client or your patient is experiencing? You would think that this would be the central question a practitioner is hoping to answer, since it is certainly reasonable to suppose that treatment should connect to causation. Yet a taste for investigating what is really going on has been lost over the decades. As helpers, we’ve moved toward too-easy labeling, and accepting the idea that it is reasonable to help our clients without understanding what is going on “with” or “in” them.

This taste for investigation has been lost for many reasons, among them:
1) The DSM is loudly silent on causation; 2) The idea of “symptoms” and “symptom pictures” has firmly taken hold; 3) Training programs which are psychologically-minded focus on one theoretical framework or another, reducing the complexities of causation to “what fits our model”; and 4) It is so darned hard to actually know what is going on “inside” and “with” a given person.

How can we restore something as essential to the healing and helping process as knowing what is going on? There is no perfect answer but a step in the right direction is the following:
providing helpers with multiple lenses through which to view their clients’ troubles. This multi-lens approach reminds practitioners that they shouldn’t be looking for some single cause, like faulty plumbing or a traumatic childhood, nor should they be operating from one orientation, say a biomedical or a psychodynamic one. Rather, a lot is almost certainly going on, each aspect of which may be contributing to your client’s difficulties.

This updated way of proceeding is called multi-lens therapy. It takes as it starting point that, as a helper, you do what you do because of what’s going on, not irrespective of what’s going on. The DSM seems not to care about “what is going on.” As therapists, we most certainly ought to. If your client has an actual biological problem, they need one sort of help. If they hate their job, another sort of help is required. If born with certain sensitivities, they need another sort of help. It is absurd (and not okay) that a helper would look only at putative “symptoms” rather than what’s going on. It is likewise absurd (and not okay) that a helper would throw up their hands and say, “I don’t do causes.” Therapists may have gotten into that habit but that is a habit to break.

It may indeed turn out to be impossible to identify the cause or causes of a given client’s distress. But that is no reason not to try and no reason to pretend amnesia about the whole matter of causation. So, how should a therapist or other helper think about causation as that word pertains to human beings? The first principle is to think expansively rather than reductively. Multi-lens therapy provides twenty-five lenses through which to view and think about a client’s distress. That may sound like a lot but that is as it should be. Causation in human affairs is neither transparent nor simple.

You can be of help to a client even if you can’t discern what’s going on. You can be of help by being warm and supportive. You can be of help by virtue of your listening skills and your ability to carefully reflect back what a client is saying. You can be of help because you understand human nature and can usefully wonder aloud about your client’s behaviors. But that you can be of help without knowing what’s causing your client’s distress doesn’t mean that you should dismiss causation as “not something I do.” To engage in that dismissal would be to shortchange your clients and, worse, to set the stage for big mistakes.

Multi-lens Therapy

In multi-lens therapy, you take the position that there is no single way to look at human affairs. That a client is presenting a problem that he or she is calling “depression” doesn’t mean that you suddenly know what is going on. You don’t know if your client is in existential despair about having no life purpose, in a dark mood because of chemicals they are taking that have darkened their mood, in anguish about an unravelling marital relationship, or announcing something that has always been true for them, a matter of temperament. You do not know and the very least you can do is announce to yourself, “I do not know, let me check.”

How you check on possible causation depends on your therapeutic style. But informing that style should be an understanding of what might be going on. “Multi-lens therapy provides you with twenty-five ways of thinking about what might be going on”. These twenty-five lenses include the lens of original personality, which helps you think about a client’s basic temperament, the lens of formed personality, which reminds you about how “stiff” and intractable personality becomes over time, and the lens of available personality, which is a useful way to conceptualize your client’s current “amount” of free will and ability to change. Also included are the lenses of biology, psychology, development, family, social connection, circumstance, trauma, stress, and more. (You’ll find the complete list at the end of this article.)

Acquiring a working sense of these twenty-five lenses and learning ways of using them in session make for more powerful and helpful work. By proceeding in this way, as a multi-lens therapist, you don’t reduce what’s going on to “treating the symptoms of mental disorders” and you don’t operate from any reductionist theoretical orientation. Rather, you accept the largeness of human reality, a largeness that includes the complex nature of causation as that word applies to human affairs. Multi-lens therapy returns the idea of causation to therapy and helps therapists work more deeply, more powerfully—and more truthfully—with their clients.

A key to practicing multi-lens therapy is listening for causal hints. Clients regularly hint in passing at what’s causing their distress. The hints we get from a client help us determine which of these many causes are more probable than the others or maybe even which is the central cause. Nor is it hard to hear these hints if we train ourselves to listen for them. For instance, say that a client is presenting a relentless “down-ness” which you’re both likely to call “chronic depression.” Imagine that your client says the following in passing:

“I was raised Catholic but eventually became a Buddhist.”

You might nod and allow this information to pass by. Or, as a multi-lens therapist, you might take this as a causal hint, suggesting at the possibility that your client has had problems making sense of meaning and life purpose, problems which were not answered by her birth Catholicism and which perhaps are not being answered by her adoptive Buddhism.

You would then investigate. A hint is a door waiting to be opened. In this case, one sort of investigatory question might be: “Has Buddhism done a good job of serving your meaning and life purpose needs?” Another might be, “That’s interesting. What did Catholicism lack that Buddhism provides?” A third might be, “What attracted you to Buddhism?” Each of these questions honors the possibility that your client’s despair may be connected to her inability to keep meaning afloat and her difficulties identifying and “owning” life purposes.

You don’t know for sure that this is the case and you’re treating her announcement as a hint and not a revelation. But you may be on to something, even something crucial. You can only know by stopping your client’s narrative and asking. Many therapists prefer to rarely interrupt or even to never interrupt, but a multi-lens therapist sees careful interrupting as a key principle of helping. “I find that if I interrupt in a spirit of genuine inquiry, clients are neither disturbed nor offended by the inquiry. Indeed, they relish it.”

Suppose that your client mentions in passing, “As far back as I can remember, I was sensitive.” You could simply nod. Or you might consider this a causal hint that perhaps some feature or features of her original personality are implicated in her despair or are even, maybe directly or maybe obliquely, the cause of her despair.

Taking her remark as a causal hint worth pursuing, you might ask “That’s interesting and maybe important. If your basic sensitivity somehow connects to you feeling down, what does that suggest, I wonder?” You might ask, “I wonder, wouldn’t a sensitive person be down more often than the next person just by virtue of her sensitivity?” Or you might ask, “If, as you say, you were born sensitive, that’s going to amount to a lifelong challenge, isn’t it?” Each of these questions opens the door to a fruitful and likely pertinent chat about original personality: about what it means, what it signifies, and how it matters.

Consider another sort of situation. Your client says, “I’m having a terrible time at work. I see things that aren’t making sense there and when I point them out I get yelled at. I tried to tell my parents about it when I visited them and they just put me down as “not a team player” and “not a realist.” All I could think about was what a failure I am. I can’t figure out why my life is such a mess!” This is a lot to unpack but a multi-lens therapeutic approach provides you with a straightforward way to proceed.

You might say, “You know, there are lots of different possible causes of your distress. What you just said brings to mind at least three or four possible causes. One is that stress may be a major culprit. You sound under a lot of stress. A second is that, since you were born with an incisive mind, you don’t take easily to humbug; and that may make it much harder to deal with dishonesty at work. A third is that your family is still tormenting you. A fourth is that you can’t get past the idea that you’re bound to fail. Do these all seem to be in play?”

By saying this, which may sound like a mouthful but which is quite easy to say with practice, you’ve looked at the situation through four different lenses (the lenses of stress, cognition, family dynamics, and original personality), helped your client better understand the multiple reasons for her distress, and provided a roadmap for your work together. You can work on whichever of these your client identifies as the most pressing. At the same time, you can keep the others “at the ready” to work on as time permits, when they reappear, or when it seems smart to return to them.

Your client is likely to reply, “All of that is true!” Then you can take any one of the following approaches (or others, of course). You could say, “Which of these four seem most important?” You could say, “Let’s pick one of these to focus on – which one do you think it should be?” You could say, “That’s a lot, isn’t it? That’s probably why you’re feeling down, because so many things are combining to get you down. What do you think you might like to try, given these several different challenges?”

Your client is likely to appreciate this approach, as it matches her experience of life and honors that many challenges are confronting her all at once. “Your client will therefore become more invested in the therapy, dig deeper for her own solutions”, and feel herself to be in a genuine collaboration. A solid direction for the work to take is likely to emerge; the groundwork will be laid for future work.

As to that future work, proceeding with it might sound like the following. Say that you’ve been working on stress reduction for some weeks. At some point you might say, “Remember that we agreed that there were multiple things going on causing your distress. We’ve been working on stress reduction, which is great. But I wonder if we should take a look again at those other challenges? Maybe those toxic family dynamics, those thoughts that aren’t serving you or how your talent for seeing through humbug is affecting you at work?” In this way, you can refocus the work through any of the twenty-five lenses when and as needed.

Building Talking Points

In addition to listening for and responding to causal hints, you might want to create talking points that you begin to use regularly to communicate important ideas to clients. You might want to create a talking point around the idea of multiple lenses, freeing your client from the belief that “exactly one thing” is causing her distress; a talking point around the relationship among original personality, formed personality, and available personality, which will help your client think about her basic temperament, her stuck places, and her remaining free will; and many other useful talking points. Here is how using one of these talking points in session might sound.

Imagine that you are in session with a client who has announced that she wants to make some changes in her life.

Therapist: “Okay, so you know that you want to make some changes.”

Client: “Yes.”

Therapist: “Because currently you’re pretty unhappy and pretty stuck?”

Client: “Exactly.”

Therapist: “Let’s say that we do come up with some changes that you might want to make. How free are you to change?”

Client: “What do you mean?”

Therapist: “Here’s what I mean. Let me present you with a model. Imagine that personality is made up of three parts, original personality, formed personality, and available personality. Original personality is who we are at birth: our temperament, our smarts, our native abilities, all of that. Formed personality is who we become—the hardened person we become over time. And available personality is our remaining freedom, the part of us that is still able to make changes, see through our own games, etc. I see available personality as a sort of amount that can and does fluctuate—sometimes we are less free, say when we’re caught up in an addiction, and sometimes we’re freer, say when we enter recovery. Does that make sense?”

Client: “It does.”

The preceding was a characteristic talking point of multi-lens therapy. Once you create these talking points, they are very easy to use in therapy. In this case, you’ve presented your client with three huge ideas in a simple paragraph. You’ve announced that temperament matters—that who she was at birth matters. Second, you’ve announced that her formed personality is likely to be hard to alter, given that it has “solidified” over time. Third, you’ve provided her with a picture of what “freedom” looks like, opening the door to important existential conversations.

If you can say the above, or something like it, you will have presented your client with some big ideas and a frame that she can use for the rest of her life to help her think about her own personality, about where she is stuck and where she is free, and about how she might want to “make use of her current available personality” while also “increasing the amount available to her.” That is a lot to provide a client!

Therapist: “So, thinking about this model, how much availability personality do you think you have?”

Client (thinking): “Not very much.”

Therapist: “Okay. That’s where most people are. That’s one of the things we have to contend with, that lack of freedom. So, what might help increase that freedom?”

Client (thinking): “I don’t know.”

Therapist: “Fair enough. Let’s think about it together. Imagine that you were just a little bit freer. What would that look like?”

Client: “I would tell Bill what I think. I would have more of a voice.”

Therapist: “And if you spoke up, you would feel freer?”

Client: “Yes.”

Therapist: “But?”

Client: “But that feels much too dangerous.”

Therapist: “Feels dangerous or is dangerous?”

Client (thinking): “Both.”

Therapist: “Okay. Let’s tease that apart. What’s the actual danger?”

Client: “We’d be in conflict. And I hate conflict. And it might put us on the path to divorce.”

Therapist: “Okay. What’s the feeling part?”

Client: “That’s all tied up with me having authoritarian parents and having my voice silenced again and again as a child. That still frightens me, the vision of my angry mother and my angry father. Those feelings are very large and very terrible.”

Therapist: “Okay. So, we have two truths. Speaking up is dangerous and feels dangerous. Let’s see if there’s anything to do for the one and anything to do for the other. Okay?”

Client: “Okay.”

Here’s another situation where responding to causal hints with a spirit of inquiry and careful talking points deepens the work. Your client says, “Visiting my in-laws, who are very old-fashioned and the opposite of progressive, makes me really anxious. I get so anxious that I get sick beforehand and sometimes get too sick to travel. This makes my husband really angry, because he’s sure that I’m getting sick on purpose just to get out of visiting. He scolds me and shuns me and my way of coping is to spend hours talking to my sisters, who are the only people I can trust.”

The issue here isn’t anxiety per se. The issue is the whole picture. To provide an anxiety “diagnosis” (that is, an anxiety label) and to opt for anxiety as the sole focus is the current reductionist practice. “A multi-lens therapist unpacks this narrative, looks at it through the lenses of culture and society, trauma, social connection, instinct, and perhaps other lenses as well”. She replies, “There’s a lot going on here. It sounds like you’re in conflict with your husband’s family’s values or they’re in conflict with yours. That’s one part of it. Then there’s the ongoing trauma of your husband’s scolding and shunning. There’s the wonderful, positive social connection piece with your sisters. And it sounds like your body is having an instinctive, self-protective reaction to the situation, warning you that things are not okay. Does that capture what you just expressed?”

It would be lovely if you are exactly right but it doesn’t matter if you are exactly right. You are simply inquiring; and your client will appreciate it that you are trying to get a real handle on her situation. A talking point that you might add in the course of this collaborative inquiry is the following: “When there’s a lot going on we have to be patient and tease apart the various threads. It won’t pay to just slap on a label and call you anxious. We want to figure out what’s going on that’s making you anxious and, more than that, we want to improve your whole life. Agreed?”

Focusing the Lenses

Your current way of doing therapy may not include much teaching, explaining, or using talking points like the ones above. But if you’re engaged in explorations and investigations with your clients, as I believe you should be, that requires that you help your clients understand what you have in mind. You want to be able to say, “That’s one possible way to look at what’s going on. But there are also other ways. Can we check those out?”

If your client agrees, then you will need your talking points so that you can introduce those “other ways of looking at what’s going on” in simple and clear ways. With those talking points at the ready, you’re much more likely to learn what’s really going on, which then allows you to aim your helping in the appropriate direction. By paying real attention to what may be causing your client’s distress, you greatly increase your therapeutic options.

Of course, that you have done some excellent work discerning causes doesn’t mean that you or your client will then know what to do. But that information must prove valuable, at the very least insofar as it prevents you and your client from misunderstanding what is going on. And it is bound to suggest possible avenues to try. Whether those avenues will prove fruitful must remain to be seen. But you are traveling down them for good reasons, because you have inquired and listened.

Psychotherapy as an idea and as a practice has not completely escaped critical scrutiny. But, on balance, the critical psychology movement and other critics of contemporary mental health practices have more often taken aim at deconstructing the mental disorder paradigm, as reified in the DSM, than deconstructing the psychotherapy paradigm. “Psychotherapy has managed to fly a bit below the radar of critique”.

But it has needed critiquing, in large measure because it has taken too cavalier an attitude toward causation. What a doctor does is generally well justified by virtue of the fact that he is treating the causes of things as well as their symptoms. He cares if it is a virus and he cares which virus it is. What a psychotherapist does is on much shakier ground, since psychotherapy has taken a cavalier attitude toward causation and not made “investigating causes” a central activity of the practice. Therapists, provided by psychiatry with a checklist way of labeling clients, have been rather left off the hook when it comes to tackling the matter of causation.

A multi-lens therapist is on much more solid footing, since he or she can say, “I check carefully for causes by investigating the causal hints I hear and the causal clues I get. I then connect my helping strategies to what I learn. If I can’t discern what is causing my client’s distress, I can still be of help, because talk helps and support helps. But I don’t act like causes don’t matter and I do my human best to figure out what’s really going on. This is no easy task, as causation in human affairs is typically complex and obscure. But I try.”

The following is a list of 25 lenses gathered over the course of my clinical career through which to investigate causation. It is not meant to be comprehensive, but it does a good job of not being reductionist and allows for a lot of rich thinking and investigating.

1. The Lens of Original Personality
2. The Lens of Formed Personality
3. The Lens of Available Personality
4. The Lens of Circumstance
5. The Lens of Time Passing
6. The Lens of Mind Space
7. The Lens of Instinct
8. The Lens of Individual Psychology
9. The Lens of Social Psychology
10. The Lens of Development
11. The Lens of Biology
12. The Lens of Family
13. The Lens of Cognition
14. The Lens of Behavior
15. The Lens of Social Connection
16. The Lens of Experience
17. The Lens of Endowment
18. The Lens of Stress
19. The Lens of Trauma
20. The Lens of Emotion
21. The Lens of Culture and Society
22. The Lens of Environmental Factors
23. The Lens of Psychiatric Medication and Chemicals
24. The Lens of Creativity
25. The Lens of Life Purpose and Meaning

Multi-lens therapy asserts that if you are leaving out temperament, social and cultural realities, life purpose and meaning issues, and the other lenses through which a multi-lens therapist looks at her clients, you are leaving out too much. You are operating from too limited a place and making it harder on yourself to be effective by virtue of not meeting your client where she is “really at.” If you do meet her there, she will trust you more, warm to you more, engage responsively, and do more work out of session. Multi-lens therapy paints a truer-to-life picture of human reality and also makes the work of psychotherapy much easier. There’s a lot to value there.
 

Tony Rousmaniere on Deliberate Practice for Psychotherapists

The Other 50%

Victor Yalom: Tony, congratulations on your new book, Deliberate Practice for Psychotherapists: A Guide to Improving Clinical Effectiveness. We’ll get to the deliberate practice part later, and find out what that means, but let’s start with clinical effectiveness, which we as therapists all certainly strive for. You’re very candid and self-revealing in this book, which I think is admirable. And it seems the thing that got you started on your quest towards improving your own clinical effectiveness was the realization early on in your training that you were only helping 50% of your clients. Can you tell us about that?
Tony Rousmaniere: When I initially started training at my first practicum, I was working with high school students and I had a number of the clients respond very quickly. They had a range of different goals and whether it was anxiety, or feeling depressed, or wanting to do better at school, and they showed what is called in the research literature, “rapid gains.”
VY: That’s always nice when that happens. It makes you feel like you know what you’re doing, or you’re doing something helpful.
TR: I went into the field feeling like I could be good at this. I’m good with people, so I was optimistic, and the initial response from clients gave me a lot of optimism. But as time went on,
I gradually realized to my disappointment that a fair amount of my clients were not improving.
I gradually realized to my disappointment that a fair amount of my clients were not improving. And when I started to try to assess overall how many that was, it was about 50%. I call that “my other 50%.” There’s some of them who responded a little, and then just plateaued. There’s some of them who deteriorated—they actually got worse during treatment—and then there are also a fair amount, at least a quarter of them, who just dropped out.
VY: Dropouts are certainly a big problem for almost all therapists. I certainly recall, especially early in my career, I had a file of dropouts that came once or twice, and it was a pretty thick file.
TR: Yeah. It’s something we don’t always like to talk about but it is pretty universal across therapists.
VY: So you took the initiative to take a frank look at this, and what did you find?
TR: Well, I spent a number of years throughout my training trying to figure out what was going wrong and then how could I improve. Specifically, how could I reach the 50% of clients that I wasn’t helping effectively? And I started going back to the traditional method of clinical supervision. I was doing the same clinical supervision that pretty much every graduate student does, where they’re meeting weekly with their supervisor for an hour or two individually, and then also with a group.


I’d often feel like I was getting better, and I was learning the theory better, so I could write better papers about psychotherapy, or I could talk in more sophisticated ways about psychotherapy, but the percentage of my clients actually improving stayed the same.
I was very fortunate that throughout my training I had really good supervisors. I know that’s not always the case, but every year of my graduate training I had supervisors who were very open, very collaborative, very encouraging. They had really good advice and understood psychotherapy theory and technique well, but I found that though I was getting all of this great advice from them and my peers in group supervision, my effectiveness was not actually improving.

I’d often feel like I was getting better, and I was learning the theory better, so I could write better papers about psychotherapy, or I could talk in more sophisticated ways about psychotherapy, but the percentage of my clients actually improving stayed the same.
VY: It sounds like one thing you did was actually track your data, which is something most of us don’t do. We rely more on the second form of feedback you described: Do we feel good about what we’re doing? Can we talk about it intelligently? Do our peers seem to respect us? But that’s not really what we’re in the field for.
TR: Our whole field suffers from a lack of outcome data at the individual therapist level. We have lots of data from randomized clinical trials which show you how therapists do in these tightly controlled circumstances. And we have some data from research collaboratives where they’ll track a large group of therapists over time. But pretty much no therapist individually tracks their own outcome data, or reports it to the public. So nobody really knows how effective they or other therapists are. We know how well we can talk about therapy, or how well we can write about therapy, or how well we can theorize about therapy, but imagine if you could never see a basketball player play, you could only hear them talk about how well they played. Or you could never hear a violinist perform, you could only hear them talk about it.

Imagine if you could never see a basketball player play, you could only hear them talk about how well they played.
This is a real problem in our field. Imagine learning to paint, but you’re never able to show your paintings to anyone. You would just describe them to someone and say, “In this painting I used a lot of green. It might have been too much. Do you think I should have used less?”
VY: When I produced my first video, and then got in the business of producing training videos, what I used to say is, imagine a dental student going to a lecture about dentistry, or about a certain technique like doing fillings, and then going off to perform the filling in a private room, and then meeting with a supervisor a week later to discuss what they did. Would you risk getting a filling from such a person? That’s the problem we’re dealing with. And that was one of the things that motivated me to start producing videos of expert therapists doing therapy.

So you were aware of this problem and used the traditional tools available for developing skills as a therapist: clinical supervision, reading, talking with colleagues.
TR: Going to workshops.
VY: But you still found that your client outcome data wasn’t getting better. How did you track your client outcome data?
TR: I was using one of the simpler outcome measures called the “Outcome Ratings Scale” that as well developed by Scott Miller and Barry Duncan and others, and is part of what’s called “Feedback Informed Treatment.” It’s very accessible—it’s free and can be downloaded from their websites. It lets therapists over time track how well each client is doing, and then if they get enough data, let’s say 30 to 50 clients, they can look at how well are they doing as a therapist overall.
VY: Once you got your data, what did you do then?
TR:

Deliberate Practice

Honestly, I just started casting about, trying everything I could get my hands on. I went to lots of different workshops, read lots of different books and got supervision from different people. I was in a supervision group with you, as you well know, where we actually used some of the methods of deliberate practice, though we didn’t call them that. In retrospect, I can see that they were, and we can talk about that later on.

But there’s one supervisor in particular I found, Jonathan Frederickson, who was trained as a classical musician, and as a musician he used the method of deliberate practice. He integrated deliberate practice into his supervision and I found that working with him, using those methods, that it really improved my effectiveness more directly.
VY: Can you define what deliberate practice is and where it came from?
TR: Sure. Did you ever learn a musical instrument?
VY: Depends what you mean by learn, but I tried. And achieved a very low level of mastery with a few instruments.
TR: What instruments?
VY: Piano. Clarinet. Banjo. Harmonica.
TR: So imagine you went to your piano teacher and you said, “I want to be really good at piano. In fact, I want to be a professional pianist. But I just don’t have time to practice. I’m hoping you can assign me some books so I can get better. We’ll meet once a week, and then in a few years I’d like to have some performances.” What do you think your piano instructor would say?
VY: If I could say that with a straight face, I’m sure I’d be laughed out of the room.
TR: Exactly. As part of learning piano you did deliberate practice. Did you ever learn a sport in school or college?
VY: Sure. I played tennis and I’m engaged in some deliberate practice of tennis these days. I have a weekly lesson and am playing during the week and trying to get better, but it’s very difficult.
TR: Well, imagine you went to your tennis coach and said, “I want to play tennis at a professional level, but I just don’t have time to practice. I mean, who has time for that? So let’s meet once a week. Give me some books I can read and I’ll make it work.” They would, again, laugh you out of the room, right?

