Bad Therapy: When Firing Your Therapist Is Therapeutic

The Nail Biting Maternal Yes Woman

I was never taught how to recognize and deal with therapy that was more subtly bad.

I have been in psychotherapy at various times throughout my life, and I must acknowledge that I have always felt like a difficult client. I am a passionate and devoted psychotherapist, but I have been a reluctant, suspicious client. I know this is a deficit. I recognize how crucial it is for me as a therapist to see my own blind spots. Throughout the years of working with different therapists, I’ve never really loved being in therapy. But oh, I would love to meet the right therapist for me, if there is one out there, and experience meaningful, utterly significant therapy. At times, I feel bad that I am offering a process in which I haven’t wholeheartedly engaged from the other side.

Part of what has made me feel difficult as a client has been my intense aversion to being told what to do—I don’t like feeling forced into anything I haven’t chosen freely. I felt trapped and pressured when I was six years old and taken to see a therapist because I had anxiety about having a small heart operation. Therapy felt like a punishment; I missed birthday parties and play dates and instead spent hours feeling judged by a very earnest and unrelatable man for having “worries,” as he put it. My “worries” had gotten me in trouble!

The more I complained about therapy, the more my parents insisted I continue with him. I remember clearly when I figured out that if I pretended not to be worried about things, not to show my emotions too strongly, and not to show that I cared one way or another about going to therapy, I would be better off. Sure enough, my show of insouciance succeeded. Pretending to be indifferent released me. When my parents and the therapist told me I could now stop treatment, I didn’t dare show my sense of joy or liberation.

I always questioned the quality of therapists I saw briefly at various times in my teenage years and early twenties. When I moved from New York to London, I was happy to leave a therapist who emailed me after her hysterectomy to request that I purchase and send her a specific type of fudge that could only be found in Covent Garden. The first therapist I saw in London increased her fees significantly without telling me. I only discovered the price hike in the invoice she sent me after two months of weekly sessions.

For the first two years of my clinical training, I had an unbelievably gentle, humanistic therapist. She was sweet and supportive and I cried and offered up morsels of vulnerability and she praised me relentlessly. It was all unconditional positive regard. She was the boring, uncritical motherly type in contrast to my own, and her niceness felt soothing until her flattery struck me as hollow. I showed up for a session on a rainy morning and she applauded me for making it to the session, given the pouring rain. “She said yes to everything I said, praising me for simply existing, bit her nails compulsively, and never challenged me.” I disqualified her harshly for these things. It felt like skiing the bunny hill. I wanted to develop, to grow, to be stretched!

When I finally expressed my discontent with our work together, and said I wanted to be challenged more, she suggested that I consider the challenge of not being challenged. I was outraged by her inadequate response to my attack, and I left abruptly and felt guilty afterwards. I was in my mid-twenties and I was flighty, cocky and insecure. I sometimes recognize versions of this sort of behavior in my practice—the angsty twenty-somethings who start off treatment showing receptivity and curiosity about themselves; they think they’re psychologically-minded and ready and willing to do the work. They want to please, and they agree to a weekly time, to the financial and emotional commitment, to the whole thing, and then they reveal their ambivalence, missing scheduled appointments, claiming not to have realized that the following session was arranged for the agreed time.

I understand this combination of inconsiderateness and desperation to please. So in this sense, my experience of being a bad client has expanded my repertoire of understanding as a therapist. I recently emailed this therapist to acknowledge and apologize for my abrupt departure all those years ago. She wrote back a warm and friendly email.

The Bad Referral

E. seemed smart, rigorous, and her approach was intellectually appealing to me—relational, attachment-based therapy with a psychodynamic conceptualization of development mixed with gestalt elements. I found her manner a little austere, but I assumed I was projecting and I thought her briskness might mean she’d challenge me and not just agree with everything I said. I also assumed that there were certain cultural factors at play—she was British and I was American (though I’d spent the last decade living in the UK). It was typical for an emotionally-forthcoming American to feel that English people could seem remote. I told myself I had to respect her minimal way of showing feelings.