Most people have experience with deliberate practice, they just do it in other fields. Many fields use deliberate practice as a core part of training—not just to be a professional, but to achieve basic competence, to achieve moderate expertise, and then to achieve full expertise.
VY: So what does that mean in a psychotherapy practice?
TR: Deliberate practice is a term invented by K. Anders Ericsson and colleagues in the early ‘90s. They were trying to figure out how experts achieved their expertise across a broad range of fields—musicians, athletes, chess masters, pilots, you name it—and they isolated only one variable that predicted expertise: solitary deliberate practice.

Deliberate practice is based on five principles. The first is observing your own work. So in psychotherapy that would be watching videotapes of your own work, or having an expert observe your work.

Second is getting expert feedback on the work. So that’s supervision or consultation.

The third is setting small incremental learning goals just beyond our ability. In tennis, that is turning your wrist a little to the left, or in piano it would be just working on this one note.
In psychotherapy, we talk about broad things like trying to improve the working alliance, but there are a hundred skills that fall under that broad umbrella.
In psychotherapy, we talk about broad things like trying to improve the working alliance, but there are a hundred skills that fall under that broad umbrella.

The fourth component is repetitive behavioral rehearsal of those specific skills. So when you’re playing tennis you’ve got the ball machine shooting balls at you and you’re just hitting the balls again and again and again. That’s your repetitive behavioral rehearsal. It lets you move the skills that you’re learning into behavioral memory, procedural memory, so that they can begin to happen automatically, which frees up your mind to think about more complicated parts of the game.

The fifth component of deliberate practice is continually assessing performance. That’s something we do subjectively in psychotherapy, but there’s a lot of research to show that our subjective assessments of client outcome are not terribly accurate.
VY: One thing you say in your book, which I find quite refreshing, is, “I am not a master clinician. I am not a master therapist.” Why did you write that?
TR: Well, I wanted to be very clear. This is not a book by an expert therapist and this wasn’t me imparting my wisdom about my therapy techniques. I am a beginner. I am relatively new to the field. However, I am obsessed with becoming a more effective therapist. I might not ever become an expert therapist. I might not ever become a master therapist. That’s okay. As long as I keep getting better, I feel really good about that. So I really wanted to frame this book from the very beginning as one about just trying to improve.
VY: How did you start learning about deliberate practice and then implementing it for yourself?
TR: Well, I should say that I actually found out about deliberate practice when I interviewed Scott Miller for Psychotherapy.net. In that interview, Scott Miller talked about deliberate practice for psychotherapists, and it was the first time I had ever heard of it. So he should get credit. He is the first psychologist to consider this for our field and he worked on this from the ground up.

My supervisor at the time only would supervise therapists who videotaped their work. He said the reason was that there’s so much nonverbal communication going on. A lot of it is totally unconscious. Unless we can see what’s happening in therapy, as well as hear it, we just don’t really know what’s going on. And as I showed him videotapes of my work, there were multiple instances where the transcript of the session looked like good therapy. It read like good therapy. But the nonverbal communication showed that the client wasn’t progressing at all.
VY: You give several examples of that in your book. Can you give us one now?
TR:
I found that I had a bunch of clients who were basically complying with me. They were pretending to go along with therapy.
I found that I had a bunch of clients who were basically complying with me. They were pretending to go along with therapy. They would answer my questions. They would think about themselves, but they weren’t really struggling within themselves. They were appeasing me and kind of assuming, “If I give Tony what he wants, somehow magically I’m going to feel better.”

And I was going along with this. In fact, sometimes I was even cutting them off. I was talking over them. That’s another thing you can’t see in a transcript. Sometimes my tone of voice was very strong. Theirs was very meek. You can’t catch that in a transcript. Sometimes I would be sitting forward, with a lot of intention in my seat, and they would be sitting back kind of passively. In psychodynamic therapy, we call these “transference dynamics.” Each model of therapy has a different way of discussing the relational dynamics between the client and the therapist, but I found that by watching video I was able to identify all kinds of mistakes I didn’t realize I was making.
VY: It takes courage to look at yourself and have someone else observe you.
TR: Thank you, but it felt more like desperation than courage. I got into this field because I really wanted to help people, and I had a lot of clients that I really cared about. I really wanted to help them but I wasn’t. Sometimes they’d drop out and sometimes they’d deteriorate, and that really pained me.

I could give you another example. Role-plays are another great way of getting direct observation of your work and we would do role-plays in the consultation group you and I were in together. You observed while I was role-playing with one of the other group members that my voice was kind of forced.
VY: Yes.
TR: Do you remember?
VY: I do remember it, yeah.
TR:
My voice sounded like someone trying to be a therapist rather than just being a real person.
I was trying to be a therapist. And my voice sounded like someone trying to be a therapist rather than just being a real person.
VY: Right.
TR: That would have never shown up in a transcript. What you advised me to do is to work on this specific skill. We isolated the specific skill. You said, “Just try talking naturally, Tony. Just try saying whatever you’d say naturally.” And if you remember, it was hard. It took a lot of practice for me to do that. I don’t know if I ever told you this, but I went back after that group and I watched video after video of my clients and I practiced just talking naturally to my clients in the videos.
VY: You just sat by yourself and practiced saying the words aloud?
TR: Yeah.
VY: Wow. So that’s an example of solitary deliberate practice. You were just sitting by yourself with a video and practicing speaking.
TR: Exactly. In most other fields, the bulk of the training actually occurs during solitary deliberate practice. So a professional musician might get coaching a few hours a week, but then they’re spending 20 hours a week practicing on their own. The same with an athlete. Same with a master chess player. And that is something that we do not have in our field. We spend time reading about psychotherapy a lot. But we don’t spend time practicing skills ourselves, so the skills don’t move into procedural memory, and then we’re often left floundering in session.
VY: I remember that term procedural memory from graduate school, but I don’t remember what it is. Can you refresh our readers about what it means and why it’s important?
TR: When you ride a bike you are using procedural memory. When you drive a car you’re using procedural memory. It’s when your body just remembers automatically how to do something, because you’ve done it so many hours. It’s automatic. So you can think about other things while you’re driving—like how to get to your destination—because your body knows how to make turns and yield and stop at the light.

Now, that can be a double-edged sword. My wife points out quite frequently that my driving is not always so great. But it’s in procedural memory, so I do it automatically. We want to get the skills into procedural memory, but then we want to also keep refining them throughout time, or else we stay stuck at the same plateau.
VY: Getting back to deliberate practice, so the first step is observing your own work, and one way to do it is through video. Getting expert feedback is step two, and you were getting some feedback from your supervisor about your work via video. The next step is setting small incremental learning goals just beyond your abilities. How do you do that?
TR: Ideally that’s done by the supervisor. In the group supervision we were in, you identified my voice being forced, which was something I couldn’t hear in myself. You showed me how to improve that and then let me practice it. In the group, you gave me little tweaks here and there. Try a little of this, a little of that. And then I took it home to practice on my own with the solitary deliberate practice. Ideally we’re getting that kind of corrective feedback that focuses on specific incremental skills throughout our careers. That’s how you learn pretty much any other skill.
VY: In any other field you’re getting constant feedback. If you’re a lawyer, you’re observing your senior try a case and you’re sitting next to him and maybe you’re getting up and doing some things and they’re observing you. If you’re in plumbing, you’re an apprentice plumber, you’re going to watch a master, they’re going to watch you. We’re about the only field that I can think of where that doesn’t happen on a regular basis.
TR: I think we actually work in one of the most secret fields on the planet, though not intentionally so.
I think we actually work in one of the most secret fields on the planet.
I mean, obviously there’s confidentiality rules and that kind of thing, but even CIA agents in deep cover every few years get some kind of performance review. But I could go the next 30 years without ever having anyone give a meaningful look at my work. We’re required to do continuing education units, but that’s generally about cognitive learning, which is valuable for learning new laws or new theories, but a lot of research has shown that it doesn’t translate to improved skills or effectiveness with clients.
VY: You cite a lot of evidence in your book that even years of clinical experience don’t lead to improved performance.
TR:

The Audience Can Tell the Difference

Researchers have been looking into this for decades. There’s literally decades of research and they’re trying every which way to show that experience improves performance. But except for isolated cases here and there—for example, experienced clinicians can do better with severely psychotic clients—experience is not associated with improved performance.

I think this can be possibly explained by the fact that we do not as a field engage with ongoing deliberate practice. You could take a professional basketball player and if you tell them that they’re not allowed to practice anymore, and then ask them to play 10 years later, they’re not going to be as good.

My friend plays for the symphony in Washington, DC, and she practices two hours a day, six days a week. She’s at the very top of her field and she still practices. She’s getting close to retiring. She still practices. I asked her why she still practices and she said, “If I go a day without practicing, I can tell the difference. If I go two days without practicing, my peers can tell the difference. If I go three days without practicing, the audience can tell the difference.”
VY: The evidence is compelling, but it flies in the face of what we as clinicians think. Most of us feel a lot more confident ten or twenty years into our practice. We feel like we know so much more, not only from our clinical work, but from our life experience. We can empathize with a broader range of clients because we have a broader range of experiences ourselves. We’re not so anxious in session, worrying about how clients are going to think of us, and whether they are going to see how young and inexperienced we are. So it just feels like we are much better therapists. Yet you’re saying that the evidence does not bear that out.
TR: Well, the evidence shows that there’s a lot of variability. Some therapists do improve in time. But some get worse over time. And because we’re typically not tracking our outcome data from an empirical perspective, it’s hard for us to know. We have a lot of cognitive biases, not because we’re bad people, but because it’s the way our brains were built. So it’s risky to trust your own private perception of your work over time without ever getting feedback.

Unfortunately relying on our clients’ opinions is not entirely reliable either. There’s been many studies showing that clients will routinely not tell their therapists when they’re not doing well. In fact, Matt Blanchard and Barry Farber at Columbia University did a study of over 500 clients and found that 93% of them reported having lied to their therapist. Negative reactions to therapy was one of the most common topics they lied about, including pretending to find therapy effective, and not admitting wanting to end therapy.

Now, almost every client I have in my practice has been in multiple previous therapies that they found to be marginally effective or not effective at all. They probably did not tell their previous therapist this. I can tell you, I have a lot of dropouts. I’ve had an overall 25% dropout rate across my career.
Almost none of my clients tell me that I’m not helping them before they drop out. They just leave.
Almost none of my clients tell me that I’m not helping them before they drop out. They just leave. These are the clients we need feedback from the most. Clients who are like, “Oh, this is helping so much!” are not as helpful with their feedback.
VY: Are you still using the same forms to get feedback from your clients?
TR: I use a variety of forms—the session rating scale and some others. I’m always experimenting with different ways of getting feedback from clients and also from experts—but what I do most now is record all of my sessions through video and then get expert feedback on the sessions.
VY: And when you have dropouts, if you look back on those rating forms, do you see warnings signs?
TR: Yes. There often are, but not always. Many clients feel pressure to be nice to their therapist. Look, when I’m at a restaurant and I don’t really like the food, and they come around and ask me how’s the food, I don’t often say, “It’s kind of crappy.” I usually say, “Oh, it’s fine.”
VY: So let’s get back to the final two steps of deliberate practice: engaging in repetitive behavioral rehearsal and continuously assessing performance. How have you gone about doing that?
TR:

Jazzing it Up

So the first three steps we’ve covered are usually pretty easy for therapists to understand, but I often lose them when I talk about repetitive behavioral rehearsal. They’re like, “Psychotherapy is a relational art. Every session is different. Every relationship is unique. This isn’t just playing chess and moving pieces around. It’s not football or basketball where the net is always in the same place. Our clients change their goals every session. We work in an infinitely complex field. So, how can we repetitively practice behavioral skills?”

A metaphor I like to use is jazz. Jazz is the kind of music that utilizes improvisation as an inherent part of the craft. But jazz musicians don’t just sit down and start randomly doing whatever they want on their instruments. To become a jazz musician, you actually go through very rigorous training where you’re learning standardized ways of playing your instrument. You’re learning the same notes as everyone else. You’re learning the same theory as everyone else. You’re practicing the same way as everyone else. And when all those musical skills are moved into procedural memory, you’re then able to improvise with other performers.
VY: That’s why I never got too far with clarinet, because I wanted to improvise. I just wanted to be able to improvise like jazz, but I wasn’t willing to spend the hundreds or thousands of hours playing the scales.
TR: There’s been a lot of research that shows that slavishly adhering to psychotherapy models, kind of following them cookbook style, or doing exactly what’s in the manual with every client, actually leads to worse outcomes. So that doesn’t help either.

There’s a tricky balance where on one hand you know the skills, you’ve internalized the skills, you’ve practiced the skills. But then on the other hand, you’re very adaptable and reflexive to the client.
VY: I think what you’ve pointed out is not obvious to therapists at all, because we just don’t have that in our professional culture, in our training. As you said, so much of the focus is on theory, on reading books, on writing papers, on being able to sound intelligent in class or seminars or group supervision. What are the actual skills to practice?
TR: Many people assume that since they’ve gotten lots of face-to-face hours with clients that that should count as practice. To get a degree and get licensed, typically you have to have hundreds or thousands of hours with clients.

It only counts as practice if there isn’t a real client in front of you.
Something K. Anders Ericsson and the other researchers on expertise found was that it only counts as practice if there isn’t a real client or real engagement in front of you. So a basketball player playing a game doesn’t count as practice. A musician performing doesn’t count as practice. A chess player playing a match doesn’t count as practice. That’s all considered performance. And the reason is that during performance you can’t isolate a specific skill, and you can’t repeat it again and again and again while getting feedback.
VY: I see that in tennis. I’ve spent years trying to learn a top-spin backhand, and yet when I play matches, I’m worried about winning the point. I default to hitting a slice. I don’t do what I’ve learned.
TR: Well that takes us back to procedural memory. When we’re in moments of what we call emotional arousal, your brain immediately goes to procedural memory. That is why it’s important to practice these skills behaviorally and repeat them hundreds and hundreds of times until they’re moved into procedural memory—so you can perform them in those moments of emotional arousal.

In psychotherapy, we work in states of very high emotional arousal. We help clients who are suffering intensely. And we feel that suffering while we’re sitting with them. So we will go almost immediately into procedural memory.
VY: We don’t have a lot of experience or knowledge about how to practice skills that are fundamental in the psychotherapy enterprise. How did you figure this out since there wasn’t a manual for you?
TR: Most fields have taken hundreds of years to figure out models and methods for deliberate practice. I’m hoping that we can start this. Because there wasn’t already a model or method for doing it, I focused on what’s called “facilitative interpersonal behaviors.” These are behaviors that have been shown by research to be effective in therapy across a wide range of models. You can think of them as the basics of psychotherapy. Many of them have to do with attunement with the clients in session, components of the working alliance.

A lot of research shows again and again that the quality of the working alliance in therapy contributes ten times more to outcome than the model or anything else. Bruce Wampold has written a lot about this in his books. He calls it “the contextual model for psychotherapy,” where he focuses on facilitative interpersonal behaviors. An example of that would be tone of voice. I’ve noticed that if I’m not careful I can start speaking louder than my clients. I can talk over them. I can basically overpower them with my voice. This is sometimes due to my own anxiety that goes up in session due sometimes to what they’re presenting, or my own counter-transference.
VY: How do you work on that?
TR: I sit with my own videos, especially videos of clients that I find stir up my own anxiety, and I will practice talking to the video in a level voice. I want to be engaged.
VY: You’ll literally be watching a video and just practice speaking?
TR: Yes. If someone saw me doing that, they would think I was crazy. But think of it like a basketball player shooting, practicing free throws. They’ll just sit there doing it again and again and again, and they might do a hundred a day. So I’ll spend 15 minutes just practicing speaking to videos of clients who I find I have some anxiety with when in session with them.
VY: So you’re experimenting with different tones of voice, and kind of get that into your body, into your procedural memory.
TR: Yes. Another thing I’ll do is I’ll watch videos where there’s clients who are stalled, deteriorating, something’s not going well. I’ll watch the sessions with the volume off. And I will take notes about everything I see in terms of their body language. And as I watch that, I’ll also notice my own anxiety. Does my own anxiety go up or down based on their body language?
VY: Your anxiety in the session, or your anxiety as you’re—
TR: Watching the video.
VY: Your anxiety as you’re sitting there watching the video?
TR: Yeah. I found this very surprising at first, but just watching my own videos was incredibly mobilizing of my own anxiety, my own feelings, and my own defenses. Every therapist I’ve talked with who watches videos of their own work also finds it to be quite challenging emotionally.

It’s exposing ourselves to ourselves, and in a way that we normally aren’t. And that’s one of the reasons it’s difficult to videotape and then watch your own work. So if I can sit there watching the video and noticing the body language and noticing my own anxiety, those are two different skills I’m working on. If I can do enough of that so it moves to procedural memory when I’m sitting with the real clients in front of me, it’ll be that much easier to do those skills in the background, so I can focus on something else.
VY: And what impact did that have on your work? How did you know or notice that that was actually helping you?
TR: Well, one thing I noticed is that I have a butt-load of anxiety with a lot of my clients. And I was shocked to find out. At first I was incredibly embarrassed. I didn’t want to tell anyone. And then I realized that some people could tell anyways when I talked about it with them. And then I thought, keeping it secret is not going to help anyone.
One thing I noticed is that I have a butt-load of anxiety with a lot of my clients. And I was shocked to find out.
And then I realized most therapists have some degree of emotional reaction. I’m a psychodynamic therapist; we call this “counter-transference.” But I also found that there’s a certain level of anxiety that’s kind of universal working with all of my clients. So I don’t know if it’s individual counter-transference from a certain client, or it’s just me.

Some of it might be a sympathetic reaction to what the client is bringing up. Some of it is just my own material. Some of it is wanting to do a good job. And there’s just a certain level of anxiety always going up and down within me during a session. I’m still not really good at this, but I’ve gotten better at tracking that in the background during the session. I can use it psychodiagnostically. So if a client is talking about something that really bothers them, but they’re good at hiding it in their words or even nonverbals, I can often feel their anxiety within me. A sympathetic reaction to their anxiety within me. There’s a clue there.
VY: Using yourself as a tool.
TR: Exactly. When I talk about deliberate practice, people often assume I’m talking about CBT or behavioral therapy, but that’s not accurate. The most benefit I’ve gotten from the deliberate practice methods has been with the more dynamic interpersonal/intrapersonal aspects of therapy.
VY: What do you mean by that?
TR: The more subtle, intuitive sense of myself and the transference roles being played out between me and the client, what I feel pulled to do with the client, how that might be repeating old problematic patterns from the client’s life. How my own counter-transference might be getting stirred up, and I might be guiding the client towards or away from material in ways that are unhelpful. How I might be retreating.

I’ll give you another example. A supervisor once pointed out that I was being critical of a client. I was horrified by this. Horrified. My job is to be empathic, not critical. And if you read the transcript, I was not coming across as critical. In the transcript, I was coming across as very supportive. But he said, “Listen to your voice. It’s critical right here.” I was embarrassed to admit it, but I actually had a sharp edge in my voice. And that was due to my own counter-transference.
VY: Whether you use the term counter-transference or not, or whether you work with a model that has transference or counter-transference or intersubjectivity, or as an important part of a theoretical model, those things are happening anyway.
TR: Yes.
VY: There are feelings between client and therapist that you’re feeling drawn orcompel us to do compelled with certain thing with certain clientsclients to do certain things, whether you act on them or not, whether it’s to support them, whether it’s to tell them what to do. Whether you feel detached or bored. Or whether they pull on your anxiety in one way or the other. Those types of dynamics are always occurring, whether you’re paying attention to them or not.
TR: Many of us know this from reading the theory, but we haven’t practiced actually noticing it in the moment. We practice it with real clients, but that doesn’t count as practice. So, one of the ways that I have addressed this is I’ll sit and watch videos of clients where, again, they’re stalled or deteriorating. And I will just write down what do I feel pulled to do. Do I feel pulled to save them? To criticize them? To support them? Or what role do I kind of want to be in with them?

And over time, doing this again and again, and again, I’ve built my ability to observe that as it happens in session.
VY: So the final idea in deliberate practice is continuously assessing performance. Usually we think that most of our training belongs in graduate school or early in our careers, when we’re interns or psych assistants, accumulating our hours. But you believe that if we want to achieve our maximum proficiency, we should be like other professions and keep doing whatever is necessary to get to the top of our game.
TR: In pretty much every other profession, professionals have to engage in continual deliberate practice throughout their entire career. And if they don’t, they stall, and then gradually decrease in effectiveness.
VY: Let me just challenge you on that. If you’re a professional athlete or musician, yes, you’re going to spend hours a day practicing. Most other professions, I think, you don’t do that. If you’re a surgeon, you do surgery. If you’re a lawyer, you do legal work. You’re not setting aside time to actually practice being a lawyer or a surgeon.
TR:

Competency vs. Excellence

Surgeons actually do set aside time now, and they engage in repetitive behavioral simulations. For other fields, including psychotherapy, it is possible to stay at a level of competence without deliberate practice. So I believe most therapists are competent. In fact, by the end of graduate training, most therapists are competent. Overall, the outcome data for psychotherapy is pretty good. It compares favorably to medicine in many ways. Our deterioration rate of 5 to 10% is actually not horrible. The rate of complications or side effects is very low. The rate of legal problems, people suing us, is relatively low. Overall, we perform a competent service, right? And you can stay an absolutely competent therapist your entire career without using deliberate practice.

Now if you’re an accountant, you might not need to get better. Being competent might be totally fine for your livelihood. Or if you’re a lawyer, being competent might be totally fine for your livelihood. And I’ve met musicians who don’t engage in deliberate practice. They’ve found a level of competence which works for them and they’re totally happy with that. That’s totally fine. For me, it’s not satisfying. It wasn’t satisfying. And it still isn’t satisfying. But that doesn’t mean that it has to be appropriate for everyone.
VY:
You can stay an absolutely competent therapist your entire career without using deliberate practice.
I know that for several years your wife got a job at the University of Fairbanks and you were up there with a lot of darkness. And you used that time productively by learning about deliberate practice and some of these exercises you’ve just described. For therapists that are reading this and are intrigued, and do have that desire to up their game, in addition to reading your book—which is wonderful and well-written and also very funny at times—what would you advise them to do in terms of utilizing these principles?
TR: I’d recommend a few things. One is record your work. Video is really the most effective way of doing that. Using video for consultation supervision is now becoming more and more recommended across the field, and I have advice in the book about how to start videotaping your work. I want to emphasize that this is especially true for psychodynamic therapists, who are traditionally the most resistant to reporting their work.
VY: A lot of therapists worry that their clients will be put off by that.
TR: There’s been a bunch of research on this, and they’ve found that clients in general don’t mind. The client wants to get better. That’s really what the client is thinking about. I don’t mandate recording video for all my clients. I always ask them and it’s always optional and 10 or 20 percent say they don’t want to do it. I don’t argue with them about it.
VY: So you think it’s the therapists who are more uncomfortable about it?
TR: The research shows that, absolutely. Mark Hilsenroth, a psychodynamic researcher, and colleagues did a study recently where they gave the clients questionnaires about using video, and most of the clients were like, “fine, no problem.” They just want to feel better. When I go to the doctor, I’m like “do whatever you got to do.” I want to feel better. That’s what I’m thinking about. However, they also gave the questionnaires to therapists, and they found that when the therapist was uncomfortable with video, the clients were more likely to be uncomfortable with video.

I almost got fired from one of my first supervision jobs because other supervisors were uncomfortable with me using video. Therapists can be very uncomfortable with it, which I find to be quite ironic. Because the clients don’t seem to mind much.
VY: How do you introduce it to clients?
TR: I’m very upfront with the client. I say, “ I’m a human being, I make mistakes like everyone else. And if we record the session, and I can look at the videos later, or show them to experts for consultation, I have a much higher chance of spotting my mistakes. And then we can address them and then I can help you more.”
VY: It makes so much sense. And as you say it now, I recall early in my career, maybe in my internship when we audio recorded our sessions, the idea that I might make mistakes, or that I was getting supervision or consultation, filled me with a lot of anxiety. I think that’s more reflective of the state of anxiety that many beginning therapists feel. And as you mature you realize you’re not perfect, that you don’t help everyone, that there’s always more to learn. Certainly a maxim in psychotherapy is that there is no end to what clients can learn about themselves. There’s certainly no end to what therapists can learn about themselves, including how to be a better therapist.
TR: I’ve found through watching years of my own tapes that if I work with a client for two or three sessions, I’ve already made a mistake. Honestly, I probably made a mistake in the first session, which sometimes can take two or three sessions for me to see. So if I’m not seeing my own mistakes by the third session, it means I’m missing something. And I’m okay with that.
I don’t think being an expert means never making mistakes.
I don’t think being an expert means never making mistakes. It means knowing how to spot your mistakes and correct for them in a timely way.
VY: All right. So you’d encourage therapists first to start video recording their sessions. And then what?
TR: To get expert feedback from someone that they trust. It’s got to be someone you feel good about it. A good supervisor is able to get under your skin. You were able to notice something in my voice. And that’s personal, that’s intimate. And it was okay because I trusted you. We had a good relationship. Without a relationship like that, it’s going to be hard to get the necessary feedback. Ideally it’s a long-term relationship. A lot of our trainings are these one-off weekends or series of two or three weekends, where you’re getting a big knowledge dump, but no one is looking at your work. You’re not getting individualized feedback. And then you’re not getting ongoing long-term feedback. But that’s what’s necessary for the skills to improve.
VY: I think that may be changing. Some of the approaches that we’ve just been making videos of—motivational interviewing and emotionally-focused couples therapy— actually have a lot of that integrated into their ongoing training, where you have to submit samples of your work and get feedback on it. But what you’re saying makes a lot of sense.

Research shows that most therapists think they’re well above average, which statistically is impossible. How do we then go about choosing a supervisor, a consultant, who is good?
TR: This is tricky because I don’t know any supervisor who tracks their outcome data or reports it to people who are approaching them for supervision. At this point all we can really go off of is our gut sense, and occasionally we can watch videos of our supervisor’s work. I found you because I met you and had a good feeling about you. And then as we did supervision together I found it was helpful. But ideally we’ll have a more empirically rigorous way of assessing that in the future.
VY: I tell therapy clients to meet with a therapist a few times. If it doesn’t feel helpful, you may want to discuss with them what feels good, what doesn’t feel good, and see if they’re open and receptive to hearing that. If they’re not, or the therapy doesn’t feel helpful, try someone else. It’s too important not to.

So get a coach, supervisor, a consultant. And then what?
TR:

Track Your Outcomes!

Another thing I recommend doing is tracking your own outcomes, and then using some kind of empirical measure to do that. The outcome ratings scale is a great measure to use. It’s free. It’s easy to use. There are dozens of other measures available. There’s the Outcome Questionnaire. There’s the Behavioral Health Measure. There’s measures made for different settings, like universities, or working with children. And accumulate your own outcome data over time. And over years you’ll start to get a picture of how effective your practice is.

One of the reasons I started doing this is I had a supervisor look at my work and she thought I was doing horrible work. In fact, she said, “You want to kill your clients.” I was shocked. I knew I had made mistakes but I didn’t think I was that bad. But I didn’t have any data; it was just one opinion versus another. This is one of the reasons I doubled down on collecting my outcome data. After a year I had enough outcome data to look at my practice and see that overall I was helping the majority of my clients.

I definitely still have dropouts and deteriorations, but it helped my self-assessment be more level. Before then, there were some weeks I felt like Superman. I felt like everyone was getting better. And then some weeks where it seemed like everyone was getting worse. Of course, neither was ever true.
VY: But we certainly have days like that. If you’re in private practice and you have a few dropouts, or a few no-shows, it’s hard not to feel like something is wrong with you. So getting long-term outcome data is kind of a buffer for that.
TR: I found that my outcomes at my private practice in San Francisco were pretty good. The outcomes at the university counseling center in Alaska were not as good.
The outcome data never looks all good. And it never looks all bad.
Maybe that was due to the setting, the clients, maybe it was due to the darkness. Maybe it was because I was on the edge of being depressed because I was in the middle of Alaska. I mean, it could have been any number of things. Back here in Seattle, the outcome data is looking a little better. But importantly the outcome data never looks all good. And it never looks all bad.
VY: So it’s not so bad that you think you should hang up your shingle. And it’s not so good that you think, “I nailed this. I can coast.”
TR: Yes. Correct.
VY: So people start recording their sessions, getting a consultant in a long-term relationship, but the rubber meets the road with deliberate practice. What would you recommend to help people get over the initial hurdle, because I imagine it’s a big hurdle to actually sit down and do some of these solo exercises that you recommend.
TR:

“It’s the thing I look forward to least in my day”

It is a big hurdle. It’s the thing I look forward to the least in my day. It’s the thing I put off the first in my day. I would rather go to the gym, pay my taxes. In the recent election I was making get out the vote phone calls, which is a very stressful thing to do, and I found that I would do that before my deliberate practice. So it is very, very stressful. And unfortunately in our field it’s not recognized. It’s not rewarded. You’re not compensated for it. Your clients don’t know you’re doing it. Your peers don’t know you’re doing it, or don’t care. A licensure that never asks, or doesn’t care if you do it.
VY: Your spouse may prefer that you go wash the dishes, rather than sit and talk to yourself on video.
TR: Exactly. And to add to that burden is the fact that there are not immediate payoffs. They call deliberate practice short-term effort for long-term gain. So here’s what I do: I think of the therapists who are really, really good who I want to be like. And I know from talking with them that they got that good by engaging in hundreds or thousands of hours of watching their own videos. I’m not smarter than them. I’m not more talented than them. If I ever want to be that good, I’m going to have to put in that time.

The same way that if I wanted to be a really good basketball player, or a really good anything else. It might not make me as good as they are, but it will definitely move me in that direction. I have a reminder that pops up on my computer every day that says, “How good do you want to be in five years?” Now, if that day I don’t really care how good I am in five years, I won’t do it. And that might be fine. I might feel like I’m good enough, and that’s totally fine. But as of today, I still want to be that much better in five years.
VY: Well, I admire what you’re doing. And I’m gratified that I was able to impart some wisdom that was useful to you. It’s lovely to have this conversation and to have been able to read your book and have the tables turned and to be able to learn some very valuable things from you, Tony.
TR: Oh, thank you. To be interviewed by you for your website, it’s a great honor.
VY: I would encourage anyone who finds these ideas interesting to go out and grab your book and read it. Although it is chock full of research citations to back up what you’re saying, it’s not just idle theory. It’s also chock full of funny stories, humorous anecdotes, and I guess I’d like to just leave our audience with one of them. Can you tell the story about the job at the university?
TR:

Professional Identity Politics

Sure. My wife was applying for a job at a university in the West that really wanted to hire her. It was a very small town, and it was full of therapists, so I didn’t think I could just start a private practice there. She’s a wildlife biologist and the ecology department at that university that wanted to hire her were trying to arrange what’s called a “spousal hire,” which is something traditionally done in academic circles when they want to hire a person and there’s a spouse. They call it the “two body problem.” So they went to the university counseling center and they said, “We will give you money, we will pay for the salary if you hire Tony for three years. Part-time. Just so we can get his wife. We don’t care about Tony, but we want his wife, and Tony comes with the wife.” In other words they could have had me as a part-time therapist for three years for free.

We’re more like religions than any kind of public healthcare service.
They asked me to submit videos of my work as part of the application process and I thought, “This is great. I’ve been videotaping my work for years now.” So I sent in some videos and went in for the interview and they were horrified by my work. The style of therapy that I do is short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy. It’s a bit more active and engaged and I work actively with the client’s feelings and defenses. They were doing a more traditional long-term, reflective approach of psychodynamic therapy. When we were watching the video they kept asking, “Do you think this is appropriate for the client?” I kept saying to them, “Why don’t we look at the client outcome data. Why don’t we look at how the client responded?”

It’s like we were having two different conversations. They weren’t really concerned with how the client was responding. They were concerned with the model of therapy I was using. It made me realize that we’re more like religion than any kind of public healthcare service.
VY: You wrote in your book that they weren’t interested in your outcome data any more than a church would want to see how many meals a Buddhist monk had provided to the poor!
TR: Exactly. If we don’t collect our outcome data, if we don’t look at our work, we get unmoored from the outcomes, and we get stuck in professional identity politics where have all these debates about obscure theory because we don’t have actual outcome data to look at. They actually liked me as a person. They said, “You’re such a nice guy. It’s a shame it’s not going to work out.” But they didn’t accept me, and so we couldn’t move there, she didn’t take the job.
VY: The interesting thing is you were both in the general rubric of psychodynamic therapy where oftentimes the clashes are most intense.
TR: Yes.
VY: I had a college roommate who was a Leninist and he would go to some Communist convention. Probably less than a very, very small percentage of the population consider themselves Communist. And instead of coming back with a Kumbaya feeling, he would come back and report to me the big clashes between the Stalinists and the Leninists.

And even now with this emphasis on evidence-based treatments, or so-called evidence-based treatments, there’s a clash often between modalities, not taking into account that the data finds that modalities and theories do not explain outcome.
TR: If anyone ever talks to you about evidence-based treatment, ask them whose evidence. If it’s someone else’s evidence, it is not correlated with your personal outcomes as a therapist. There’s been study after study after study showing that though the models are proven very effective in clinical trials, when taught to therapists they don’t improve the outcomes of individual therapists.
Until evidence means our individual evidence, we’re not really doing evidence-based therapy.
Until evidence means our individual evidence, we’re not really doing evidence-based therapy. We’re working from someone else’s evidence.
VY: Well thank you so much for taking the time to share your journey and your expertise with our readers. Even though you humbly claim not to be an expert therapist, you certainly have accumulated a great deal of expertise on how to become an expert or master therapist.
TR: Yeah, I am learning a lot about how to become one. And thank you for having me. It’s been wonderful.

Note: Tony’s latest article, "What Your Therapist Doesn’t Know," has been been published in The Atlantic.

Tea with Freud: An Imaginary Conversation About How Psychotherapy Really Works

Following is an adapted excerpt from Tea with Freud: An Imaginary Conversation about How Psychotherapy Really Works by Steven B. Sandler. Segments from each of the first three chapters are reprinted here with the author's permission.

I. Where Did the Roses Go?

By the time I reach the apartment building at Berggasse 19, it is nearly two in the afternoon. The sky over Vienna is increasingly cloudy, and the first drops of rain are starting to fall. A young couple walking arm in arm look up at the sky in unison and pick up their pace a bit. Given my destination, it would be fitting to have strident discharges of lightning and thunder, signifying an elemental conflict between earth and sky. Mother Nature is not so inclined today. This is merely a soft spring rain, and I have arrived just in time to avoid getting too wet. I enter by the main door of the building and walk up a long flight of stairs bordered by a wrought iron banister. At the top of the stairs, the door to the apartment suite has his name on it in bold lettering. The door opens, and I am greeted by a maid, a petite young woman who smiles politely but says nothing. I assume that she speaks no English, and I have never studied German. She shyly motions to me to follow her into a waiting room. When we get to a closed set of double doors, she knocks softly and disappears without a word.


“ Good afternoon, please come in.” I am not sure what I was expecting, but I am immediately surprised that he is not taller. After all, this is Sigmund Freud. I am standing before one of the intellectual giants of the Western world, and I am not prepared to meet a man of rather average height. He is very handsomely dressed, of course; his three-piece suit is accompanied by a bowtie that is partly hidden, tucked beneath the collar of a clean white shirt. His whole demeanor is professional and confident, but his unremarkable height is not what I have anticipated. I suppose I have traveled to Vienna with some sort of childlike notion of a man who is larger than life, a father figure staring down at me—at all of us—from an Olympian peak. Instead, I find myself eye to eye with Freud, a man no bigger than myself.

“It is an honor to meet you, Professor Freud. Thank you so much for agreeing to speak with me. I know how busy you must be.”

“It is my pleasure.” He is just the age at which I always imagine him. He is neither the forty-year-old with the thick, dark beard and relentless ambition, nor the frail eighty-year-old who is struggling with oral cancer and packing his belongings to escape the Nazis. Someplace in his late fifties, perhaps sixty or so, this is the Freud who has clearly established himself as a major thinker. He is still strong and healthy, and still capable of producing more important work.

I am at least twenty years his junior, still in my thirties; curiously, I feel even younger standing before him. For a brief moment, I glimpse a memory of myself sitting in the library of the Capital District Psychiatric Center in Albany. I can see myself as a psychiatry resident, sitting at a small desk with a volume of Freud’s work open in front of me. There was something in those pages that confirmed for me that my decision to switch from pediatrics into psychiatry was the right move. Freud was trying to go beyond the classification of symptoms and diseases, beyond the typical treatments of his day (water baths, massage, and rest cures), beyond giving the patient suggestions under hypnosis—You can move your arm!—to arrive at an understanding of the root of the problem. He wanted to comprehend the mysteries of the psyche. I remember sitting in that library, paging through his book, feeling like I was being initiated into a very selective secret society whose membership was limited to intrepid explorers of the mind.

Now I am standing before him, and he looks at me directly for a long moment, as if he is already engaged in a psychological calculus of my character. Naturally, I am taking a measure of him as well, trying to read what I can in his eyes. Although he is a man of ordinary height, there is nothing ordinary about his gaze. He looks at me with the eyes of someone with an immense capacity for concentrating on one object at a time, and presently that object is me. There is obvious intelligence in those eyes, of course, and a look of relentless curiosity. Here is a man who can ponder a question for years: What is anxiety? He can wrestle with such a question tirelessly, and he can continually revise his understanding of it. He has a very direct gaze, a look of someone who is neither afraid to see nor afraid to be seen. For a brief moment, I think back and puzzle over something I once read about him. In one of his books, he wrote that he sat to the side of the couch, out of the patient’s view, because he could not stand to have people staring at him all day long. After one long moment of meeting his gaze, I have trouble believing this.

I can imagine that his eyes might be unnerving to some people, but there is warmth in them, too, and it would not be hard to imagine him breaking into laughter and making a joke. I find myself wondering why the photographs of him always show such a stern expression. He is not smiling or laughing at the moment, but there is nothing severe about his gaze. Something in his look makes me feel welcomed as well as analyzed. I wonder for a moment what I convey to my own patients when I look at them sitting across from me in my office back in Albany.

“Come take a seat, and we will have a nice chat. You have traveled far. New York State, yes?” His English is quite good. Accented, but good. My first impression of his consulting room is that it reminds me of a museum, or perhaps the back office of the museum curator—a cigar-smoking curator, to be sure, as the air is permeated with the smell of cigar smoke. The walls are crowded with framed artwork depicting ancient civilizations and their myths. To my left, there is a painting of Pan, the half-man and half-goat of Greek mythology who caused panic in mortals when they encountered him in the forest. In addition to the paintings, there is Freud’s famous collection of miniature antique statues, sitting on a ledge, on a desk, in glass display cases, or wherever there is a bit of space. These are the little artifacts from around the world that he had acquired over time, and there are legions of them. On one table, I see Egyptian figures standing erect, a large camel, and a couple of sitting Buddha figures among rows of other assorted pieces. One would think, judging by the cluttered profusion of antiquities, that the resident of this place is someone who is far more interested in archeology than psychology.

There are bookshelves, of course, filled with hardcover volumes. On one of the shelves, I notice a photo of a woman. She has a penetrating gaze the equal of his. Surrounded by the collections of weighty books and dead little statues, the woman in the photo looks intensely alive and alert. One of his relatives, perhaps? A sister? But he had several sisters, so it would make no sense to have a photo of only one of them.

“Yes, I live in Albany.” The couch is directly in front of me as I enter, and to the left of the couch, there is a wide green upholstered chair for him to sit in while listening to the “associations” of his patients. Why do I keep looking at the couch? In order to answer my own question, I look once more, and then I allow myself the visceral reaction taking shape within me: “This is it! I am looking at Sigmund Freud’s couch! This is the couch that has symbolized, for well over a century, a guided journey into the center of the human psyche.” This couch was the epicenter of some of the greatest psychological discoveries my profession has ever known. I have to take in every detail of it. There is a large Oriental rug thrown over it, a second rug hanging on the wall behind it, and a third larger one beneath our feet. Of the many colors in the rugs, the reddish browns stand out most to me, giving a very warm feeling to the room. There are large pillows on the couch for the patients to use, as well as a blanket in case of cold drafts in the room. I can barely believe my good fortune at being here.
 

II. The Root of the Problem

My office at Albany Medical Center is a small, boxy allotment of space, but it is sufficient for the necessities of psychotherapy: a desk, an old oak file cabinet (my attempt to bring a little character into the room), several chairs, and a small bookshelf. On top of the bookshelf sits a small plastic figure of Freud, holding his trademark cigar. The room easily accommodates me, Freud, and the friendly young woman sitting across from me. There is also space for a small video camera sitting on a tripod to the left of my seat. The young woman has agreed to let me videotape our sessions and use the tapes for my teaching.

Her name is Carla, and she is twenty-six years old. She has an Italian last name, which agrees quite nicely with her dark hair and dark eyes. She works at our hospital as an x-ray technician. Because this is her day off, she arrives in T-shirt and jeans rather than hospital garb. Even on a casual day off, she obviously takes some pride in her appearance; the bright, clean T-shirt is a colorful promotion for the New York Yankees, and the jeans look new. She is pretty, and she smiles the easy smile of someone who is used to having other people respond kindly to her features. She knows that she makes a good impression.

She looks directly at me, and she seems comfortable sitting here, or at least as comfortable as anyone can feel in her first psychotherapy appointment. She wastes no time in announcing her agenda for our first meeting. She reports that she is chronically nervous, and she finds it difficult to relax. (In today’s terms, she has a generalized anxiety disorder; Freud would have called it a neurosis.) She has a second problem that is even more disturbing to her than the anxiety. She gets angry at her fiancé and says mean things to him, words that he does not deserve. She just cannot control what she says when she gets angry. She has no idea why she is so nasty to him, but she knows that it bothers her, and she fears that her behavior will end the relationship before the wedding date ever arrives. She knows that she needs to get help with this.

So she has anxiety and she has a relationship problem. These are not the root of her problems, of course; they are the symptoms at the surface. Still, it is a good sign that she can state these problems clearly and succinctly. Some people come to therapy and they cannot even articulate a clearly defined problem. They come to the office because a friend or a spouse urged them to make an appointment. They have “a lot of issues,” but they cannot name a single one. They describe all kinds of difficult events they have experienced in life, but they cannot tell me how those past events are still affecting them now and why they are seeking therapy.

I also notice that she is describing problems about herself, rather than blaming others. She could have said that she is mean to her boyfriend because he is a terrible person who makes her feel irritable. Instead, she seems able to take responsibility for her own behavior. She has an intrapsychic focus, a focus on something about herself and her own psyche that she wants to work on. She does not externalize the problem and blame her environment. So far, so good. Now I need to get some details.

“How much of the time are you nervous and tense?” I ask.

“A lot. I’d say, half of the day.”

“Half of each day, typically?”

“Yeah.” Then she sighs. She takes a big breath, as if she is now feeling some anxiety that has tightened up the intercostal muscles of her chest and limited her to short, shallow breaths. She looks like she needs more air; she needs to get free of the tension and breathe more deeply.

“You sighed?”

“Yeah,” she says. “It just seems like I’m always rushed. I always have a million things to do. I never sit still, you know. I mean, that’s kind of my personality. I go, go, go. But last night, we just got a movie and sat on the couch, and it feels so good just to relax. I feel like I’m never relaxed.”

I explore this a bit more, and I run through a mental checklist of anxiety symptoms with her. I learn that she has no panic attacks, no obsessive-compulsive behaviors, no social phobia, and so on.

“And you say that you get angry and you have trouble controlling what you say. Can you give me an example of that?”

“I sometimes hold things in, and then—with Jimmy, my boyfriend—I get irritated about something. Or when he’s driving, you know. I tell him I’m going to punch him in his face because I get so mad.”

“You actually say those words?” I ask.

“Yeah, I do.”

I notice that she is doing something with her mouth, perhaps putting her tongue against her cheek. Maybe she is chewing on the inside of her cheek. Yes, I think that’s it. She is chewing the inside of her lip and cheek. She must be getting more anxious as we talk about her anger at Jimmy. Perhaps there is something about this anger that makes her more tense and anxious. It is a perfect example of what Freud said in one of his theories of anxiety: the ego can send out a signal of anxiety because the patient is coming too close to an impulse or emotion that is dangerous or unacceptable. Signal anxiety is the label he gave it. This chewing might be a clue to me that she is getting anxious about troubling feelings lurking beneath the surface.

“I’m not really going to punch him in the face, but … He’ll say something to get me going. He knows how to get under my skin, and I’ll say, ‘Oh, shut the … heck up. I’m gonna punch you in the face if you do that.’”

Clearly, she did not say ‘heck’ to him. She is cleaning up her language a bit as she tells her story. I suspect that she uses pretty rough language when she is mad at him. I would not have guessed this just by looking at her. Her whole appearance gives the impression of someone who is sweet and even-tempered.

“What might he say that would make you angry?”

“That he’s going to show me how, um . . .” She has been starting to smile, and now she breaks out with a small laugh. “Let’s see, what happened the other day?” She laughs more openly now. We are getting closer to something. As long as she could keep the topic general, she was managing fairly well, just a little tense. Now that I ask for a specific example, the tension rises and she starts to laugh.

The nervous laugh. It is such an interesting phenomenon. She gets anxious and the chest muscles contract and she sighs, trying to get more air. When the tension increases further, Mother Nature provides an escape valve with the nervous laugh, which suddenly loosens up those chest muscles, and she automatically takes bigger breaths of air to support the next burst of laughter. At the same time, the laughing turns a difficult situation into a funny one, so it also functions as a defense mechanism against feelings that are threatening or painful. What a marvelous invention, this nervous laugh! No wonder we all make such liberal use of it. It is a very pleasant social invention, as well. I could easily join her in the laughing.

“I don’t even remember what he said to me,” she continues, “but it was just the whole situation.”

“So you were really angry.”

“Oh, yeah!”

“And how do you feel right now, talking about it?” I ask.

“Just aggravated.” She’s laughing again. “Because I’m thinking about it, and I just can’t get him to …” Suddenly she brings her hands up, fingers spread wide and slightly flexed, as if she would like to grab him and shake him. “She presents me with such an interesting mixed message: her hands are energized with anger, but her face says it is all just a funny story.”

“You laugh, I notice.”

“Yeah, I can’t . . . it’s funny, because it’s like . . . I think about it now and it’s almost funny.”

“But the laugh doesn’t match the emotion of the moment, does it?”

“No.” She is laughing freely now, and she looks like she is really enjoying it.

“But I wonder if the laugh covers up the anger,” I say.

“It could.” She is still smiling, but the laughing stops. “Yeah, it could.”

Good. I made my first attempt at pointing out a defense mechanism.

I told her that the laugh does not match the anger she describes.

III. Inspired

“This is not psychoanalysis!” That is his entire response, a merciless verdict delivered by a stern judge in a terse four-word sentence. I have just spent the better part of an hour describing the case of Carla in some detail. He has listened, but as I proceeded, I could see his expression growing more distant, more cautious. At first, he looked interested and asked a few questions, but he gradually became silent and aloof. Now he stands up and walks over to get one of his cigars. Is this a sign that the discussion is over? Should I just get up and leave? Outside on the streets of Vienna, it is a beautiful sunny day in May. Perhaps I should abandon my hopes for a dialogue with Freud and go sightseeing.

He stands by the bookcase near a photo I noticed during my first visit, a photo of a woman with very intense eyes. As he examines his choice of cigars, I find myself attracted to the photo. I see intelligence in her eyes, or at least I imagine that I do, and perhaps a tendency to be passionate about things that interest her. What I cannot discern is the nature of the emotion in those eyes. One could read a heavy sadness in them, but maybe she just looks serious. I can imagine her eyes becoming angry, but she is not passionately angry at the moment of the photo shoot. Maybe it is not anger at all. Is she trying to contain some kind of distress, some inner turmoil, her eyes warning the photographer not to come too close? She looks at me with a direct, engaging look, but she will not let me know what lies within. But why am I so absorbed by a photograph on a bookshelf? I suppose I would like to enlist her help in getting him to listen to me. Would she help? Who is she, anyway? And why does her photograph deserve a special place on Sigmund Freud’s bookshelf?