As months and then years passed, E. continued to seem chilly, but my strong sense of being a difficult client left me not trusting my judgment of our therapy for a long time. I assumed I was impossible to please, so the fact that E. and I didn’t form a rapport didn’t set off alarm bells. I didn’t think I could do better, and I thought the problem was with me, not her. I think I displayed a fearful avoidant attachment style in my therapy with E. I wanted very much to connect and express my needs, but I didn’t think my needs could be met, so I tried to stay away from too much exposure or vulnerability.

As time went on, I struggled to trust E., both in concrete ways and in a larger sense. I felt paranoid that E. would gossip about me with my supervisors and lecturers, whom she knew from her teaching days. She felt like an authority figure who could get me in trouble. I didn’t want her to see the parts of myself I disliked.

"Reassurance is Never Reassuring"

I voiced my fears to her and she neither confirmed nor contradicted them. I think I wanted her to reassure me. I asked for this once. “Reassurance is never reassuring,” she quipped. Oh, but sometimes it simply is. Especially when it comes to something as vital to the work as the therapeutic relationship. At least probe my anxious concerns, be curious about me and ask me to go deeper, explore further. She wouldn’t speak about these things. “The more she withheld, the more emotionally hungry I became.”

The mutual mistrust played out around money. Her invoices frequently billed me for extra sessions we had never scheduled. The first time she overcharged me, I was embarrassed. I pointed out the overcharge with a degree of shame, and only after I’d meticulously confirmed in my head beforehand that the mistake was hers. She argued and insisted the bill was correct until finally she saw that she’d charged me for two extra sessions on days when she’d been away. Most of her invoices contained extra charges. Could I just pay each week, I asked. Or pay the set amount, knowing what I owed? No, this was me trying to break the frame, wanting special treatment, not knowing how to play by the rules.

When I pointed out the routine overcharges, she said I must always check her calculations and insisted it meant nothing. But her mathematical mistakes only ever overcharged me—the inaccuracies never went the other way. At the end of every month, I would open her invoice knowing I had to scan and detect the overcharge and go back to her and point out a mistake. Did a part of me delight in finding fault with her, knowing she was in the wrong? Sure. Especially given her absolute insistence on analytic neutrality when it suited her, her financial distortions seemed like frame deviations on her part. But any delight I felt in catching her errors was overshadowed by the feeling of chaos and unease these mistakes brought up for me. She was supposed to be the adult in the situation, yet it was up to me to fix the mistakes, and she didn’t acknowledge the burden.

Money in our work felt personal (it often is, of course). I paid her in cash; she counted every bill in front of me, licking the tips of her fingers to shuffle through each note. Her overcharging and her counting each note (I always paid the correct amount—not once, in all the years of working together, did she discover I had stiffed her, but the suspicion never lifted) wasn’t open for exploration, even though I felt convinced that the repeated overcharging revealed her wish to get more money for having to deal with me.

In my practice, I have made occasional mistakes with invoices, once under-charging (I’d forgotten about an extra session and the client graciously pointed this out) and recently, charging for a cancelled session that I had agreed I wouldn’t charge for. In both cases, I acknowledged my mistakes and gave the clients room to air their grievances or feelings of any sort. I praised them for pointing out my errors, and invited them to express whatever my mistakes might have evoked. Perhaps I overcorrect, but in these small ways, I attempt to repair some of my personal therapy wounds by trying to do better with my own clients. I try to handle my mess-ups honestly and thoughtfully. I know how much a therapist’s righteousness can hurt.

In the beginning phase of therapy with E., I found myself chatting about issues that were somewhat relevant to my life without being really pithy and significant. This was my classic resistant manner of seeming open and self-revealing but in a safe enough, limited way. Except that my carefully constructed issues were actually significant for me, and I longed for E. to understand me and help me understand myself.

Heaps of Rubbish

“What if one day you realize you wish you still had the old chair you got rid of?” she asked. But the chair was broken and wobbled and I didn’t like it much anyway. I was okay with not keeping the chair. Why wasn’t she? I struggled with her insistence because I needed to consolidate and clear space and get rid of things I didn’t need. I felt discouraged from letting go of things, which was an issue that had troubled me and which I was trying to overcome.