He has yet to light the cigar, after some fiddling with matches and an ashtray; he comes back to his chair and sits down with his pleasure still unlit. I still have a chance to make my case, although I can see that the odds of success are diminishing with each passing minute.

“But Professor, this is a direct offshoot of your psychoanalysis. It’s just a newer version of your original ideas.”

“You have no couch, correct?”

“That’s correct. The patient and I sit facing each other in chairs.”

“You do not ask her to tell you her associations as they occur to her. Correct?”

“That’s true. I don’t tell her to just say whatever comes to mind. This is a more directive approach to treatment.”

“No couch. No free association. This is not psychoanalysis!” He stands up again, and now he paces back and forth. He not only disagrees with what I have presented; he is clearly angry. In fact, he looks insulted, as if I have personally attacked him. I am stunned that a man of his stature can be so easily offended. I have read about this aspect of his character, to be sure. No matter how much positive attention he received in the world, he was prone to misinterpreting even the most balanced critique as a vicious attempt to destroy him and his theories. Friendships fell apart because someone dared to disagree with him. I must have been dreaming to think that I could interest him in a reasonable discussion about modern changes to his original technique. Still, I feel that I might as well try to finish my argument, as long as I have come all this way.

“But if you look at my case, perhaps you might agree that this is a variant of psychoanalysis. Just look at my use of defense mechanisms in the session. At first, Carla laughs when she talks about her anger at her fiancé. A nervous laugh, of course, but the laugh also functions as a defense against facing her rage at him. I point it out to her, and she agrees that the laugh might be masking other emotions.”

Freud stops pacing and nods, almost reluctantly. His concept of defense mechanisms was one of the most original ideas in his voluminous work. He must be stopping to consider whether I am honoring his concept by using it wisely or defaming it by blatant misuse. I decide to continue.

“Later in the interview, I ask her how she feels and she again employs defenses. She says, ‘It seems like forever ago.’ She separates her emotions from the story. ‘It doesn’t seem real to me.’” Freud is listening now, and I can hear myself becoming more hopeful as I try to sell my argument to him. “By pointing out these defenses, I am educating her about the workings of her psyche. At the same time, I am trying to turn her against the defenses, so she will face the unacceptable ideas and emotions that she has refused to face until now.” At this point, I reach for the book that I brought with me, as a lawyer reaches for the critical piece of evidence that will prove his client is innocent. “May I read something to you?” I ask.

“Certainly,” he says, still looking quite skeptical.

“These patients whom I analyzed had enjoyed good mental health up to the moment at which an occurrence of incompatibility took place in their ideational life—that is to say, until their ego was faced with an experience, an idea or a feeling which aroused such a distressing affect that the subject decided to forget about it.”

I look up from the book to make sure he is listening. “From your paper, ‘The Neuro-Psychoses of Defense,’ written in 1894. One of your earliest papers. As a child, Carla was faced with terrible, frightening events, events that she would rather forget about. We are now using your concepts and challenging the defenses to get to the disturbing ‘experience, idea or feeling.’ For this patient, she has never really faced the painful reality of what happened in her childhood home. And you can see what happens by the end of the session. She experiences a breakthrough of emotion and begins to realize the magnitude of the situation she endured as a child. She remembers with emotion, just as you and Breuer prescribed in your book, Studies on Hysteria.”

Freud is standing in one spot now. He no longer looks agitated, and he seems to be considering my line of thought. He takes his chair again, much to my surprise. He is thinking, and he takes his time before offering a thought.

“So you are using my concept of defenses as a direct technical intervention with the patient. You actually tell her about her defenses as they arise.”

“Exactly,” I say.

“And by pointing them out to her, you are trying to weaken their hold on her, so that the repressed contents of the mind can emerge.”

“Exactly! The thoughts and memories can emerge, and she can open up with her feelings. She can emotionally expand again.” Freud looks puzzled by my last comment. I want so much to talk with him about Reich’s concept of expansion and contraction. I want to tell him: You cannot be open and closed at the same time. Carla started the session in a state of emotional contraction, and later she was able to re-expand emotionally. But this might be too much to lay on the table so soon. And who knows how he might react to the topic of Reich and his revolutionary ideas? I need to stay focused and talk about short-term dynamic psychotherapy. “Yes, the contents of her mind can come forth. That’s exactly what I am trying to accomplish. If I can loosen the grip of her defenses, then we can dig down beneath the surface and find out what lies buried. Like an archeological dig.” I know that Freud loved to compare psychoanalysis to archeology. He would sometimes point to his vast collection of miniature antiquities to make the metaphor to his patients. I worry for a moment that I am trying too hard to ingratiate myself to him, but he nods his approval at the comment. At this moment, Gretchen opens the door to his office holding a tray with tea. Freud waves her off, apparently not wanting to be distracted now.

He sits pondering what I have said. Here, in the last couple of minutes, I have seen the two sides of Sigmund Freud as I have read about him. On the one hand, he could be remarkably thin-skinned. He was always determined to make a name for himself, and his ambition could sometimes lead him to be competitive, distrustful, and vindictive. To use the psychoanalytic term, his narcissism got in his way. True, he had his detractors, and he endured some unwarranted hostility from colleagues, but he sometimes took an honest disagreement as a narcissistic injury, a blow to his basic self-esteem. On the other hand, he had a quick mind and an intense love of ideas. When he was immersed in the world of ideas and theories, without feeling threatened, he could be a kindly mentor, a committed analyst, and a devoted friend. One could easily see how two people could come away from him with two diametrically opposed impressions of the man.

At the moment, his intense curiosity has overtaken his bellicose instinct to protect his intellectual territory. He asks more questions about how I use defense mechanisms in therapy. Which defenses do I see most often? Are certain defenses associated with particular symptoms? How do I proceed if the defenses do not yield to this approach? As he talks, he sits back and lights his cigar. Now that he is engaged, I make my next move.

“Here is another point I would like to make, with your permission. Just look at your concept of anxiety and how I used it in the session, and you will see why I say that this is still psychoanalytic work. You remember that I noticed how she was biting her lip and the inside of her cheek? This happened early in the session, and it became more obvious as she began to tell the story of her violent, chaotic family life.”

Freud nods, puffing on the cigar.

“And you recall that I pointed this out to her as a possible physical manifestation of anxiety. The anxiety was triggered by the difficult topic at hand. It was your signal anxiety: anxiety that gets triggered by some unacceptable thought or emotion within the person. In your terms, the ego sends out a signal of anxiety because there are uncomfortable feelings lurking beneath the surface. In plain English, she is afraid of her own emotions.”

Freud nods again.

“In Carla’s case,” I continue, “the anxiety was prompted by the stirring of hidden grief over her childhood. Her anxiety, which caused her to chew her lip, alerted me to the presence of unacceptable thoughts, feelings, and memories. When I asked her about the significance of the chewing, she realized that she was anxious, and she was anxious because she was starting to talk about the trauma. Soon after that point, her sadness began to emerge.”

“So you are using my signal anxiety as a marker in the therapy,” he says. “Once you see it, this biting of the lip, you know that the emotions are not far behind.”

“Yes. Exactly! And it can be any sign of anxiety: fidgeting of the hands, gripping the chair, tapping the feet. Any of this might mean signal anxiety, and then I start to suspect that buried feelings are closer to the surface.”

Again, he asks questions. How do I know when the anxiety is not due to buried thoughts or feelings within, but due to a real threat—financial problems, illness, and so on—in the immediate environment? Not all anxiety is signal anxiety, he cautions me. What do I do if the patient’s anxiety gets too overwhelming? How soon do I address the anxiety in a session? He calls for Gretchen, and we drink tea and talk for quite a while about defense mechanisms and anxiety, until he has satisfied himself that he understands the approach I am describing. For the moment, at least, the struggle to get him to listen is over, and the battle is mine.

Louis Cozolino on the Integration of Neuroscience into Psychotherapy—and its Limitations

Neuroscience or Neuro-psychobabble?

Sudhanva Rajagopal: Lou Cozolino, you are a psychologist and professor of psychology at Pepperdine University, where you were a teacher of mine. You’re a prolific writer and researcher on topics ranging from schizophrenia, child abuse, the long-term effects of stress, and, more recently, neuroscience in psychotherapy and the brain as a social organ.As a clinician in training, it seems like there is a lot of neuroscience talk out there in our field, and it gets used to legitimize anything from specific interventions to whole theoretical orientations. My first question to you is, for the clinician in training, how do you recommend that we see through the noise of all that to what is actually helpful in the room with a client? How does knowledge of neuroscience play out in the room and what is actually important for the clinician to know?

Louis Cozolino: There are two main realms where neuroscience can aid clinicians. One is case conceptualization and the other is for clients who aren’t really open to a psychotherapeutic framework or an emotional framework. For them a neuroscientific explanation or conceptualization of their problem is often something they can grasp while they can’t or won’t grasp other things.

People who learn a half a dozen words about neuroscience think they’re neuroscience literate.

But there’s so much psychobabble and neuro-psychobabble out there, and the thing is if you say something is the amygdala as opposed to saying it’s anxiety or fear-based, you haven’t really upgraded the quality of the discourse. You just substituted one word for another. So the risk is that people who learn a half a dozen words about neuroscience think they’re neuroscience literate.

Learning neuroscience takes dedication. It takes work to get beyond the cocktail level of conversation and clichés. It took me ten years to feel like I had any sense of what was going on and I studied it pretty intensively. So I think we all have to be careful, but even more importantly, just because you know some neuroscience doesn’t mean you know anything more than the therapist who doesn’t. It’s really about how you use that information to upgrade the quality of the work you’re doing.

SR: In your book, Why Therapy Works: Using Your Mind to Change Your Brain, you say that science in many ways is just another metaphor. Do you think there are dangers to people using neuroscience to legitimize their work?
LC: Well, sure. There’s a fellow, Daniel Amen, who does these SPECT scans of people and he’s been selling them for thousands of dollars for probably 20 years now. It’s hard to know whether any of his data has any meaning. All we know is he’s made a hell of a lot of money doing them. The danger is in selling things before you know that they have any legitimacy, so you have to watch out for snake oil salesmen just like you do when you’re buying carpets and used cars.
SR: So how do you recommend that someone like me goes about finding and learning about neuroscience in a way that’s helpful? How do I avoid the snake oil salesmen?
LC: It’s important to realize that knowing neuroscience doesn’t make you a good clinician—in fact it doesn’t make you any kind of clinician at all. So I would say for beginning therapists, it’s probably best not to pay too much attention to neuroscience.Learn a few things about it but focus on getting the best supervision you can in a recognized form of psychotherapy—psychodynamic, cognitive, behavioral, family systems, etc. And avoid the passing fancy of all of the new therapies; every day there’s a new therapy with a new set of letters in front of it.

SR: Yeah there are so many different kinds of therapies these days.
LC: Try to learn something that isn’t just a fad, because the fads—I’ve watched hundreds of them come and go over my years. But if you cleave to psychodynamic training and cleave to cognitive behavioral, Gestalt, family systems training—those are the things that you can hang your hat on. Then you can learn the fads to add to your tool box. The fads are very sexy and they create the illusion of understanding because they’ve got fancy terms and nice workbooks and such, but really you’re not a thinker when you’re doing those things, you’re more of a mechanic.Now neuroscience is sort of like a sidecar to conceptualization, but you’ve got to remember the motorcycle is the real tried and true way of thinking about clients. You know, what is a particular problem? What is mental distress or mental illness? Where does it come from developmentally and what are the tried and true ways of approaching it and treating it?

Every Therapy is Embedded in Culture

SR: Speaking of tried and true ways of thinking, you say in your book, “Psychotherapy is not a modern invention, but a relationship-based learning environment grounded in the history of our social brains. Thus the roots of psychotherapy go back to mother-child bonding, attachment to family and friends, and the guidance of wise elders.” My question is, where do you think psychotherapy fits in to the context of healing traditions that have been around for millennia?
LC: Well, I think one thing that seems to be different over the last hundred years in psychotherapy is a kind of structured recognition of the fact that the therapist is imperfect and contributes in a lot of different ways to the problems. The tradition of wise elders was one of an authoritarian stance: This is the truth and I’ll take you on this journey with me to change you into my likeness. To whatever degree psychotherapy has evolved past that has to do with the self-analysis of the therapist and the recognition that whatever pathology exists in the relationship between client and therapist, some—hopefully not the majority, but some—pathology in the relationship comes from the therapist.That type of recognition is a step forward. There are probably some steps backward too. Often psychotherapy is ahistorical and acultural—or at least tries to be—but every therapy is embedded in culture. There is a kind of pretense about an objective scientific stance that is just a fantasy. So in some ways, wise elders in a tribal context with a long history are probably advantageous for some people as compared to psychotherapy.

SR: I was flipping through the index of your book and noticed the word “culture” appears exactly once, though you do talk about the wisdom of the ancients, about Buddhism and Confucianism and some of the Indian traditions. Seems to me that once we start relying on these kind of generalized, evolutionary, and biological forces as explanations for things, there’s a risk of painting people’s lived experience with a pretty broad brush. What’s your take on the importance of culture as it relates to neuroscience and psychotherapy?
LC: From an evolutionary perspective, a basic principle is biodiversity, and culture is too blunt an instrument to understand people because there are so many differences within culture. I think in terms of every individual being an experiment of nature. Every family is a culture in and of itself, and the more different someone’s cultural background is from mine, the more there is for me to learn. I think that culture needs to be interwoven into every sentence of every book, not just included in some special chapter of a book.
SR: From my point of view, many of these older cultural practices have been repackaged and rebranded as psychotherapy theories and techniques. The “mindfulness revolution” and transcendental meditation are based on ancient cultural traditions, but they are marketed as if they are especially effective because they are “new” and “evidence-based.” What is your stance on that?
LC: Having studied religion and philosophy and Sanskrit starting back when I was in college in the 70s, the self-awareness of meditation has been part my worldview since long before it became a cottage industry. But even back then there was the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and the Beatles, and it was coming into the cultural context. Now people have figured out how to package it as a way to sell more therapy, which isn’t all bad, but runs the risk of becoming “the answer.”

I think we’re in a race between global destruction and global consciousness, so we’ll see who gets to the finish line first.

What I’ve been hoping for since I first discovered Buddhism in the 1960s, is that as the world gets smaller and as people from different cultures communicate more, the wisdom of the ancient Eastern philosophies will be interwoven with Western technology and we’ll come to some higher level synthesis of understanding and consciousness. I think we’re in a race between global destruction and global consciousness, so we’ll see who gets to the finish line first.

SR: Can you say more about that?
LC: Well, it’s a slow evolutionary process for the types of awareness that people four or five thousand years ago discovered in India and Tibet, in China, in Japan, to penetrate Western culture. The Western world view is so different—for so many people it’s almost impossible to conceptualize an internal world; everything is external. Everything is about creation, growth, and, in a more destructive sense, conquering and genocide.So there are forces of destruction—of each other and of the planet—on the one hand and then there are the forces of consciousness and wholeness and a sense of oneness of the species on the other. So will we understand that we’re all brothers and sisters on a spaceship before we destroy the spaceship?

“There only needs to be a piece of you that’s a psychologist”

SR: How can psychotherapy play a positive role in this race you’re talking about? Or psychotherapy as we know it in the Western world?
LC: Well, one of the problems with psychotherapy as I see it is that psychotherapists tend to be sort of passive—they retreat from the world of leadership and create very insulated relationships in their consulting rooms. But for the field of psychotherapy to have any impact, it has to be expressed politically and socially. The types of ideas and theories that we’ve researched and studied, like the importance of early child rearing, self-awareness, authoritarian personalities, positive psychology and so much else, need to become part of political discourse both to elevate it and also have an impact on how resources are distributed.

One of the problems with psychotherapy as I see it is that psychotherapists tend to be sort of passive—they retreat from the world of leadership and create very insulated relationships in their consulting rooms.

Evolution is a slow, meandering process. All you have to do is watch the Republican debates to see that. It reminds me of junior high school in the Bronx in New York where we used to engage in chop fights, which was all about humiliating the manhood of other guys just to get a one-up. It doesn’t make me optimistic about the evolution of consciousness, but we’ll see what happens.

SR: I want to move onto something you said in your preface that I liked a lot: “Like monks and soldiers, therapists of all denominations assume that God is on their side.” What do you think are the limitations of psychotherapy and where does it come up short against the human condition, cultural walls or seemingly immovable, systemic injustice? In other words, when do we have to admit that psychotherapy is just not helpful or effective?

LC: The risk with psychology and psychotherapy is that it can lean too much in the direction of helping people tolerate rather than fight against oppression. Self-awareness and self-compassion are crucial experiences and skills that we foster as psychotherapists, but there needs to be a balance there. You can’t become too much of a psychologist. There only needs to be a piece of you that’s a psychologist and there’s another piece of you that has to be willing to go out and fight for systemic change.

As I said before, psychologists tend to watch from the sidelines, and that’s why as a field it has relatively little impact. In fact, the profession gets a lot of bad press because there are plenty of famous psychologists who do staggeringly immoral and unethical things. They are the basis of the cartoon version of the therapist nodding their head and going, “uh huh.”

SR: You talk about psychology as being an essentially solitary profession. Are there people you can think of who aren’t standing on the sidelines?
LC: Psychologists you mean?
SR: Yeah, psychologists.
LC: No. Can you?
SR: Not off the top of my head.
LC: Psychologists are really good at telling other people they should do something. It’s sort of like life by proxy.
SR: Indeed.
LC: Another problem in psychotherapy is a lack of appreciation or respect for anger; anger is always something you’re supposed to manage. Or you’re supposed to learn how to behave appropriately in society, but that’s not always an appropriate response, especially if you’re a member of an oppressed group. It’s really important sometimes to go on picket lines and carry bricks and defend yourself and make a lot of noise.I very much respect the Black Lives Matter movement and I watch them in these Trump rallies, and they’re getting pushed around. It breaks my heart because it reminds me of a lot of bad memories from childhood during the Civil Rights Movement. And I’m sure you’ve seen pictures too of what happened in India with the British, of people being hosed and slaughtered. There’s a tendency in human behavior to objectify differences and we really need to fight against and not tolerate that. I’m hoping that, given that Trump is consolidating and activating the anger of people in this culture against immigrants and foreigners and God knows what else, that it also energizes the liberal base and brings out a new progressive movement as well.

SR: Absolutely, but this idea of psychologists carrying bricks and taking up arms seems really at odds to me with this image we have of psychologists as dispassionate observers, people who are sitting in their therapy chairs saying, “uh huh.”My interests lie in political action as well and I do remember, at least from my dad’s generation and my grandfather’s generation, thinking about British rule and the independence movement in India and the idea of people really taking a stand. But that doesn’t seem like something psychologists really do. Even in the room with a client, we’re not taught to take a stance on things, you know?

LC: In fact it’s the opposite. Everything that we believe is interpreted as countertransference and non-neutral. It creates a real rift in people. It’s hard to imagine that a lot of younger psychologists with any sort of a political drive would be attracted to psychology. It will continue to attract people who want to stay on the sidelines in the world or avoid the conflict.
SR: How is that going to change?
LC: In truth I don’t know. In the 60s we had something called community psychology, which was very radical at the time and which still exists, but it’s not prominent at all anymore. One of the main focuses of community psychology was to identify those people in the community or in the tribe that other people went to for assistance—people like hairdressers and bartenders and cab drivers. These are the people that folks in trouble tended to talk to, so community psychology emphasized educating people in the community that were sort of hubs of interaction. The field has gotten so much more insular since then.

Transitioning From a Beta to an Alpha

SR: I want to go back to something you said about anger that intrigued me. I’m just thinking back to discussions and supervision I’ve had in training, and whenever anger comes up, you’re told there’s something “behind” the anger. You know, there’s shame behind the anger, or sadness behind the anger. How do you feel about anger as just a primary kind of emotion? And do you think it has value both for the therapist and for the client?
LC: If you’re going to become empowered, if you’re going to transition from a beta to an alpha in your life, you really need to be able to get back in touch with your anger because it can be very propulsive, very helpful in life. It evolved along with caretaking and nurturing because it’s not just necessary to feed and nurture babies, but to protect them.Anger is the only left-hemisphere emotion that we consider negative, but anger is a social emotion, unlike rage. It can be engaging, relational, constructive. In order to combat the social programming that leads to shame, we have to get at least somewhat angry—at both the voices in our head and out in the world that shame us, disempower us, keep us from speaking up.

When I think of somebody like Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., I think of the courage it took to walk into angry crowds. It’s so moving to me and such a powerful act. We can’t just be passive about these voices in our head and in society. We have to get angry because our anger and our assertiveness and our power are all interconnected. If you give up your anger, you give up your power.

SR: Agreed. Tell me a little bit about your idea of the social synapse.
LC: The more I studied different physiologies, social psychologies, organisms, the more I realized that there is a very complex highway of information that connects us via pupil dilation and facial expression and body posture and tone of voice, and probably a hundred things that we haven’t even discovered yet.What we’re doing in psychotherapy, and in any relationship where we’re trying to be soothing and supportive and nurturant, is connecting across the synapse between you and someone else. You’re trying to create a synergy between the two of you and have an effect on their internal biochemistry that enhances their physical health, their brain development, their learning. If you’ve ever been with a really good teacher, you know that in part because you feel a lot smarter because you’re connecting with someone who’s stimulating your brain to work better. If you’re with a bad teacher, you feel dumber, and you get pissed off and angry. And there are not a lot of good teachers out there so you’ve got to cleave to the good ones.

But also there’s a different chemistry between different people. Someone who’s a good teacher for one person may not be a good one for another. Same thing with therapists. Every therapeutic relationship creates a new organism—a dyadic field— and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. The chemistry part we often don’t have any control over.

SR: Going back to the brain and neuroscience, where do you think we are in right now in the field and where are we headed?
LC: Well, we’re all over the place in brain science, but there is a great deal of focus right now on genetics. In other words, looking at the relationship between experience and interactions and how the molecular level of the brain gets constructed and changes over time in relation to the others and the environment. I think that the translation of parenting and relationships in psychotherapy into actual protein synthesis and brain building is an incredibly complicated but very important paradigm shift that is going to be playing out probably over the next century at least as we uncover those things.Another shift in neuroscience is getting past the phrenology of looking at individual brain regions related to specific tasks and starting to look at these new technologies that measure brain connectivity. In other words, how do different areas connect to regulate each other and synergize? The next step will be figuring out how two or more brains interact and stimulate each other.

I don’t know where the technology to research that is going to come from but I think it’s on the horizon. We’ve got to get beyond thinking about brains as individual organs and think about how they weave into relational matrices so we can understand human connection and have a scientific view for the types of things that Buddhists and Hindu meditators and Tibetan scholars have been thinking about for the last several thousand years or so.

Why Does Neuroscience Matter?

SR: How would you explain to an existential psychotherapist why these advances in technology and in brain science are at all important to what they do?
LC: I don’t know if they are important to what they do. I don’t think neuroscience is more important than Buddhism—it’s basically just another narrative.
SR: Interesting.
LC: It’s just another way of looking at things. Think about when you’re at a museum looking at an exhibit and you’re walking around it trying to experience it and appreciate it from a number of different angles.That’s pretty much what reality is. We walk around it and we have these different ways of thinking about it and explaining it that are partially satisfying and partially unsatisfying. Buddhism is incredibly satisfying a lot of the time and very unsatisfying some of the time. So when you get bored with one way of looking, you want to look at something in a different way. For me it’s interesting to combine and integrate different perspectives but I don’t think that you have to subjugate one to the other.

In the 1950s Carl Rogers was talking about how to create a healing relationship. Fast forward 65 years and now neuroscience is discovering pretty much what Rogers was talking about. Am I better off talking about it from that perspective than listening to Carl Rogers? I don’t know. But it makes me appreciate what Rogers says even more and in a deeper way when I can see it from this scientific perspective.

SR: That makes sense.
LC: If Buddha were alive, he’d say, “Of course,” right? “There’s 5,000 research studies you did, but all you needed to do was read the Sutra and you would have figured it out.”But I think it’s interesting to just keep learning about life from as many points of view as possible. When have your read enough novels?

Each novel you read is a new way of capturing the universe, and they’re entertaining and stimulating and make you feel human. I feel the same way about the sciences, which is why I love reading E.O. Wilson’s work on ants, because I learn a lot about humans by reading about ants. So many things we do are very ant-like. Plus, ants are interesting.

Nobody Has the Answer

SR: Ants are very interesting. That’s a great way to look at it and I completely agree. Moving away from neuroscience for a moment, I’m curious about how your clinical work has changed over the years.
LC: It’s changed constantly. When I started as a student of pastoral counseling at the Harvard Divinity School, Carl Rogers was one of my teachers, so my first real training was Rogerian. The reason I got interested in counseling in the first place was reading Fritz Perls’ Gestalt Therapy. Then when I ended up at UCLA I realized you have to learn cognitive behavioral therapy whether you like it or not. So I was trained in that. I did a couple of years at a family therapy institute in Westwood in L.A. My supervisors were psychodynamic and my therapist at the time was a Jungian, and then I had a couple of other therapists who were psychodynamic and Gestalt.I was working with people who had been severely traumatized as kids, so I got interested in neuroscience through a study of memory, trying to figure out what the heck was going with the memories of people who’d suffered severe trauma.

Since then, my heart is more in the object relations world, I think mostly because it matches my personality and the type of relationships I like to create with people. But I’ve woven in neuroscience, attachment theory, a bit of EMDR, some meditation and self-awareness exercises. It’s a hodgepodge of all the different things that I’ve learned, but I don’t really feel like I’ve got a hammer and everybody who comes in is a nail. It’s more like I’ve got a toolbox of 30 or 40 years of things that I’ve been collecting and I try to figure out how to match as best I can to the needs and the interests of the client.

SR: Is there a certain population or certain pathologies that you’ve been working with more lately or that you’re more interested in?
LC: Not really. My practice is pretty general and I like to keep it that way. I don’t really like to see the same problem over and over again. I always think of psychotherapy as kind of like a collaborative research project. People come in and we work together to figure out what’s going on—how did it arise? Is there any hope of making it better? I really like having problems I haven’t dealt with before.
SR: What do you wish you’d known as a beginning clinician?
LC: When I started, I was looking for an answer and I wanted to know who had the answer. So

I tried to become a disciple of one person or another person. It took me quite a while to realize nobody has the answer. Everybody has a little piece of it.

And what I’ve got to do is just learn the best I can and then sacrifice and move on. This is a very ancient Rig Veda philosophy—every day you wake up, you sacrifice the day before, you move on, you create a new reality.

Had I understood this, I would have spent a lot less time worrying about finding the truth and being acceptable to whatever godhead I happened to run into at the moment. I think idolatry is the problem. Idolatry and objectification.

SR: It’s hard to avoid being exposed to that as a student. At least in my experience, in every new class you’re exposed to something people think is the answer, the best way to look at things.
LC: In my experience, the degree to which someone is enthusiastic and adamant about having “the answer” usually reflects the degree of insecurity they have and their lack of ability to tolerate their own ignorance. If we’ve learned anything, especially when it comes to diversity, it’s that we have to embrace our ignorance and be curious as opposed to leading with certainty.Jacob Bronowski was a physicist who died about 20 years ago, but he did this wonderful documentary about visiting Auschwitz, where his whole family was slaughtered. He waded into the mud behind the crematory and grabbed a handful of mud, realizing that his ancestors were part of this soil, and said, “This is what happens when we’re certain.”

Certainty leads to ideological beliefs that supersede humanity. At a less dramatic level, we get so enamored with our philosophies and our therapeutic beliefs that we miss our clients because we’re so convinced that we’ve got to convince them we’re right about the things we believe should be true.

SR: So last question here; where do you think the field as a whole is going?
LC: Well, I don’t think mental distress is going anywhere. I think that more and more people are going to be having psychological problems as society and civilization become increasingly crazy. No matter how many therapists the schools pump out, the world is creating plenty of suffering, so there will always be a need for therapy.And though there will always be therapists trying to create revolutionary new therapies with great acronyms, I think that the tried and true methods will remain strong and stay strong because they’re tapping into fundamental constructs in human experience—the need to connect with other people, to be able to leverage our thinking to modify our brains, to ask questions about ultimate meaning and existence.

Where the field is going to have to upgrade its sophistication and quality is in the areas of like pharmacology, epigenetics, psychoneuroimmunology, diet. All of the actual mechanisms that create and sustain our brains will have to become part of the dialogue about how we help people sustain and maintain health. This might just be my Eastern philosophy bias, but we’ll probably be moving in the direction of more holistic, integrated thinking and treatment—not just combining East and West, but integrating scientific discoveries into our case conceptualizations and treatments.

Finally, I hope that psychology becomes more integrated with education. I have a book series that I’m editing for W.W. Norton which is on the social neuroscience of education, and we’re pushing to have psychologists, neurologists, neuroscientists and educators communicate more so that the things we’re learning can be integrated into each field.

SR: Well that seems like a great place to end. Thank you so much for taking the time to share a bit about your work and your life with the readers of psychotherapy.net.
LC: It was a pleasure, thank you.

Whiteness Matters: Exploring White Privilege, Color Blindness and Racism in Psychotherapy

White Therapist as Racial Subject

Our profession is concerned with multicultural competence (I assume readers of this article are as well). Despite that, our canons of psychological theory remain euro-centric, yet are largely assumed to be universal; our assessment and diagnostic systems are biased in the same vein, while they are used as guideposts in courts of law, prison, schools, and medical venues; research largely makes assumptions of universality without qualification that population samples are overwhelmingly white; and our delivery of services, even the “culture” of psychotherapy itself, remains white-centric. Whiteness as the only representation of humanness is in the “air,” so to speak, of Western psychology, something many writers, researchers, and psychotherapists of color have written upon (see end of article for resources), and a few white authors have noted as well, Dr. Gina deArth1 among them.

In my experiences speaking and writing about racial identity and racism as a white person in general, it has most often been challenging creating dialogues with other white people. My experience is not an unusual one. More often than not, when racial identity and racism are discussed among white folks, we primarily focus upon the racial identity and racism outside of ourselves (in others, in institutions, in systems, in history, and so on) while also claiming an individual absolution from racism—well, I’m not racist. The two are contradictory and deny the socialization we have all experienced in the wider community of the United States if not in our families.

No white person can reasonably claim that they do not participate in and are not shaped by racial subjectivity and racism, yet this is one of the more common claims that arise in conversations between white folks. Nadia Bolz-Weber, author of Accidental Saints, and an anything-but-conventional white Lutheran pastor, expresses well how white folks are seduced to hide the influence white supremacy has had on us, and the impossibility of escaping the reality of being formed by that supremacy: “Like so many of us, I was born on 3rd base and told I’d hit a home run . . . the fact is, just because I don’t like racism or agree with it, that doesn’t mean it’s not still part of my makeup.”

There is not enough investigated, discussed, and written in psychology about the racial subjectivity of whiteness, that is, the varied lived experience including experience of privileges and participation in racism on levels varying from the personal to the institutional, as well as the meanings of being white. I am interested in exploring conversations about racial subjectivity and racism. I consider this a lifetime kind of practice, albeit an uncomfortable and certainly imperfect one. Engaging in an ongoing investigation into my lived experience of whiteness both on individual and relational levels is a vital part of being an ally to people of color, and to being a better therapist to all of my clients, akin to how my personal psychotherapy enhances my work with clients generally.

Stating that, past exchanges with white colleagues and friends come to mind—all emotionally charged, sometimes emotionally injurious on all sides, anything but calm. I know how vulnerable and even incendiary talking about white racial subjectivity and racism usually is, how many defenses arise, and how it can be so difficult. I brace myself already for the “review” feedback to this article, for example. I think white folks need more practice in these discussions, including myself.

As a white person, accounting for one’s own racial identity and racism, talking about the larger system of racism bestowing power and privilege, is typically a conversation stopper among white people. Attributing the suspended conversations among white folks to racism is certainly a part of the stagnation (at least in some cases) but does not entirely flesh out the sophisticated psychological dynamics in ways that can loosen up the tightness that chokes off genuine exchange. The obstacles to creating open dialogue seem to be about several factors, among them: white guilt; protecting privilege; the nature of trauma (racism and acts related to it) evoking blaming and shaming; the lack of practice white people have in talking productively to one another about racism; desires to maintain an all-good self; the lack of white racial identity development and awareness; and the significant discomfort of sitting with the realities of and felt gratitude for the enormous privilege and protection light skin brings in our daily lives.

Though white folks today may claim they did nothing to “deserve” this power and privilege, the acknowledgement alone does not give white folks a pass on critically examining our lack of curiosity regarding the lived experiences of whiteness and racism. Curiosity about these facets of our selves is one antidote to unconscious whiteness. My desire in this article is to begin pondering how the conversations about white racial identity, racism, and psychotherapy gets hijacked among white clinicians, and to explore ways I have found (imperfectly) helpful in continuing the conversation. While conversation is not enough in and of itself, it is integral to greater awareness and action.

All Good or All Bad

We cannot get away from messages that being white is not only a universal representation of human experience and authority, but also an idealized one. Even if our white family of origin was anti-racist, larger society and systems socialize us otherwise. Psychologically, this is akin to being raised in an environment where caretakers delight simply in our existence; our attachment is secure while getting bathed in that unconditional love. This becomes our baseline normative experience of relationship and expectations of other people. We know how a childhood environment like that contributes to self-perception in permeating ways that are unconscious and influence life course. White folks have been bathed in unconditional acceptance and idealization for white skin; we have to work to become conscious of how this has shaped our expectations of how we move, interact, and think in the world.

White folks interested in what I am writing about understand that it is good to be anti-racist, and bad to be racist. It’s good to be aware. No white person I know wants to be bad. An entirely individualistic focus on racism, however, essentializes the discussion and understanding of racism, it occludes exploration of white racial identity, and it raises defenses exponentially. While of course there are individual acts of racism, they are occurring within an inherently racist milieu whereby all white people are benefitting, regardless of individual actions. For example, as a profession we do not integrate in every aspect of clinical education—from intellectual inquiry to clinical training—multiple and multicultural points of view on what is pathological, diagnostic, healing, and so on. Other points of view taught in one-off multicultural competency courses are just that—other.

Talking about and thinking about white racial identity and racism as a binary good-bad is a way to ignore the complicated and uncomfortable parts. The African American scholar and filmmaker Omowale Akintunde writes: “Racism is a systemic, societal, institutional, omnipresent, and epistemologically embedded phenomenon that pervades every vestige of our reality. For most whites, however, racism is like murder: the concept exists, but someone has to commit it in order for it to happen.” Racism is not simply individual action, nor is combatting it simply about courses in multicultural competency.

In talking with my white peers as well as in my own self-reflections, the feeling of power due to racial identity is rarely consciously felt. Yet if we wait until we personally feel the social power of whiteness to validate the reality of it, nothing changes. Even if we are white and members of other oppressed groups of people on individual and societal levels such as being working-class, disabled, immigrant, or queer-identified, we may not have social power in the arena of economics, physical ability, native citizenship, or gender and sexual orientation identifications, however we nevertheless carry the robust social power of whiteness. There are studies upon studies validating the power of whiteness, let alone anecdotal evidence.

That it is difficult for white folks to talk with one another about racism or something racist that occurred in the moment (a microaggression, for example) is reflective of the positive reinforcement that silence among white people on the topic receives. The silence on racism is balanced only by the silence of white racial identity. Silence keeps the status quo; it also keeps everyone “comfortable,” and keeps white people connected to one another in “likable” fashion. When one white person breaks the barrier of silence, often he or she is shamed, ostracized, or defensively attacked by other white people. We are ejected from the group, placed in a binary of something like being disruptive, arrogant, myopic, or mean while the remaining silent members rest in being well-mannered (and defended). The white person who speaks up among white folks about racism often becomes the recipient of disavowed racism from other white people, something that has been observed in clinical encounters where white therapists disavowing their racism (and other unwanted characteristics) project them onto their clients of color.

Using Mindfulness to Notice Patterns of Prejudice

An example may help elucidate, and I will give one that begins on the individual level and then includes a group level. If I walk down the street in the evening and see a black man standing at the corner wearing a hoodie with his hands in his pockets and low-slung (sag) jeans, I might wonder about my safety—if even for a split second. That I wonder less, if at all, if it were a white man is not benign—nor is it an egregious act of violence. It is prejudiced, however, and shaped by racist socialization on a level outside of my family of origin. When I catch myself in such a moment of thinking, I don’t spiral into a guilt trip or any other self-critical trip, but rather note the manifold ways racism is part of me even though my parents did not raise me as a racist, and even though I participate in white ally-anti-racism activities, and even though I continue to educate myself about racism and have done so since I was in high school. The practice alone of mindfulness regarding racism makes it easier for me to see its ubiquity, and to talk about it as well since a mindfulness practice is also a practice of non-judgment.

My experience is that some white folks deny this kind of racism, which is impossible given socialization. When I attended a meeting of white therapists focused on racism and our profession, one of the therapists wondered if it would be a good idea for us to out ourselves to one another about racist thoughts and acts in order to reduce shame, build awareness, and enhance conversation.

The room of about 30 white therapists fell silent. After some time of silence, I spoke about a similar kind of story to the one in the example above and reflected that using mindfulness as a vehicle to uncovering racism, to me, is essential to deepening learning about racism and practicing unlearning racism on an individual level. No one else in the room spoke including the person who brought up the idea in the first place. After even more silence, the topic was changed to how “difficult” it is that the larger professional organization of which this group was a part had not considered ever focusing on racism and psychotherapy like “we” were doing, and the remainder of the meeting was a discussion focused on how the organization should change. Racism was located suddenly outside of the group of we white therapists.

DiAngelo describes similar patterns of interactions among whites such that the person breaking silence receives response from other whites ranging from attack to being ignored, and the group shifts focus to racism occurring outside of the group. It is so risky, so emotionally charged, and perhaps even threatening for white people to talk with one another about racism. Even as well intentioned as this group of therapists were, as a group we were not ready to really engage with one another around our racism.

Color blindness and the Costs of Unexamined Whiteness

“If we hold the perspective of colorblindness, it falls to us as individuals to make it on merit, on individual characteristics versus larger forces.” This means that folks who are unemployed and poor are so due to character rather than systems of oppression and the after-effects of transgenerational trauma that are set within those oppressive systems. If subscribing to colorblindness, psychologically we might consider that symptoms of paranoia, depression, and anxiety are universal and not influenced by living in a racist society, nor adaptive and normative, rather than pathological. While intellectually I think most white therapists would understand these concepts, applying them experientially is another matter.

If we are colorblind, we cannot examine both the privileges and the costs of our whiteness. We are literally blinded. Some white folks do not want to be “lumped in” with the white group, and I certainly can identify times when I feel the same, yet as it has been widely noted, regardless of our personal desires regarding white affiliation, we are not granted privileges as individuals but because of the lack of melanin in our skin. The white sociologist Dr. Amanda Lewis reflects that while examining whiteness can be challenging (because whites generally do not understand themselves as being a part of a white group), nevertheless it is vital to explore not only because of the aforementioned, but also because whiteness shapes sociological and psychological imagination.

In writing about whiteness in the psychological imagination, African American psychologist Dr. Jonathan Mathias Lassiter suggests costs of whiteness to white people; heightened defensiveness, emptiness, meaninglessness, disconnection, and loneliness are among them. I can feel all of these to greater or lesser extent along some kind of continuum when I begin to examine how white identity manifests in me moment to moment, and specifically when I am experiencing some privilege, aware of this, and at the same time feel conflicted about it. I find this is primarily a self-focused reflection, and seems wrapped up with the lack of interdependency whiteness rests upon. The maintenance of privileged whiteness requires subjugated “others,” even when we are unaware or unconscious of this. Recognizing the costs of unconscious whiteness is not an exercise of victimhood undermining racism people of color experience; it is a practice of noticing how socialization of privilege also cuts us off from greater meaning, connection, and openness.

Guilt, Shame and Blame

An African American client of mine once remarked on my shoes, more specifically how I maintained them (which is inattentively to say the least), and how if she would do the same thing with her footwear white people would interpret her poor care of her shoes as an example of laziness, as fulfilling stereotypes of African Americans. Immediately I heated up, and thoughts jumped in my head arguing with her point of view—wasn’t she exaggerating?—and then feeling horribly guilty and ashamed that I was thinking these thoughts about my client with whom I have worked and built strong attachment over years of treatment. Initially, I named the racism she was talking about and only because, I think, of our long-term therapy relationship did I feel courageous enough to share with her my internal process, feelings, and how I had to “check” myself before I spoke. It was not the first time the client and I had talked of racism and how it plays out in our relationship, and I know it will not be the last. Coming clean with my client dissipated the guilt and shame I was feeling—as well as the blame toward my client. The conversation also brought us closer together. As she remarked, she always feels she can trust me more when I take a chance in being so honest.

I cannot say that I would take that risk with all my clients of color, most likely due to aspects of my defensive process. Invulnerability is integral to unexamined white identity, and to racism. The wish to remain seen and felt in a “good,” well intentioned way, in a liberal way, in a way that is understood as conscientious, is brittle when we are not willing to also be seen as speaking or acting in a privileged or racist way—or defending and refusing to examine these reflections of self when called upon to do so. This kind of invulnerability, however, cements guilt, shame, and blame in place.

In her article describing psychotherapy with an African American client, Melanie Suchet, a white South African émigré and psychoanalyst in New York City, describes how white guilt, shame, and blame gets in the way of productive therapy with her African American client. As therapists, what is most vulnerable in us with any particular client is frequently where we falter in the process. The faltering can be productive if we can use it, process it and understand it. In terms of white clinicians, our socialized racism and lack of white racial identity development, the vulnerabilities of white guilt, shame, and blame related to privilege, power, and other facets of racism are played out in particular ways with clients of color, and numerous articles, including Suchet’s work, highlight these.

It seems to me that the trifecta of guilt, shame, and blame is also silently played out with white clients and white peers, sometimes voiced with disavowal. Among white folks, what we do with shame, blame, and guilt makes a difference. We may freeze, disengage, become enraged, or use the guilt or shame as defenses too, all allowing us to leave the conversation of racism and white racial identity behind. DiAngelo notes how discussions around racism among whites evoke common responses like anger, withdrawal, freezing, cognitive dissonance, and argumentation—in other words, quite a bit of defensiveness. She calls this white fragility. White fragility is an intimate companion of invulnerability, both inherently defensive, and both soaked in the trio of guilt, shame, and blame.

Continuing Education in Talking about Racism

In mental health professional meetings, I find it curious that white clinicians may not be interested in enrolling in anti-racism seminars such as the one I attended, nor to even take advantage of learning materials. “Some white psychotherapists have explicitly said that this kind of training is irrelevant to psychotherapy, or not concerned enough with emotional safety (of whites), and generally not necessary for therapists who are trained to listen deeply with empathy.”

Recently, a professional organization of which I am a part offered an excellent day-long seminar regarding the psychological pain of people of color. I find these kinds of workshops more or less well attended by white therapists, but they are limited in that they continue to focus on people of color as “the other”—which is more comfortable. It would be so useful for the multicultural competence, let alone for further growth among white clinicians, if we engaged in experiential (not intellectual) seminars on anti-racism such as those offered by StirFry Seminars and Consulting near where I live (I don’t work for them by the way, but offer them up as an example as I have participated in trainings there). I could see from that baseline kind of education, white therapists might develop additional seminars for further training such as countertransference racism, guilt, and shame; how to develop awareness of racism within us and how this impacts the therapeutic relationship, and so forth. If our conversations among all of us about racism are to deepen and widen, if our awareness is to expand outside the binaries of good and bad, continuing education about racism is necessary.

Uncovering White Racial Identity

Of course these stages are not abandoned once we pass through them, or at least that is not my experience. The nature of privilege is that we have a choice to not engage experientially and affectively the work of anti-racism in whatever ways we are able to do so. Our privilege as white folks is that we can dip in and out of this work, and we can choose what aspects in which we want to participate. I know that I dip in and out of the work myself, evidence of privilege and how the stages of identity development are not linear. I do this at times even while intending to further my awareness practices. I am still able to “break away” by choice, and sometimes I do. Inhabiting a sophisticated white racial identity, to me at least, is not a static state; I do not know how it could be as the nature of privilege is constant, whereas awareness tends to vacillate. I think of white racial development as a practice for this reason, and one that involves further dialogue with other white therapists, and ongoing education along the same lines.

Emotional Home

Living and practicing as a white psychologist I grapple with these questions: Have I recognized my privilege today? How have I used my privilege today, and to what do I attribute the privilege received? Psychologically, how do I hold the trauma of current and historical racism without defensively deflecting it? How do I practice daily recognition and understanding of microaggressions in which I participate? How does racism impact my clients and me, regardless of racial identity? How do my favorite psychological theories and practices possess an assumed universality of humanity when actually they are only about one group of human beings? How does my white subjectivity influence and shape my work in general?

There are no clean, clear, sure-fire answers for these ongoing questions of mine. It does seem to me, however, that psychological thinking around dynamics of defense, racial identity development, and trauma (racial, transgenerational, and otherwise), are all useful to such a vast, permeating, and incendiary topic as racism and white racial development. It would be fitting for all of us practicing in this profession of helping humanity to lend our energy to ongoing personal exploration, wider discussion, writing, and speaking publicly about these topics. It is vulnerable, yes, but within the vulnerability as we all well know is the seed of growth.

References

1. Dr. Gina deArth's works can be found here.

2. Dr. Monica Wiliams' blog, "Culturally Speaking" can be read here

Further Reading

Fox, Prilleltensky, and Austin (Eds). (2009). Critical Psychology: An Introduction. California: Sage.

Mesquita, B., Feldman Barrett, L., and Smith, E. (2010). The mind in context. New York: Guilford.

Nelson, J.C., Adams, G., & Salter, P.S. (2013). The Marley Hypothesis: Racism Denial reflects ignorance of history. Psychological Science, 24, 213-218

Phillips, N., Adams, G., & Salter, P. (2015). Beyond adaptation: decolonizing approaches to coping with oppression. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3 (1), pp. 365-387.

Salter, P. & Adams, G. (2013). Toward a critical race psychology. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 7(11), pp. 781-793.

Photo by Gerry Lauzon, some rights reserved.

In Bed With Your Therapist: The Paradoxical Intimacy of Online Psychotherapy

Online Therapy

When engaging in psychotherapy by Skype or other video conferencing system, clients will often keep their appointment even when they feel too sick or fragile to attend school or go to work. They reach out to their online therapist from the comfort of home, sometimes wrapped in blankets in a cozy chair, sometimes lying on a couch.

And sometimes, they will have their session from bed, cradling their on-screen therapist in their lap. As an occasional change of locale, it makes sense and is far better than missing the session.

Other clients actually prefer to hold their appointments in bed on a regular basis. Both authors have held continuing weekly sessions with men and women who connected with us from their bedrooms, usually clothed and lying on top of the bedspread, often leaning back against the headboard with pillows. The session venue a client chooses often makes a subtle statement, but our clients who take us to bed instantly get our attention.

Therapists in bed with their clients. It raises so many uncomfortable but fascinating issues. Does it mean we, as therapists, are failing to preserve good boundaries? Are we allowing our professional role to be trivialized? Is the erotic transference (or even more troubling, the erotic counter-transference) at work?

We believe that occasional sessions from bed can be useful, maintaining contact that might otherwise be interrupted by illness or some other factor. We have found that the choice of ongoing sessions from the bedroom provides important information, to be understood and made use of in therapy. Therapists need to pay ongoing attention to boundaries and transference issues, of course; but if we’re mindful, we can also focus on the purpose and meaning of this unusual choice—to take your therapist to bed.

Kyle and Lisa are two clients whose stories show how bed sessions can be both constructive and revealing.

Kyle and the Shame Spiral (Joseph Burgo)

Early in our work together, Kyle used to suffer from what we referred to as the "downward shame spiral." Fearing that he might humiliate himself at some upcoming event such as a job interview, Kyle would postpone that appointment at the last moment; but doing so only filled him with shame and made him dread the rescheduled interview even more, which he would subsequently reschedule once again with another feeble excuse, and so on, until the employer lost interest.

Eventually he would become so overcome with shame about his behavior, feeling himself to be a “total loser,” that he would retreat from the world and retire to his bed, often for days on end. Sometimes he would cancel one of our twice-weekly sessions at the last moment; on other days, he slept right through the hour and emailed me much later. Missing the appointments intensified his sense of shame and failure, which made it even more difficult for him to break out of the downward spiral. Overcome with shame, he couldn’t reach out to me for help.

I came to recognize when Kyle was on the verge of one of these retreats by reading his facial expression … or rather, his complete lack of expression when he appeared on screen. Kyle’s usual manner was quite lively and engaging; he had a good sense of humor and a compelling smile. In the grip of a downward shame spiral, however, his face looked deadened, as if it were numb. While he and I normally had a warm and friendly relationship, at these moments, he gave me an impression of complete indifference, as if he felt nothing about me. He seemed encapsulated and cut off from me. I could usually predict that he would miss the next two or three sessions.

Eventually, Kyle would emerge from his shame retreat, re-engaging with me and the world at large, though we never understood exactly why and how he recovered. It felt almost biological, as if he had to pass through a physiological cycle over which he had no control.

This state of affairs went on for six or seven months, with downward shame spirals kicking in every few weeks or so. As many times as I encouraged him to reach out to me, as warmly as I expressed my concern, nothing seemed to help him withstand the call of bed. I felt frustrated by the many missed appointments and wondered if I was really helping him. During one of our sessions at the end of this period, he came in with the “dead face,” as we referred to it, and I didn’t expect to see him for our second session later that week.

I nonetheless logged onto Skype at the appointed time to wait for him. A few minutes into the session, I received an email from Kyle. Running behind. With you in a few. I sat at my computer and waited. About five minutes later, Skype showed Kyle “online” and he soon initiated the call. My screen came to life. “Usually, Kyle would speak to me while seated at a table in his apartment, or sometimes in a small conference room at his workplace. Today, he was in bed, lying down so that his unshaven face appeared sideways in the screen.” His hair was rumpled. He still wore the dead face expression but at least he had shown up.

“Is this okay?” he asked. “I wasn’t sure if you’d mind my Skypeing you from bed but I couldn’t make myself get up.”

“You’re here,” I assured him. “That’s what matters.”

Kyle filled me in on the last couple of days. He had indeed fallen into a downward shame spiral after our last session and retreated to his bedroom. He’d cancelled some appointments and dropped the ball on some important commitments, but he didn’t want to remain in seclusion any longer. I could feel him searching my face for disapproval or judgment; I told him that I was very glad he had managed to keep our appointment.

Over the course of the session, Kyle shifted to a sitting position, his back against the headboard, with his computer positioned in his lap. Though not exactly lively, his expression no longer seemed completely immobile. By the end of the session, he had resolved to get out of bed after we signed off, and so he did. When he appeared on screen for his next session, he was fully clothed and in work mode.

The in-bed session was a transitional space for Kyle: allowing me into his place of seclusion helped him to bridge the gap and reconnect to his world. I considered it a sign of progress that he had reached out to me and indeed, over the next half-year, the downward shame spirals lessened in both frequency and duration. We conducted one or two more sessions from his bedroom, but eventually, the strength of our emotional connection allowed Kyle to keep his appointments no matter how badly he felt.

Eventually, the downward shame spiral became a thing of the past.

Lisa's Artist's Block (Anastasia Piatakhina Giré)

Lisa was an attractive woman in her late fifties whose marriage to a successful businessman allowed her to pursue her passion for art. The first time we met, Lisa was lying in bed, weak from a recent flu. A bright floral canvas appeared on the wall behind her. She told me she was a painter and proudly announced that she had her own “atelier” in her home. The painting on the wall was one of her own.

I enjoyed meeting with Lisa, even if the décor—the flowery bed linen and a bedside table with a pot of face cream on it—made me feel rather uncomfortable and aware of boundaries being crossed. “Lisa apologized for “receiving me in bed,” but didn’t look uneasy about it.”

At first glance, Lisa seemed to have everything a woman of her age could wish for: two grown children, a supportive husband, and a very exciting hobby. But she acknowledged a feeling of profound sadness and almost physical emptiness, which she could not explain or share with anyone else. In fact, for the past few months she had been unable able to paint and was actively avoiding her studio. Describing her artist’s block, unusual for her, made Lisa blush with shame.

As the weeks went by, she continued connecting for sessions from her bed. She looked perfectly healthy, with no signs of depression or any other debilitating condition. Unable to escape from that bedroom, my uneasiness kept growing and I gradually began to feel trapped.

What was Lisa trying to convey by “keeping me in her bed”?

When I finally shared with her my curiosity about her choice of place for our sessions, she at first seemed surprised. She had always thought that online therapy “was this thing you could do from anywhere.” Then we began to explore what “bed” represented to her. I asked whether it was a space she usually shared with her husband, Charles.

No, they had being living in separate rooms for the last decade as Charles’ sleeping problems kept him awake for most of the night. In the beginning, he used to make frequent visits to her bedroom; they would often stay in bed together, chatting and sometimes making love. Over time, his visits became increasingly rare; now, he would pass by her room with just a quick “hello,” moving on to his own bedroom. Sharing this for the first time, Lisa looked profoundly sad, her usual cheerfulness replaced by tears.

I understood that her bed had become a lonely place where she felt trapped, unwanted, and too old for sex. To express these feelings verbally, either to her husband or to me, her therapist, was far too difficult because she felt so ashamed of this “pathetic and needy” part of herself. Though Lisa couldn’t express her desire for sexual contact with her husband, was she unconsciously making me his replacement by taking me into bed?

I encouraged Lisa to take the risk and tell Charles how she felt. The confession took him by surprise: he had no idea that his wife still desired him and had assumed that she preferred him to keep his distance. Charles soon came back to visiting her bedroom regularly. Now that she had replaced me with a more appropriate “bed” companion, Lisa began connecting for sessions from her atelier, a far more suitable location for therapy.

For our last session, Lisa was dressed in her working outfit—clearly Charles’ old shirt, oversized for her. She was bubbling with a new energy, and announced to me that her artist’s block seemed dissolved, “gone by magic.” She was able to paint again.

Up Close and Personal

These two vignettes illustrate how online psychotherapy can facilitate progress and provide information that in-person sessions cannot, at least not as quickly. No doubt Kyle would eventually have made his way back to the consulting room after a shame attack, but the middle-ground of therapy-in-bed provided a helpful bridge. In all likelihood, Lisa would eventually have communicated her isolation and longing for intimacy to an in-person therapist, but without the visual setting that prompted her online therapist to probe deeper, it likely would have taken much longer.

In discussions of online psychotherapy, professionals and laypeople usually see it as second best to in-person therapy. After practicing in the online setting as well as in person for several years now, the authors have come to believe that it is neither better nor worse, but truly different. Experiences like being “taken to bed” by our online clients often provide a kind of insight that would never be available to a therapist seeing all of his clients in a physical therapy office.

We’ve also discovered a special intimacy that is idiosyncratic to online therapy. Even if both were sitting up, the in-person therapist would never see a client such as Kyle so intensely “up close and personal.” During an online session, the computer image often seems analogous to a movie screen filled up by an actor’s face, conveying high intensity anger or fear or shame to the audience. While in certain respects online sessions are less immediate than in-person psychotherapy, we have found them to be even more intimate, more emotionally evocative in this particular way.

Online sessions also allow a client like Lisa to show rather than to tell, and as any fiction writer will tell you, a vivid and visual scene more effectively engages the reader than straight narrative. Clients who connect from bed often show us something deeply personal and painful that would be much harder to narrate later during an in-person session. Consciously or not, they invite us to witness their personal world first-hand, to enter their story lines, so to speak, rather than hearing about them after the fact. This conveys to the online “here-and-now” a very distinct, moving quality.

Such moments of real intimacy and shared vulnerability are precious, helping us to forge a strong therapeutic relationship with our clients, even ones who may be thousands of miles away on another continent and who we may never actually meet in person.

This essay is condensed and adapted from the authors’ forthcoming book In Bed With Our Clients (and Other Adventures in Online Psychotherapy).

Allan Schore on the Science of the Art of Psychotherapy

David Bullard: Allan, you are known for integrating psychological and biological models of emotional and social development across the lifespan. You’ve done a great deal of research and writing suggesting that the early developing, emotion-processing right brain represents the psychobiological substrate of the human unconscious described by Freud. Your work has been an important catalyst in the ongoing “emotional revolution” now occurring across clinical and scientific disciplines.

I’ve been watching my own process while getting ready for this interview, with a lot of left-brain work: reading, taking copious notes and thinking, and anxiously trying to figure out the structure for this interview. After all, it isn’t everyday one gets to interview a person called “the American Bowlby,” and whom the American Psychoanalytic Association has described as “a monumental figure in psychoanalytic and neuropsychoanalytic studies!” But essentially, this will be a conversation, and
I’d like to begin with a quote attributed to Jung, involving a graduate student who went to him, inquiring as to what he could do to become the best therapist possible. Jung said, —loosely translated—“Well, go to the library and read and study everything good that’s ever been written about the art and science of psychotherapy, and then forget it all before you sit down to peer into the human soul.”

It occurs to me, having followed your work for a while—most recently your writing about right brain communication in psychotherapy—that Jung’s quote may be partly what you’re writing about.
Allan Schore: Absolutely. The title of my book, The Science of the Art of Psychotherapy (2012), attempts to more clearly understand the relationship between the two, because on the one hand, as so much clinically relevant research now shows us, there is a science that underlies the clinical domain. And there is a certain amount of information and knowledge that we as clinicians must have in order to succeed in the particular area of expertise that we’re in—psychotherapeutic change processes.

Yet, at the same time it’s also an art, something that is extremely subjective and personal. For most of the last century it was thought that subjectivity was outside the purview of science. But we now understand psychotherapy changes more than overt behavior and language—it also acts on subjectivity and emotion. As you know, the left hemisphere is dominant for language and overt behavior; the right for emotion and subjectivity. This dichotomy fits nicely with left versus right brain functions. The two cerebral hemispheres process information from the outside—and inside—world in different ways: one from an objective stance, the other from a more subjective perspective. The two brains use different ways of perceiving the world and of being in the world.

Neuroscience has legitimized subjectivity in psychology and in therapy.
Neuroscience has legitimized subjectivity in psychology and in therapy. Both science and clinical theory agree that psychotherapy is basically relational and emotional, and so we now think that emotionally and intersubjectively being with the patient is more important than rationally explaining the patient’s behavior to himself. The core self system is relational and emotional, and lateralized to the right hemisphere, and not the analytical left brain. As we empathically “follow the affect” and facilitate the patient experiencing a “heightened affective moment,” we’re intuitively inhibiting the dominance of the left and “leaning right.”
DB: Can you speak more about how neuroscience is changing our understanding of the art of psychotherapy?
AS: Let me try to give a broad overview. In the critical moments of any session the patient must sense that we’re empathically with them. Research shows a difference between the left brain understanding of cognitive empathy and right brain bodily-based emotional empathy. In other words, we’re experiencing and sharing the patient’s right brain emotional subjective states, being with the patient rather than doing to the patient. In this therapeutic context we have to also be in the right brain to make therapeutic contact, and for the patient to make contact with her deeper emotions. Later we may engage our left brains to more cognitively understand the emotional state, but while we’re attempting to “listen beneath the words” in order to “reach the affect” and work with the affect we must, as Reik said, abandon “sweet reason” and “rigidly rational consciousness” and “abandon yourself” to intuitive hunches that emerge from the unconscious.

Intuition and empathy are right brain functions, and both operate at levels beneath conscious awareness. Bion said we must leave conscious expectation behind in order to really hear the whole patient. So getting back to Jung, he also said “Man’s task is to become conscious of the contents that press upward from the unconscious.”

These two different brains, the conscious mind and the unconscious mind, must work together. As my colleague Iain McGilchrist has shown, we are currently out of hemispheric balance. I think psychology has placed too great an emphasis on the conscious mind, and we are now challenging the long-held idea that reason must overcome bodily-based emotion. That the conscious mind needs to control and suppress the unconscious mind, that science and art are always in conflict, and that they would never mesh together. As I’ve written, with the ongoing interdisciplinary paradigm shift our perspective has changed, and not incidentally the gap between the practice and the theory of psychotherapy has really collapsed in the last two decades.

Getting back to your Jung citation, at the very beginning of our clinical education we’re learning techniques, and we’re learning the psychological science of psychotherapy. But as we learn our craft and gain clinical experience, ultimately the bulk of our learning comes from being with and learning from our patients—about them as well as self-knowledge. As I see it, our growing clinical expertise expands within the psychotherapeutic relationships we share with our patients. It’s what our patients are teaching us, if we are open to it. It’s not just about them and the deeper psychological realms within them. It’s at the same time becoming more familiar with the deeper core of our own self system. Being psychodynamically focused, this involves the use of both our conscious left and especially the unconscious “right mind.”

I believe that we’ve overvalued the analytic left mind. So lately I’ve looked more carefully at the neuroscience for the overt and subtle difference between the left and right brain/mind. This has shifted my clinical focus from the explicit to the implicit, from cognitive mental content to affective psychobiological process. I now see the change mechanism acting beneath the words—in process more than content. We now have a better idea what this process is about, and how relational interactions literally can change that process and thereby change character structure.

My idea about science is that we need to update ourselves about what is objectively known about the brain and what is known about the body, as well as “knowing” more about our own subjectivity. And that’s a continual journey. Fundamentally, our psychotherapeutic exploration of somebody else’s subjectivity, which is bodily-based subjectivity, is also an exploration of our own subjectivity. So, there are two types of knowledge here that really underlie psychotherapy change processes: the explicit knowledge of the broader biological and psychological scientific theories, and the “implicit relational knowledge of self and other.”
DB: Before we go any further, as a psychodynamic therapist, even a “neuropsychoanalytic” one, what might you say about your work to therapists who are using more directive methods, such as CBT and EMDR?
AS: The neurobiologically informed psychodynamic perspective that I use emphasizes a clinical focus on not only explicit conscious but implicit unconscious processes. All schools of psychotherapy are now interested in these essential functions that take place beneath awareness. And all are accessing attachment internal working models, which Bowlby said operate at unconscious levels and can be changed by therapy. So I’m interested in not only the patient’s overt behavior, but also her internal world, what cognitive scientists call internal schemas.

My work is fundamentally about how to work with affect, and so clinically I’m exploring with the patient not only conscious but unconscious cognition and, importantly, unconscious affect. The patient may have no awareness of what neuroscience is now describing as “unconscious negative emotion.” Research has now established that fear isn’t necessarily conscious; you can experience it without being aware that you’re experiencing it. So how do we detect these unconscious affects?

And then there’s the matter of the communication of emotions within the therapeutic alliance that are so rapid that they occur beneath conscious awareness. The alliance is a central mechanism in not only psychodynamic therapy but CBT, EMDR, experiential, body psychotherapy, etc. This gets to what used to be called the common factors that impact all forms of treatment. I’m interested in the change mechanisms that occur in all psychotherapeutic modalities, but especially in the right brain, which is dominant for emotional and social functions and stress regulation.
DB: But let me get in a question for the people who may not have had much exposure to the kind of neuroscience and the neuropsychoanalytic approach that you’ve written so much about over the last two decades. At basic levels, you say that right brain development is much more rapid in the newborn, or in the developing fetus even. Can you address those implications?
AS: Let me just go wide for a second and then we can kind of dive in here, because the truth of it is that the last two decades have been remarkable in terms of the changes in the field of psychology across the board. I’m thinking about the early ‘90s when there was a huge split between researchers and clinicians, where there were divisions within the different schools of psychotherapy, and where the focus was very much on verbal content of the session. Although there were breaks away from classical psychoanalytic theory, the focus was still on undoing repression, making the unconscious conscious, and with interpretations being the major vectors of the treatment. Emotion really had not come into the forefront. But that’s the key to the change.

Over the ‘70s we had been moving into a behavioral psychology and from that to a behavioral psychotherapy. Then it transitioned into a cognitive psychology where suddenly, we went beyond just overt behavior and into covert cognition, which became a legitimate field of study. Out of that came cognitive behavioral therapy and then in the ‘90s the emotional revolution, as it’s been called, began, which posited that affect is primary, as well as affect regulation. And that’s where my studies really began, in the early 1990’s.

The Reemergence of Psychoanalysis

DB: Did you have much contact with psychoanalysts Joe Weiss and Hal Sampson in San Francisco who founded a psychotherapy research group and developed Control Mastery Theory?
AS: Not contact, but I was well aware of them and I’m pretty sure they were aware of me.
DB: They were.
AS: Their work has held up, and its impact continues. There’s now an intense interest in gaining a deeper understanding of what used to be called the non-specific mechanisms of change, in all forms of psychotherapy. They were onto that really early.

My first book, Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self, tied together the social-emotional change processes in early development and in psychotherapy. This was in 1994 and, incidentally, the term “self” was not being used that much back then. Psychodynamic people were still more or less using the term “ego” rather than “self.” As I’m sure you’re well aware, Jung had put his money on “self” and was much closer to describing the core system than Freud’s “ego.”

The early developmental models of the time were dominated by the cognitive models of Piaget.
Everyone had been attempting to try to squeeze Piaget into a psychotherapeutic mechanism. It proved to be kind of an awkward fit.
Everyone had been attempting to try to squeeze Piaget into a psychotherapeutic mechanism. It proved to be kind of an awkward fit. Emotion was the key to attachment.

And so the subtitle of my book was The Neurobiology of Early Emotional Development. That same year Antonio Damasio had come out with his book Descartes' Error, and the whole idea of emotion, which had been ignored by science, began to come out of the closet.

Twenty years later it’s well established that emotion is primary in early human development, that affect dysregulation lies at the core of psychopathology, and that affective communications are essential in all forms of psychotherapy.

The second area of basic change is the matter of the interpersonal neurobiology of attachment—a shift from the intrapsychic to the interpersonal. Many people had been looking at attachment theory, but even attachment theory was hard to anchor clinical process in. That had to be worked out: other than the “strange situation” and the AAI [Adult Attachment Interview], how were clinicians going to use Bowlby’s attachment theory and information about early development? That has been a remarkable change. Now just about every clinician has some understanding of the centrality of early development and how that interpersonal developmental mechanism plays out in the therapeutic relationship.

Indeed, early development really has come into the fore in all forms of psychotherapy, with all patient populations.
Interpersonal neurobiology—how early relationships shape the brain—has transformed attachment theory.
Interpersonal neurobiology—how early relationships shape the brain—has transformed attachment theory. This transformation from what I call “classical attachment theory” to “modern attachment theory” focuses on not only regulation but also dysregulation and ideas of psychopathogenesis, which have also been major themes of my work. My efforts have been to generate a more integrated theory of mind and body, of psychology and biology. In essence I’ve attempted to synthesize these fields in order to create a coherent psychobiological model of how the self develops, how dysregulation and disorders evolve, and then ultimately how to treat these disorders.

A couple of other things to mention: another change over the last two decades has been the reemergence of psychodynamic theory and the revitalization of psychoanalysis, the science of unconscious processes. It took a while, because as you know, classical psychoanalysis was seen as apart from science, and was cast out of academia for a long period of time.

But this reemergence has paradoxically been fostered by neuroscience, and its interest in rapid implicit processes. Neuroimaging research has established that most essential adaptive processes are so rapid that they take place beneath conscious awareness. I’ve suggested that the self system is located in the right brain, the biological substrate of the human unconscious. This differs from Freud’s dynamic unconscious, which mainly contains repressed material, banished from consciousness. At any rate there is now great interest in implicit unconscious processes, and I think we’re now coming back to a modern expression of psychodynamic theory. Indeed all forms of therapy are now looking at right brain to right brain transference and countertransference communications, and how these are expressed in the therapeutic alliance, beneath the words.
All forms of therapy are now looking at right brain to right brain transference and countertransference communications, and how these are expressed in the therapeutic alliance, beneath the words.



One other major change has been the rediscovery of brain lateralization, and the appreciation of the different structural organizations of the right and left brain. Each has different critical periods and growth spurts, and ultimately different specialized functions. For me the terra incognita literally has always been the early developing right brain, the unconscious. More so than the surface conscious mind my interest has been in deeper early forming nonverbal bodily-based survival processes. I became especially interested in how we could bring these survival processes into the open, and how these could be studied. As a clinician-scientist, everything that I’ve authored has had to be clinically relevant. It has to fit the way that I work with my patients, as well as scientifically grounded. My theories are heuristic, and not only open to research but able to generate experimental hypotheses that can be tested.

Hemisphericity

DB: You’ve spoken of the left brain being verbal, rational, and logical, but of the right brain actually having verbal aspects also. How would you describe the verbal capacities of the right brain?
AS: The first person to bring up the idea that all language is not only in the left hemisphere, just for the record, was Freud in 1891 in On Aphasia, which still is studied by neurologists.
Right hemispheric language creates the intimate feeling of “being with.”
But the idea that everything that is verbal has to, by definition, reside in the left brain is still held by many people. Current neuroscience shows this is not the case. The right also has language. The right stores our own names, and processes emotional words. Prosody, the emotional tone of the voice, is right lateralized, as well as novel metaphors, and making thematic inferences. So when a patient all of a sudden is in an emotional state and is using an emotional word, the right is tracking that also. Right hemispheric language creates the intimate feeling of “being with.”
DB: And humor is known to be more right brain?
AS: Absolutely!
DB: And it kind of “wakes up” our left brain with recognition?
AS: Yes. Because the processing of what is familiar is left and the processing of novelty is right. Essentially we’re looking for, not the bottom line preexisting truth, but for the ability to process novelty, especially novelty in social emotional interactions. And for many patients intimacy is novelty. So, yes, anything that is new pops into the right brain first, and you actually get bursts of noradrenaline in the right hemisphere, the hemisphere that is dominant for attention. In fact, I’m now citing studies which indicate that the highest levels of human cognition—the “aha” moment of insight, intuition, creativity, indeed love, are all expressions of the right and not left brain.
DB: It’s in the right, but we don’t know about it until it shows up in the left. The right brain lets us know what’s actually going on, especially in the body, and in the deeper core of the self.
AS: Correct. Essentially, the left has the illusion that it has just discovered something new, but the truth of it is the right has discovered it, and now the left is putting into words what the right just found out about the self, especially in relation to other self systems. My colleague Darcia Narvaez is showing that morality is also a very high right brain process. A body of research indicates that the right is dominant for affiliation, the left for power.

This gets into some of the matters that Jung and others were talking about— these very high symbolic mechanisms are in the right hemisphere. Here’s another example of how neuroscience has changed our ideas about the human experience. It used to be thought that all symbolic processes are a product of the verbal left brain, so the goal was to get the patient to use words, and once there was conscious verbalization, then the patient can understand, and then the unconscious becomes conscious and change occurs. We’re now saying that’s not quite the case. The ultimate expression of the right brain is a conscious emotion. The ultimate expression of the left brain is a conscious thought.
Becoming aware of our bodily-based emotions is more essential than becoming aware of our thoughts.
Becoming aware of our bodily-based emotions is more essential than becoming aware of our thoughts.

The right brain and the unconscious mind are more connected into the visceral body. As you know the body has been rediscovered in the last couple of decades. And that’s been an enormous change for psychology and psychiatry.

Trauma and Development

DB: Would you say that has been driven through the clinical work, research and writing on trauma?
AS: Partly that. But also the developmental work on attachment theory and attachment trauma. Clearly, modern trauma theory, which did not really exist until around the late ‘90s, has also been one of the important transformations of the last two decades—the idea that “the body keeps the score,” as Bessel van der Kolk put it. But even beyond that, I would suggest it’s the re-discovery of the autonomic nervous system that is the major player here. It’s now an accepted principle that in order to understand the human experience it’s not just the voluntary behavior of the central nervous system, but also the involuntary behavior of the autonomic nervous system—mind and body. And that’s why much of my bodily-based attachment model involves the autonomic nervous system. The mother is literally a regulator of crescendos and de-crescendos of the baby’s developing autonomic nervous system.

These same bodily-based processes are also involved in the therapist’s right brain psychobiological attunement to and regulation of the patient’s emotional states. So the body has now embedded itself into the core of models of subjectivity—an embodied subjectivity which is not just an abstraction of the left brain, but right brain processes. The body is now seen as essential to right brain to right brain intersubjectivity. In my own work I’ve argued that this conceptual advance has impacted clinical models, such as somatic countertransference—the therapists’ own bodily reactions to patients’ conscious and especially unconscious communications. Also, there is the idea that a major function of the therapist is to regulate the patient’s autonomic arousal, a clinical concept that has challenged the older idea of neutrality, and that expands the previous concept of containment. This perspective attends more to right brain unconscious process than left brain conscious content. Once again, these scientific advances have transformed our clinical models.
DB: Wouldn’t another major transformation be what I heard you saying in a recent workshop: that the very disruptions of intensive therapy allow the repressed traumatic developmental relational issues to come to the surface, and if they’re dealt with properly, there then is healing?
AS: Absolutely the case. Except not “repressed,” but dissociated. There’s also been a shift in defenses, from an earlier clinical model that emphasized insight and the undoing of repression, a model of therapeutic action based on bringing to the patient’s consciousness repressed unconscious material.
Trauma theory emphasizes working with the deadening of affective consciousness by this other bodily-based survival defense, dissociation.
Trauma theory emphasizes working with the deadening of affective consciousness by this other bodily-based survival defense, dissociation. Clinicians are learning to differentiate the two and recognize the latter.

But, yes, the idea about disruptions and repairs came out of the developmental data and was incorporated into my modern attachment theory. My writings emphasize that rupture and repair, both in the developmental and psychotherapeutic contexts, involve important opportunities for interactive regulation of dysregulated affective states.

At the most fundamental level I’m interested in the mechanisms of change, especially in the early developing right brain self system. To use an earlier language, what I’m exploring is how the object relational sequences between the mother and the infant shape emerging psychic structure. In more modern terms these are investigations of interpersonal neurobiology. An interpersonal neurobiology of human development enables us to understand that the structure and function of the mind and brain are shaped by experiences, especially those involving emotional relationships, and to understand how brains align their neural activities in social interactions.

The tie in from my developmental work to my clinical work is that the same right brain to right brain social emotional processes that are setting up between the mother and the infant later play out in the therapeutic alliance. The model links the right brain growth in early development with later changes in the social/emotional context. And as you pointed out rupture and repair are potential contexts of emotional growth. So I’ve paid attention to the work of other developmental psychoanalytic researchers like Beatrice Beebe and Ed Tronick and Karlen Lyons-Ruth, who are also studying ruptures and repairs.

In my most recent writings I’ve focused on the essential role of these repairs in re-enactments of attachment trauma, which really is at the heart of the therapeutic change mechanism. I’m describing how both patient and therapist co-construct both the rupture and the repair, and that these ruptures are not technical mistakes, but literally—
DB: —the universal disappointments that are part of human relationships, and the repairs being the paths of healing?
AS: Beautifully put. Enactments represent communications of previous ruptures that triggered negative affects so intense and so painful that they were dissociated and banished from consciousness. As the therapy progresses and the attachment bond in the therapeutic alliance strengthens, there is enough safety for the patient to dis-assemble the dissociative defenses and let the affects come online more frequently. And then, what has been buried and packed down underneath dissociation surges into bodily awareness in the presence of a regulating other, now offering a possibility of interactive repair.
What has been buried and packed down underneath dissociation surges into bodily awareness in the presence of a regulating other, now offering a possibility of interactive repair.
Jung, who studied dissociation, described how the enduring emotional impact of childhood trauma “remains hidden all along from the patient, so that not reaching consciousness, the emotion never wears itself out, it is never used up.” He also stated the trauma may suddenly return: “it forces itself tyrannically upon the conscious mind. The explosion of affect is a complete invasion of the individual. It pounces upon him like an enemy or a wild animal.”

In my model of “relational trauma” I’ve suggested that it’s not just misattunements that lead to the traumatic predisposition. It’s also the lack of the repair, and that repair and interactive regulation requires a very personal, authentic response on the part of the therapist. Attachment trauma was originally relational, and so the healing must be relational, a mutual process. In Sullivan’s words, the therapist is not neutral and detached, but a “participant observer.”

Love, Repair, and Deepening Love

DB: Okay, can you take what we are talking about and even apply it beyond therapy to other intimate relationships? Could you actually say to a couple that it’s in the very upsets that they have that, if they could approach it in the right way, they’ll have a window into learning about some of their earlier wounds or traumas, and be able to heal them?
AS: Obviously the original context of attachment trauma was a very intimate context. I mean the relationship between the mother and the infant defined an intimate context. Her ability to down regulate negative affect in rupture and repair and up-regulate positive affect in mutual play shaped the attachment bond and the infant’s developing right brain. In a secure attachment the intimate context is characterized by mutual love, and over the course of my studies I’m increasingly using the term love to describe the intensity of the emotional bond. This is more than just pleasant affect. This is intense emotion.

And that love, incidentally, between the mother and the infant also is the mother’s ability to pick up communications that are not only joy but also distress and to be able to hold and to feel that in herself, and then to regulate that and communicate back to the baby.

The idea about being able to hold the pleasure and the pain really is the key to this. In the cases of other intimate dyads, this also applies. A number of clinicians are now focusing on the same right brain psychobiological mechanisms in couple’s work. The couples’ therapist who is working with attachment is able to hold the dyad, to regulate each member of the dyad. She’s also facilitating and reading nonverbal emotional communications within the dyad, and bringing to awareness affective moments in which they are engaging and disengaging, and switching between various emotional states.

The therapeutic action with couples is to allow each member to become more aware of these rapid automatic processes, and how each is communicating or blocking transmissions from the other. As always the clinical principle is to follow the affect, especially authentic affect, whether positive or negative. And again, rupture and repair are important contexts for right brain development and emotional growth. But even beyond couples therapy, interpersonal neurobiology and affective neuroscience are now being incorporated into group psychotherapy. The focus is on what group members are communicating beneath the words, at conscious and unconscious levels, and how right brain emotional communications and regulatory transactions are occurring in the group relational context.

So, although the emotional contact between humans originates in the mother-infant dyad, it ultimately becomes the way in which individual human beings communicate with other human beings. These deeper communications and miscommunications have little to do with left-brain language functions. They have more to do with right-brain abilities to nonconsciously read the spontaneous facial expression, tone of voice, and gestures of other humans.

Self-Regulation, Co-Regulation, and Buddhism

DB: Are Buddhist ideas of the self/nonself of interest to you? Or do you get all you need from psychoanalytic thought and neuroscience?
AS: Most of my ideas about the self come from neuroscience and psychoanalysis, including Jung and others. But the idea of self/nonself and multiple self states have been a focus. In current relational psychoanalytic writings the concept that comes closest to my own is Philip Bromberg’s idea about multiplicity of self-states: that we all have a variety of self states associated with different affects and motivations. Some of these are operating on a conscious level, others of these on unconscious levels. He calls these latter states “not-me” states as opposed to “me” states (a concept he borrowed from Harry Stack Sullivan).

Depending upon context we nonconsciously switch through these states. Each of these self states is tied into a motivational system (fear, aggression, shame, depression, joy etc.). In other words, when threatened, the fear motivational system is triggered. My right brain is attending to and tracking the external threat outside. In that self state noradrenaline and adrenaline is higher, cortisol is elevated, the physiology and attentional systems are altered. The memory system is also altered. When the threat passes or I’ve regulated and coped with it, I become relieved and switch into another self state, say a quiet alert state or a positively valenced exploratory state. So due to self regulating mechanisms we switch through these self-states. Resilience and flexibility is the adaptive ability to fluidly switch depending upon what is occurring in the context and what is meaningful at that point in time.

On the matter of Buddhism’s concept of self—that self state of consciousness that is associated with meditation, as I understand the concept, aims to control and still the fluctuations of the mind. The self (mind, awareness) identifies itself with fluctuating patterns of consciousness. Yoga, for example, is a form of mastering or eliminating such fluctuations and the attainment of stable concentration of attention and non-attachment to sensory experiences. With practice a change from evaluative to non-evaluative self-monitoring occurs during meditation. That said, neuroscience studies show that “compassionate meditation” does have more of a right brain, limbic focus.

I’ve written that self regulation can take two forms: interactive regulation in affiliative interconnected contexts, and autoregulation in autonomous contexts. In yoga the meditating self is acting as an autoregulatory system. My interests in development and in psychotherapy are relational, so I’ve been more interested in interactive regulation that occurs between human beings.

That said, the key is being able to switch between these two modes of self regulation. Both of these derive from the early interactive regulation of the attachment relationship. Going inward to control emotion is different from reaching outwards to others at moments of loss or joy. The inability to emotionally connect with others is at the core of any relational affect focused psychotherapy.
As I look at the significant problems of the larger world I’m convinced that we need more connection, not separation and autonomy.
As I look at the significant problems of the larger world I’m convinced that we need more connection, not separation and autonomy. For me, where we are in this world right now, really what we desperately need, what’s being thinned down on a daily basis, is this capacity for interactive regulation.

We also have the problem that the US and Western cultures emphasize the value of autonomous and independent personalities; they are highly valued over interdependent ones. As I mentioned, the left hemisphere is associated with power and competitiveness, the right with affiliation and pro-social motivations. So, again, that’s the reason why I’ve been more interested in the higher right hemisphere, which processes not only emotional states and higher cognitive functions, but spiritual and moral experiences. It is here in the right where the self is transcended, where the self becomes larger and expanded. In these states the grandiosity of the self literally is collapsed down and there is some understanding that one is part of a much larger organism, a much larger sense of being alive. This sounds like the Buddhist autoregulatory self state.

But let me repeat, interactive regulation is the key to the therapeutic alliance. There is now a push into the relational trend in all forms of psychotherapy. Actually in psychoanalysis the relational emphasis has always been there. I’m thinking of Ferenzci, Jung, Kohut and more recently relational intersubjective psychoanalysis. This relational trend now is coming into mainstream psychology, and is seen as the central mechanism of psychotherapy.

I point this out because psychologists on the one hand can be teaching meditative skills, but can also be accessing relational expertise in the therapeutic alliance.
DB: But they better also have those mindfulness skills themselves so they can be present to receive all of what’s coming in the interaction rather than kind of stereotypically looking through these variety of theories or thinking of what to do next or how to be.
AS: Right. But I suggested that a certain form of mindfulness, including a bodily awareness, must take place in a relational context. The idea being that there are certain parts of the self that cannot be discovered, that cannot come into awareness, unless they are being mirrored by another human being.
DB: Ah! So it’s not just that the relational trauma that gets dissociated can be healed through the relational—there’s a Yiddish term "fargin" that means, “joining someone’s joy.” I love that concept.
AS: That’s a great cultural metaphor—sharing someone’s joy as well as pain.

A Third Subjectivity

DB: So there may be feelings that you are not going to fully experience until you see them mirrored in a reciprocal emotional interaction.
AS: Exactly. One of the central concepts that I’ve written about is resonance. In physics, a property of resonance is the tendency of one resonance system to enlarge and amplify through matching the resonance frequency pattern of another resonance system.
It’s more than mirroring, it’s an intensification of positive arousal and thereby an energetic mechanism, which is a form of interactive regulation.
In psychology, a state of resonance exists when one person’s subjectivity is empathically attuned to another’s inner state, and this resonance then interactively amplifies, in both intensity and duration, the affective state in both members of the dyad. This resonance can occur rapidly at levels beneath conscious awareness, and it generates what has been called “a third subjectivity.” For example, in mutual play states dyadic resonance ultimately permits the inter-coordination of positive affective brain states, shared joy, which increase curiosity and exploration.
DB: What you just described might also be related to what my Zen friends call “one mind.” There’s a great quote sometimes attributed to e.e. cummings about this: "We do not believe in ourselves until someone reveals that something deep inside us is valuable, worth listening to, worthy of our trust, sacred to our touch. Once we believe in ourselves we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous delight or any experience that reveals the human spirit.”
AS: Yes, again, it’s more than mirroring, it’s an intensification of positive arousal and thereby an energetic mechanism, which is a form of interactive regulation.
DB: And it’s also accounting for my increasing enjoyment of this interview versus a little bit of anticipatory anxiety about talking with you in the very beginning. But it quickly became exceedingly enjoyable.

Can you discuss the variability of people in terms of quiet versus very active internal experiences—either auditory and verbal, some other form of thought, or visually active consciousness in contrast to people who have a naturally occurring or developed quiet mind?
AS: Sure. The first thing that comes to mind is what has been termed as “the quiet alert state.” This is the flexible state that the mother accesses to pick up her infant’s varying emotional expressions. It’s associated with a state of autonomic balance between the energy expending sympathetic and energy conserving parasympathetic branches of the autonomic nervous system. Within attachment communications the caregiver sets the ranges of arousal, the set points of the infant’s resting quiet alert state. It’s relationally tuned, and later affects the individual brain’s default state. In other words, regulation is the key to the quiet mind.

But I’m also thinking about right and left hemispheric balance, and individual differences in “hemisphericity.”
There are individuals for whom that chatter is always so intense, so continuous, and even so loud they cannot quietly be with themselves. They can’t tolerate internal silence, and so they can’t monitor what’s coming from the body and from deeper strata of the unconscious.
For example, in a resting state greater right hemisphericity is associated with a history of more frequent negative affect, lower self esteem and difficulties in affect regulation. Greater left hemisphericity, on the other hand, is associated with heavy inhibition of the right brain, repression of emotions, and over-regulation of disturbances. Consciousness is dominated by continuous left brain chatter, and thereby an inability to be emotionally present, to be “in the moment.” There are individuals for whom that chatter is always so intense, so continuous, and even so loud they cannot quietly be with themselves. They can’t tolerate internal silence, and so they can’t monitor what’s coming from the body and from deeper strata of the unconscious. They’re always in a state of “doing” rather than “being.”
DB: And they have difficulty experiencing their bodies and can’t even tell you what they’re sensing, or maybe even how they’re feeling because it’s just pure thought.
AS: Right. When it comes to emotion and emotion dysregulation, for a long time people were thinking only about under-regulation, that the emotions are so powerful and so strong that they interfere with the logical and rational capacities of the left hemisphere. But there is also another problematic state—where it’s over-regulated. In that case the person is habitually packing down emotions, out of awareness, and whose left hemisphere is so dominant that it’s always “in control.” They “live in the left,” and use words to move away from affect. They’re talking about rather than experiencing emotion, from the other side of the callosal divide, not actually allowing themselves to disinhibit the right and to feel what is in the body. And yet, “the body keeps the score.” In the most extreme cases they’re dissociative and alexithymic.

These are patients who use words in order not to feel; they are over-inhibited and susceptible to over-regulation disturbances. Think about overly rational, insecure, avoidant personalities who overemphasize verbal cognition and dismiss emotion. Returning to our earlier discussions of recent changes in the science of affect, dysregulation can be either under-regulation or over-regulation, an avoidance strategy versus an anxious strategy.

Imagery

DB: Coincidental with that, I’ve noticed there are people, such as myself, who are minimally or not at all visual in their memory. Aldous Huxley described this about himself in Doors of Perception. If I were trying to visualize my living room, I would say it’s like 10% clear.

Other people I know are eidetic or photographic in their imagery. People who have that kind of visual memory can also have vivid imagery intrusively interfere in the present, where a person would be walking downtown and, instead of having a thought or worry that a bus might hit a particular woman, he would see the bus hitting her. Or he would visualize a building falling down—all-intruding upon his peace of mind, as you can imagine.
AS: A few things come to mind from your observations. The classical idea of brain laterality is that the right processes visual and spatial images while the left is involved in language.

But when it comes to imagery, the truth is we forget much of the time that imagery can be in any modality. We usually think about the visual image, as in your example of someone having an image of a bus hitting a pedestrian, or a building falling. Or a patient will come up with metaphors that are loaded with visual images. Also think of visual images of faces, especially emotionally expressive faces. But imagery can also be auditory—as when our consciousness becomes aware of a song melody or olfactory images, of an emotionally evocative smell or odor.

So, for those of us who are highly auditory, like both of us, we used to think that was verbal. But as you know, there are nonverbal auditory cues. Aside from the verbal content the voice itself is communicating essential information, even more important in an intimate moment than the verbal. Most psychotherapists are highly auditory and attuned and very sensitive to even slight changes in the prosodic tone of voice of the patient. It’s at that point where we will lean in, so to speak. But we also use our voice as a regulatory tool. In a well-timed moment we intuitively and spontaneously express our calming and soothing voice, or at other times we’ll come in with a more energizing voice, or even a limit-setting voice. Or we’re expressing an auditory metaphorical image.

So I think that when we talk about imagery, especially emotional imagery, we’re usually thinking of visual images. But there also are tactile images. As in an image of what it feels like at this moment, including what it feels like in your body and in my body, because I can pick this up and put that together with another’s facial expression.

But also there’s a difference between implicit visual recognition and explicit visual recall. I may not be able to have a conscious memory of a visual representation. But if there’s a subtle change in an emotional expression on a patient’s face, I can pick it up quickly. And let’s remember that when it comes to processing the meaning of nonverbal facial and auditory expressions, this is not occurring at conscious awareness. These interpersonal cues that denote changes in affects and subjectivity are detected and tracked by the right amygdala, at levels beneath awareness. Again, we’re listening beneath the words, and these signals are triggering unconscious memory systems of various sensory modalities—auditory and tactile, as well as vision.
DB: Hmmm, it just struck me that I often say that I’m not visual. But I must be visual in my right hemisphere because I have these wonderful, clear, visual dreams.
AS: I agree. Remember with the right brain, you’re talking about not only long-term visual memory, but also ultra-short working memory, what has been called the visuo-spatial sketchpad. We hold a momentary image in consciousness long enough to see if it matches with our memory of affectively charged personally meaningful experiences. At a reunion, when you emotionally see your daughter’s face your right brain can immediately detect that there’s something wrong, or that she’s experiencing shame or joy. That right brain function is essential to our ability to be in close relationships. Someone who is mind-blind to facial expressions will have problems with intimacy.

Alone in the Presence of Another

DB: I think back to your former student and couples therapist Stan Tatkin, who has made the point that our partner often knows things about us by looking at our face before we’re aware of what we are feeling, which brings us back to the reasonableness of trying to grow with affect co-regulation versus only self-soothing and all of that through meditation. But is there a name for something that would be like co-meditating? I know we’re talking about co-regulation.
AS: Well now I’m thinking about Winnicott’s idea about being alone in the presence of the other. Remember?
DB: No!
AS: Winnicott talked about the child in the second year achieving a complex developmental advance—the adaptive ability to be alone, and the creation of true autonomy. That is, to be separate, to be processing one’s own individuality and one’s own self system in the presence of another. The other is a background presence, so it doesn’t get swept into the child. But they’re literally both individuating in their presence together. And this is a kind of silent being together without having a need to take care of the other or support the other, of literally that kind of comfort.

So, on the one hand there is the joining of joy, which would be more active so to speak. And on the other hand there is this idea about being alone in the presence of the other, which is more passive. The self-system has stability at that point in time. It can shift out of that state if it needs to, but again, I would suggest to you that comes close to what you’re talking about. And that gets into the importance of solitude, the importance of privacy, which in this day and age is being completely forgotten. The poet Rilke said so eloquently, “For one human being to love another, that is perhaps the most difficult of all our tasks, the ultimate, the last test and proof, the work for which all other is but preparation. I hold this to be the highest task for a bond between two people: that each protects the solitude of the other.”

Repair in Relationship, and Returning to the Matter of Love

DB: I wonder if you would agree with a quote from Kierkegaard when he said "perfect love is learning to love the very one that has made you unhappy.” Does that resonate with you at all?
AS: Absolutely the case.
DB: Anything that you would modify?
AS: In my recent lectures I’m describing the interpersonal neurobiological emergence of mutual love between the mother and infant. Studies on the functional neuroanatomy of maternal love document that the loving mother is capable of empathizing and feeling in her own body what the baby feels in his body, whether it be a joy state as well as a pain state. When the securely attached mother is in the fMRI scanner viewing emotional videos of her infant in a joy state or in a cry state, positive emotions such as love and motherly feeling coexisted with negative ones such as anxious feeling and worry in the mother herself.

Other studies show that insecure dismissive-avoidant mothers cannot hold the distressed baby’s painful negative states. The narcissistic mother only stays connected when the baby is mirroring back a positive state, and is unable to tolerate and repair shame states. So this ability to hold onto both positive and negative affect, and not engage in splitting is essential. In fact, in developmental studies, Ed Tronick has shown that even the secure mother is only attuned about 30 percent of the time. The key is not only the misattunement, but the interactive repair. These misattunements are common—my colleague Philip Bromberg describes frequent collisions of subjectivities within an intimate dyad.

Returning to our earlier discussion, it’s the ability to interactively repair these collisions that allows for the strengthening of an emotional connection between an intimate couple. Clinically, it’s the emerging ability of the therapeutic dyad to co-create and co-regulate ruptures that allows us to tolerate the negative transference and strengthen the positive transference—to move together from positive to negative and back to positive affective states. That really strengthens the bond and it leads to resilience. For me that’s what Kierkegaard’s intuition is describing.
DB: Ah.
AS: But while the moments of emotional connection are important, so are the moments of shared solitude, of being alone in the presence of the other, moments of shared silence. It’s very limiting to think that everything has to be filled with words or interpretations.
For some therapists, when there’s too much silence they’ll start to fill it up with words, for their own regulatory needs.
For some therapists, when there’s too much silence they’ll start to fill it up with words, for their own regulatory needs.You know, for some therapists, when there’s too much silence they’ll start to fill it up with words, for their own regulatory needs. The matter that I’m raising here is that attachment is about the capacity for intimacy. Are intimacy and the capacity for mutual love expanded in long-term psychotherapy? Can patients use what they’ve experienced in therapy to expand the abilities for forming close and personally meaningful bonds with others, as in deep friendships and long term romantic relationships? Can they use these relationships as a source of more intense brain/mind body interactive regulation and autoregulation, and therefore have both interdependence and autonomy?

Both clinical theory and interpersonal neurobiology agree that in optimal social emotional environments the self-system evolves to more and more complexity. Not only the growth of the left brain conscious mind but also the right brain unconscious mind can be enriched and expanded in deep psychotherapy. By emotionally interacting with other right brains, a secure right brain self can continue to grow and develop to more complexity over the later Eriksonian stages of the life span. The secure self is not a static end state but a continuously expanding dynamic system that is capable of both stability and change.

Freud said that, in the end, therapy, and indeed life, was about love and work. Today we might think about that in terms of the expression of the development of the affiliative right and agentic left brains. My work has been an exploration of the primacy of the emotional development of the right brain, over the life span. In The Art of Loving, Eric Fromm described the intense emotional experience of love as “the experience of union with another being” and proposed that “beloved people can be incorporated into the self.” Here’s an example of self expansion that occurs within and between two people.
DB: Well, that’s all a lovely way to end. I’ll respect your own need for solitude by finishing up this conversation, but I would like to close with asking about your current activities. You’re still meeting in several cities with students?
AS: Yes. For almost two decades I’ve continued to meet with study groups here in Los Angeles. I also have ongoing groups in Berkeley-Alameda, as well as Boulder, and in the Northwest.
DB: In Seattle?
AS: Yes, I Skype with clinicians and researchers in Seattle, Vancouver, and Portland. I’m about to start a Skype group in Australia, also.
DB: Well, all of this time with you, at both a personal and professional level has been delightful. So, thank you so much. I’m sure people are going to enjoy what you brought to today’s discussion.
AS: Same on my side, and thanks for today, David. I also greatly enjoyed this back and forth dialogue. As you said at the beginning the key was to have a spontaneous conversation.

What Remains: The Aftermath of Patient Suicide

Note: Clinical material in this article is taken across various venues and years of treatments. Identities are disguised to protect confidentiality. References used in writing this article, as well as resources for clinicians, can be found at the bottom of this page.

Silent Mourners

The memory is quite clear: several years ago, early one morning checking my voicemail, two messages in I came upon a message from my patient, Jill. The message was date-stamped the evening before. She said she would miss today’s session due to a need to find new housing; she thanked me for our work thus far (as she frequently did, sometimes out of social politeness or her fears of abandonment, other times out of sincere heartfelt gratitude, something we frequently explored). This time her gratitude sounded heartfelt in tone. Her message also left me perplexed, as we had not talked of housing, and I saved it. Another message, left moments before I checked my voicemail, was from Jill’s psychiatrist, Brian, asking me to give him a call when I got in the office. Brian and I spoke frequently of Jill, her ongoing medical decline at a relatively young age, and her persistent depression and posttraumatic stress. We followed her carefully, exchanged perspectives, and possessed mutual respect for one another’s clinical skills.

I called him immediately. “Are you in your office?” he asked, his voice ominous.

“Yes,” I replied, feeling my stomach tightening.

“Are you aware of the events related to Jill?”

“No,” my heart now pounded from my chest into my throat.

“Jill killed herself by handgun . . . “

I do not remember what he said next, just that he was still talking. I gasped, crying, while simultaneously attempting to hide my upset.

“Margaret, there was nothing, nothing you could have done to prevent this,” Brian continued, his voice clear and emphatic, speaking from his decades of experience, his knowledge of Jill, and his knowledge of our work together.

We talked for some time, and I could feel myself wanting to hang up the phone and be alone, but Brian insistently kept me on the line, wisely, for forty-five minutes. That was enough time for both of us to begin feeling the immensity of Jill’s death, and to begin the longer process of inquiry and reflection into her suicide and its after-effects. It was a process that would continue for a few months between us, and for more than a year for me.

Clinicians who lose patients to suicide are sometimes referred to as “silent mourners.” Some describe this kind of grief as disenfranchised. For me, I think of this grief as a kind of lived experience that catapults you into another environment which is foreign and therefore scary; a kind of grief that is uniquely solitary to bear and therefore devoid of larger community to bear it with you; a kind of grief that is intensely intertwined with shame; and a traumatic grief that possesses all the hallmarks of interpersonal trauma, whose impacts often continue reverberating long after the initial shattering experience has occurred. All of these facets and more underscore the particular experience of clinicians grieving suicide loss.

The differences are rather key in understanding how to be with our selves and also how to respond to colleagues who experience this kind of loss personally or professionally. My hope in writing this article is to buoy understanding, widen the circles of support for clinicians who have experienced suicide loss, and to offer some guideposts along the way of grieving. This topic and these aims are one of my life-long passions in my career. I have had the unfortunate experience of surviving two siblings’ suicides, the sudden death of a third sibling that suggested passive suicide, and the deaths of both parents from organic causes that were informed by these traumatic losses. My terrain of grief and traumatic loss was quite familiar to me by the time I met Jill, having traversed its intricacies in feeling, thought, and body using psychotherapy, meditation, long-distance hiking, body work, and writing, for many years. My experience served me well in working with Jill while she was alive, as well as holding what remained after her death. I was and am, after all, a wounded healer, meeting her suffering in life and in death.

Our Privileged Intimacy, Our Private Mourning

By its very nature, psychotherapy is a privileged space. The therapeutic relationship is characterized by a unique emotional intimacy with each patient. As therapists we are honored by our patients’ presence, the trust that is hard won, and the growing capacities through the course of psychotherapy we witness. We accompany and guide, inquire and curiously explore in a most particular way with each patient. With each patient, a slightly different relationship forms. We are slightly different therapists with each patient we encounter.

The extent to which we as therapists may deny the singular relationship with and presence of our patients in our lives contributes to the complications of grieving their departure in any form—from treatment termination to physical death. In her article, “Necessary and unnecessary losses: the analyst’s mourning” (2000) Sandra Buechler reflects that, because our work asks us to cultivate objectivity, and objectivity is often (over) emphasized in the work (and in training), it becomes a norm without critical thinking or reflection. This clinical cultural norm may also encourage a sense that we can (or should, perhaps) simply “move-on” when a patient departs. A therapist’s stance of distance may additionally complicate the grieving picture, especially in the case of loss by suicide. That stance may feed defenses of denial, encourage guilt, and amplify feelings of shame.

The great Jungian, James Hillman, stated that the suicide of patients is a “wrenching agony of therapeutic practice.” It is also a reality of practice that we fantasize will not touch us, despite the statistics. Depending upon the research reviewed, approximately fifty per cent of psychiatrists and thirty per cent of psychologists experience patient suicide. The statistics are incomplete and varied, often reflective of response rates to inquiry. Further, we do not, to my knowledge, have statistics on the numbers of mental health professionals who have experienced suicide loss within their personal circles of close family-friend relations, but it is fair to consider the percentages may be slightly higher if these were included.

For clinicians, suicide challenges every value we place in the therapeutic endeavor. It can raise fears of litigation, cloud clinical decision-making, and spark feelings of professional isolation. Suicide of a patient can challenge personal and professional identities, career trajectory, and sense of professional security. In its wake, patient suicide can leave posttraumatic stress symptoms behind as well as complicated grief. Interestingly, in my work with therapists who have experienced suicide loss of family or other close relations, they experience similar dilemmas. The sense that as a clinician he or she did not serve their family member or friend well, the questioning of clinical acumen, the guilt of feeling as though he or she should have done something to be of help and more, are common. As clinicians, suicide loss in any arena of our lives is experienced through the lens of our clinical knowledge, expertise, and experience.

There is little personal discussion on how therapists weather such a loss. Lay survivors of suicide are in an unknown country, inhabiting a strange landscape. Therapists surviving the suicide of a patient are in a similar land and yet there are important differences: there is no institutionalized ritual, no community of mourners, no one, really, who knew the patient as the clinician knew the patient. There is no one who witnessed first-hand (as best anyone can) the relationship between a certain patient and a certain therapist, yet the specific dyadic relationship is never to be experienced again. It is never to be remembered by anyone else but the therapist. In specific ways, we are the only one who holds our patient in mind. Even in the case of Jill, Brian held one particular relationship with her, and I another. Although Jill sometimes spoke of us to one another, the bulk of our memories of her are solitary, and the texture of our relationship with her singular.

Therapists are usually left alone with what remains in the aftermath of patient suicide. These remnants include all that was unsaid, unprocessed within the therapeutic relationship—both the regrets of what was not named and processed that are possibly linked to the suicide, and certainly all that had no chance to be felt and spoken of together that more time would have provided. Additionally, all that the therapist retains of his or her patient remains inside the therapist’s memory.

Further, who the therapist was with this particular patient is lost. This leaves open the question of who we are as therapist now. The process of mourning for therapist-survivors asks that we delve into the question of who we are now that our patient has left in this self-destructive way. And who are we, as therapist, the one here to facilitate healing—to engender life, if we have that kind of perspective—in the face of chosen death?

It can be alluring as the therapist-survivor for all these reasons to move far from the confusing thicket of feelings left by patient suicide. The cultural context and identity as therapist can encourage this moving away from honest reflection and processing too. Yet as we know with our patients, moving away from the real experience of the here and now can lead to a dulling of living, a numbing. In our work, moving away from our feelings can feed psychotherapeutic cynicism, burnout, and depression. It can also lead to problematic clinical decision-making and ethical lapses in judgment.

Our willingness to open, receive, and make contact with our patients within the therapeutic work is an offering toward healing—if we choose to risk it. From a relational perspective, certainly, our willingness in these ways is a vital vehicle in the process of transformation found within the therapeutic endeavor. Upon the suicide of a patient, it is tempting to shut down in response to profound relational loss and loss of the therapeutic framework upon which we rely.

Being with Groundlessness

“The dead leave us starving with mouths full of love,” the poet Anne Michaels writes. Jill left me starving and full. Her message to me left me full. The timing of her departure left me starving, questioning. She left me loving her, yes, but also left me with a myriad of other feelings including meaninglessness, impotence, frustration, and raw sadness. I was, because of my life experiences, immediately aware that I needed to take seriously the particular kind of loss I was experiencing—the loss of an incomplete, torn-apart relationship, the loss of who Jill was to me, a loss of clinical voice, and the loss of who I was as a psychotherapist with Jill.

There is ineffability—an unspoken quality— in this kind of traumatic loss. Psychoanalyst Ghislaine Boulanger distinguishes between child and adult onset trauma, noting how core self experience and self-in-relation experiences are undermined. Adult onset trauma shatters illusions of omnipotent control, ever-shaking the normative expectation of personal agency and healthful denial of omnipresent mortality. The suicide of a patient shatters illusions of therapist omnipotence, shaking expectations of potential positive influence upon patients, and calls into question core identity as well as identity-in-relationship to other patients and colleagues.

Western psychology rests within a worldview of personal agency. It is a worldview imbued with Euro-American, individualistic, educated, and moneyed values—all of which are crushed in the face of adult onset trauma. It is the very nature of this kind of traumatic loss that it rocks our assumptive world as therapists: questioning whether our endeavors are life giving, whether our efforts possess meaning and influence; and whether our chosen profession is worthwhile.

There was Todd, a patient-therapist in my practice who came to me after his long-term patient completed suicide. Todd had fifteen years of clinical experience and before that eight as a university professor. He was well versed in suicide prevention and intervention. “After his patient’s death, he refused to ever work with a patient again who even mentioned suicidal feeling states; he would refer them.” His stance is maintained to this day, six years later. His way of coping is not unusual among therapist-patients in my practice or across the profession. Whenever I present a paper on this topic, I hear stories of mental health professionals at all levels responding similarly. So understandably haunted, they desire to avoid any chance of experiencing a suicide loss again; some believe they can no longer objectively assess risk; and others feel traumatized, unable to clinically engage with a patient experiencing suicidal ideation or self-harm.

There are some other common coping approaches among therapist-survivors. They include all the ways we may become vigilant in our practice: taking numerous, even if repetitive, trainings on ethics and suicide prevention; developing a rigid stance in responding to patients expressing suicidal thoughts or intent; and intervening in overly-conservative ways that communicate anxiety to the patient rather than clinical engagement. In her essay for the collection, The Therapist in Mourning: From the Faraway Nearby (2013), Catherine Anderson describes these kinds of responses as part of the working through process with “a desperate need to understand what had happened and a magical wish to protect [oneself] against any future vulnerability.”

Another common response is to avoid examining clinical missed opportunities and errors, to defend against the pain, shame, and perhaps guilt that are simmering. Gina, a patient-clinician of mine, experienced a patient suicide after two sessions. When the patient did not show to the third session, Gina called. Subsequently, the patient’s father contacted Gina. He told her his son killed himself the day after the second session. It was excruciating for Gina to slowly begin to examine her state of mind during the sessions. She came to realize that she was, due to many factors, defending against making genuine a connection with this patient, and was more distant than usual. Her past clinical experience told her that when she has that kind of response, she hesitates exploring avenues that would be productive, and that she overlooks what later, when less defensive, was there all along. That was her missed opportunity. Of course, there is no telling if Gina had been less defended if that would have made a difference—given her a vital piece of clinical information that she could capitalize upon to then help the patient. It was crucially important, however, to Gina’s healing process to bring into consciousness what she already actually knew about herself in her brief work with the patient.

The ground of my being was continually moving beneath me after Jill’s suicide. Because of my life history and my working with it in therapeutic ways, I knew my footing could be regained, but I questioned when that would happen. I returned to writings that reminded me about how vulnerable groundlessness really is and how inevitable it is as well. Pema Chodron, in When Things Fall Apart, writes:

“[T]hings don’t really get solved. They come together and they fall apart. Then they come together again and fall apart again. It's just like that. The healing comes from letting there be room for all of this to happen: room for grief, for relief, for misery, for joy."

Her perspective, for me, reflects what I believe and practice in my private and professional life, but can easily forget in times of great tumult. It is a kind of perspective that provides me refuge.

I knew from my history that if I refused to directly experience what was present within me I would only harden my heart. Cutting myself off by armoring my heart would negatively impact my relationships with other patients, let alone the relationships in my personal circle and my relationship to life itself.

The practice of mindfulness meditation is one way I engage my direct experience, and it had been a practice of mine for many years before I began my clinical work. I returned to intensive practice after sustaining the many family deaths in quick succession aforementioned; I spent a month on a silent meditation retreat as well. The amount of silence offered was an integral experience for my body, heart, and mind to begin having room to feel through those traumatic losses. With Jill’s death, I returned to steady meditation practice again, in order to create room inside myself for the range of feelings I was experiencing. It sounds, perhaps, so simple, so easy, and yet it is not. Silently meditating twice daily confronted me with every vulnerability, every feeling, body sensation, and thought I possessed. Profound shame, futility, anger, banality, and sorrow as well as heartache and headache were some of the many storms I weathered sitting quietly on my meditation cushion. Yet it was the silence and the generous observing accompaniment to myself that were central in my finding footing again.

Ritual as Scaffolding

James Hillman suggests that in the face of patient suicide the clinician go into the context of the death—not to stay on the surface. His advice speaks to delving into our interior world, and grieving, but also something more. He suggests lending all of our knowledge of our patient to the endeavor as well, exploring as thoroughly as possible nuances of our patient’s suicide.

With Jill, intuitively I knew I needed rituals as a frame in my quest to deeply understand her suicide to the best of my abilities, as well as to mourn her death and all of the losses accompanying it. One ritual that was obvious was the therapy itself. There are the set days and times of sessions; the usual pattern of entering and exiting sessions with some of their inevitable variability; the parameters of the relationship.

Keenly aware of how groundless I felt, I longed for grounding in the ritual of my sessions with Jill. “I could not fathom scheduling another patient in Jill’s session times. I realized what I wanted was to keep my appointment with Jill. So I did just that: I kept my appointments with Jill for one year.” Sometimes I went to a meditation space near my office for the appointment; sometimes I was in a natural setting. Other times, I spent it in my office. Wherever I chose to spend the sessions, I also was with Jill. Sometimes reading a book of poetry that evoked Jill, or intentionally recollecting parts of sessions.

By the second week of appointments with Jill, I began writing during the time. I used poetry as a companion. Sometimes I wrote to Jill, sometimes extemporaneously to the Reader with a capital R. An excerpt follows of one of my writings:

I reviewed notes on Jill I came across; process notes. Notes when Brian spoke with me several weeks ago. There is much that remains unsolved in my heart. And it’s in my heart, especially, that time takes its own rhythm, a time that doesn’t match up with the clocks and the calendars.

It’s sorrow or poignancy, both, being touched by Jill—I’m feeling right now. Knowing I’m not alone, really, in such an experience ultimately—like anyone grieving anything how universal and connected to the everyday human experience this actually is. Paradoxically how alone and singular I feel. Alien among colleagues who have not experienced such a violent loss. A lone mourner.

Jill suffered in body and mind, physical and emotional pain. Her physicality used to be a route to survival as a child and a young adult. Her physicality was already failing her. The grief she felt was so layered and frequently linked to all the losses felt trans-generationally across her family history. And even this doesn’t say all she felt and lived with.

I can and do write circles of theory or case formulation but that is not what I’m desiring here. I feel almost desperate to continue delving into this process with her in this kind of way, unsure of where it is leading.

Strange, I guess, to feel the shock, still, that she is dead. I just know the only way to move with this, through this, to be with it all, is to do what I’m doing. Let it come in words or feelings. Let it come through me, in silence.

Of course, the questions remaining in the aftermath of suicide usually cannot be fully answered, but answering all the questions is not the point of such a process. If there is an aim, it is the recognition that the clinician continues in relationship without her (or his) partner in the dyad. Feeling and thinking alongside that recognition is the heart of the process. Psychologist Robert Gaines would call this the stitching together of continuity our relationship to the dead. Finding a relational home once again. Finding one’s clinical and human voice again.

Other rituals also occurred to me related to mourning, whether a formal memorial or an informal honoring, as well as creating continuity. By the end of the second week of appointments with the spirit of Jill, I realized I needed two additional things: to visit where she died, and to create some kind of memorial. There was no funeral service for Jill; she had no family or close community. Something of our process together needed representation. Something of her treasured symbols shared with me needed representation. And something of our relationship needed representation too.

Brian drew me a virtual map in verbal description as to where she died. Over the next four appointments with the spirit of Jill, I developed a memorial. A colleague accompanied me on the day that I set, and we drove to the place close to where Brian described. We walked the remainder of the way. Although Jill chose a place where she surely would be discovered, it was not an overly exposed public place. When I got there, I wept. I wept not because of her death in that moment but because of the purposefulness of the place. I recognized it, immediately, based on our work together. Based on what Jill shared with me. I could see how Jill, with her particular perspective, felt beauty in this place. The place fit into the story of her life, the story she shared with me. The story we made sense of together. The place symbolized what she would frequently discuss and feel, the existentials of existence, and the evolution of her life.

The ritual included flowers, some writing I read to commemorate Jill, and a prayer combined with poetry I put together to reflect our relationship. My colleague and I sat in silence afterward, listening to the sounds around us. I felt close to Jill in the moment. Through the scaffolding of this ritual, as well as the ritual of appointments with her, I began to understand some meanings in her death, and I regained my voice once again.

Jill genuinely affected me—her life as well as her death. Destruction, and particularly self-destruction, surrounded her in the history of her life yet she developed into a highly deliberate, aesthetically-minded, symbolically-attuned woman who struggled with looming thoughts that dragged her into familiar mire she was accustomed to escaping by vigorously and creatively using her body, no longer available to her. Her suicide was equally aesthetically minded—if you forgive the stretch of the word in this context but rather feel into the contour of its meaning. I noticed this in numerous ways from the evidence she left behind, the chosen place of her death, the timing of her death, to her message left for me.

I was acutely aware in working with Jill of my family standing with me, for they are there, always, in the background of my mind and heart, like a luminous shawl. How the experience of their tragic, violent, and sorrowful deaths created, initially, a nuclear-sized crater within me that since healed—and continues to evolve in healing—with scarred but incredibly strong layers. Layers of capacity and depth for ambiguity, curiosity, and love in the face of enormous challenge, rejection, and destruction. I never revealed to Jill my personal history, yet I felt it was these very experiences and my working with them, through them, that enabled me to meet Jill in the dark and light of her psyche without collapsing. All of these details and their meaning that I came to understand over time enabled me to continue to serve fully in my life in all ways professionally and personally with openness.

Relational Home for One Another

Clinician-survivors come in contact with the real attachment felt for the person who died in the process of mourning. Regardless of theoretical orientation or therapeutic stance, there was (and is) a relationship. The basis of the relationship is connection, care, and likely love. Therapists may have difficulty admitting they love their patients; some secretly do so with shame as if caring were untoward. When working in my practice with therapists mourning a suicide, moving through the shame of caring to the healing and human quality of caring is vital.

Clinician-survivors ask me to be their therapist initially because they find my contact information from the American Association of Suicidology’s website. There, among numerous resources, is a link to resources for clinician-survivors. Clinicians who contact me often gingerly express their desire for support, understandably fearing an amplification of shame they already are carrying. Shame demolishes a person’s sense of self. Shame isolates and evicts us from our relational home.

Some studies have explored the ubiquitousness with which clinician-survivors are met with judgment and shaming from colleagues. It has been found that clinicians who have not experienced a suicide loss professionally or personally are more likely to assume that there must have been something the treating clinician had done wrong. One way to understand this is to consider the nature of trauma. People involved in the traumatic event, either directly or indirectly (hearing of it, etc.), hold parts of the experience and defend against the emotional enormity of it. Blame, shame, grandiosity, omnipotence, and guilt are often convoluted in the mix. Unbearable feelings are projected or disavowed. Most of us “know” this, but when we are in the midst of it ourselves we can forget.

Before I entered my contact information on the clinician-survivor network, I carefully considered this act—a public acknowledgment of an aspect of my history. Before I agreed to write this article, which is drawn from a public presentation I gave to two different professional organizations, I considered how my history in print felt quite different than speaking it. I sensed the risk I felt in both instances. For me the risk is primarily located in relationship to colleagues unfamiliar with suicide loss. My feeling of risk among the professional community is not singular—it is cited repeatedly as a way that therapists feel shame for their grief in relation to patients generally, and most especially the shame felt when a patient completes suicide.

Coming out, so to speak, on the website and in this article are acts of advocacy for other therapists in a direct way, and ultimately also, I believe, advocacy for patients. Coming out in these ways are antidotes to shame as well, although revealing oneself carries with it a chance of being judged or shamed. Hiding when feeling shame, after all, is a protective solution to those risks—albeit risks that are generalized. Two anecdotes may elucidate.

When a psychologist-colleague found out that I publicly acknowledged my identity as a suicide survivor, he questioned me. He wondered if I were exposing something that “should” be hidden. His sense of hiding was initially justified by the importance of neutral stance and limited self-disclosure. With further exploration between us, however, my colleague came to realize that he felt anxious and even dissociated when hearing about my experiences. His shaming reaction toward me was a coping mechanism for his anxieties.

Another colleague responded quite differently to finding out about my public acknowledgment as a suicide survivor. Her response: There but before the grace of God go I. She too felt anxious hearing my experience, but she remained in communion with me. She shared her anxiety and her wishful fantasy that she would never experience this kind of trauma. Through our discussion, we created a relational home for one another.

In therapy, we create, with our patients, a relational home. While this home is focused on the patient’s needs, it is irrevocably the particular home we live in with our patient. That home continues to live inside of the therapist-survivor after the patient dies. In Trauma and Human Existence: Autobiographical, Psychoanalytic, and Philosophical Reflections (2007), Robert Stolorow writes, “The mangling and the darkness can be enduringly borne, not in solitude, but in relational contexts of deep emotional attunement and understanding.” The loss of a patient or a loved one by suicide is unfathomable, though we know it happens. It is nothing short of a cataclysmic trauma, one that is enormous to digest. The impact of it on clinicians has been compared to the traumatic loss of a parent. It is a leveling experience for it takes us out of our protected role as therapist and throws us into the most humble, bare experience of our own humanity.

Brian, the psychiatrist, only learned of my family history after Jill’s death. He wondered, “Perhaps there is some unconscious way Jill knew you could make meaning of and bear her death.” It is curious whatever Jill may have implicitly known of me—but ultimately that is something I will never know. Importantly, it was not lost on me, her therapist, the relevance of the place she chose to die. What it meant to her, what she communicated to me in her final message, and what she communicated in her choice of place. It was not lost on me, her therapist, the layered meanings in the timing of death. The curious exploration of these among other unspoken aspects of our work together was what I gave voice to in my year of kept appointments. A year of rediscovering meaning. A year of regaining clarity, ground, and clinical voice. A year of examining the soul of the process between us, and what lived on within me.

***

Following is a list of readings and resources for clinicians and clinician-survivors who wish to learn more about, and seek support for, the grief of losing a client to suicide.

The clinician-survivor network of the American Association of Suicidiology provides consultation, resources, support, and education to mental health professionals in the aftermath of suicide loss, personally and/or professionally. The website includes nationwide clinicians available as resources, as well as an extensive bibliography.

Anderson, C. (2013). "When what we have to offer isn’t enough" in Malawista, K. and Adelmari, A., Eds. The therapist in mourning: from the faraway nearby. New York: Columbia University.

Boulanger, G. (2002). Wounded by Reality: understanding and treating adult onset trauma. New Jersey: Analytic Press.

Buechler, S. (2000). "Necessary and unnecessary losses: the analyst’s mourning." Contemporary Psychoanalysis 36: 77-90.

Chodron, P. (2000). When things fall apart: heart advice for difficult times. Boston: Shambhala Publications.

DeYoung, P., (2015). Understanding and treating chronic shame: a relational/neurobiological approach. New York: Routledge.

Gaines, R. (1997). "Detachment and continuity: the two tasks of mourning." Contemporary Psychoanalysis 33(4): 549-571.

Hillman, J. (1997). Suicide and the soul. Connecticut: Spring Publications.

Michaels, A. (1997). Memoriam in The Weight of Oranges / Miner’s Pond. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.

Plakun, E. & Tillman, J. (2005). "Responding to clinicians after loss of a patient to suicide." Retrieved December 2013 from http://www.austenriggs.org.

Stolorow, R. (2011). "Portkeys, eternal recurrence, and the phenomenology of traumatic temporality." International Journal of Psychoanalytic Self Psychology, 6:433-436.

Stolorow, R. (2007). Trauma and human existence: autobiographical, psychoanalytic, and philosophical reflections. New York: Routledge.

Tillman, J. (2006). "When a patient commits suicide: an empirical study of psychoanalytic clinicians." The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 87(1), 159-177.