Only two months into our work, E. had announced that she would be moving her practice to the other side of London. What had been a three-minute walk door to door would now be a sixty-minute commute on the underground. I agreed to make this move, but resented it. I wasn’t delighted with our work together but I felt committed and somehow obligated to make the move to the new location. She wouldn’t tell me if this new address was her home or a separate consulting space. I figured out quickly when I showed up for our first session in the new location that it was where she lived. And I discovered the moment I arrived that she was a hoarder.

Piles and heaps of rubbish lined the hallway. I could see stacks and stacks of boxes of newspapers in the window of the living room as well as the room above the consulting room. There were mountains of post that made it difficult to fully open the front door, and there were unopened letters marked URGENT underneath old mugs and broken china. There was a horrendous odor of detritus and filth and I don’t know what.

Suddenly, E.’s urging me to hold onto things made sense. I didn’t acknowledge the piles of stuff that invaded the therapeutic space because it simply didn’t feel right. I didn’t want to embarrass her, or bother her, or seem critical, even though of course I felt all sorts of things I wish I had been able to express. So we pretended the stuff wasn’t there.

“When I asked if I could charge my phone one day, E. insisted on a very lengthy interpretation of my need to get energy from her.” It didn’t match my sense that she had very little energy to offer me, but I suppose I was often emotionally hungry and felt underfed. I think of this every time a client asks to use an outlet in my consulting room to charge his or her phone. Sure, there’s some symbolism, but in my work with E., it didn’t match my perception.

Rupture Without Repair

I arrived for a session on a crisp spring day wearing a grey dress I had recently purchased which made me feel cheerful and attractive. I came into the room feeling chirpy, and before I’d sat down or spoken, she looked at me quizzically. “You look like you’re dressed for a funeral,” she said. When she did break the silence, her statements were wild.

“I felt like dressing up. I’m going out for dinner after this and I wanted to look nice.”

Silence.

When I felt morose and down, I felt as estranged from her as when I was upbeat. She kept an incredible distance which I found painful and cold. My wanting closeness was not unreasonable or something to be ashamed of. I struggled incredibly to make sense of this really pretty terrible and very long therapeutic experience.

I felt the negative transference heavily for the five years that we worked together. I brought this up again and again, and E. met my statements with silence. I would ask for more feedback, and she would refuse to speak. I wondered if there were a rationale for her obstinate silence, and she wouldn’t offer me one.

It began to emerge that the therapeutic approach she aligned herself to professionally didn’t at all match my experience of her in the room. Attachment theory? Where was the attunement, the reparative emotional experience, the nurturing, and the secure base? Perhaps it wasn’t just my fantasies, paranoia, or projections. Nor was it simply the distortions of negative transference. E. really detested me. That was my overruling sense, and I said this to her tearfully in a session one day. Stony silence. I pressed her, feeling desperate and distressed by her refusal to reassure me or challenge my perception. “So am I right in thinking that you just don’t like me?” I cried.

“I never said that,” she said.

“But you’re not saying otherwise,” I said. “I feel like you just don’t get me—you don’t like me—I feel it strongly. I feel like you’re never glad to see me. I’m not sure why we’re still working together. Can you help me understand? Do you think we should still be working together?”

“You’re wanting this to be about me and this is about you,” said E. Yet she claimed she was relational.

“Please,” I begged. “I know my feelings are strong right now, but I want to understand which feelings belong to me, which belong to you, and which we’re experiencing together. I want to understand how you see me.”

“This is about you,” she repeated, and she wouldn’t elaborate.

“But how do you see me? I want to understand.”

Silence.

I’d gone from the Maternal Yes Woman to the therapist who refused to mirror me at all—who was there but not there—someone who was technically present but emotionally absent. Thinking about it now, “I wonder if she simply couldn’t bear her feelings towards me and so she partitioned them off and tried to extinguish her presence in the room altogether.” She couldn’t engage fully because it might have exposed her unruly feelings about me so she had to withdraw and disconnect emotionally to keep the space manageable.

This is all speculation, of course. She would never help me decipher what was my stuff, what was her stuff, and what was our stuff together. It was all my stuff. Except that her stuff was everywhere. In the hallway, stacked behind her desk, heaped next to the armchair where I sat, brimming everywhere. And despite her efforts to clear out her emotional responses to me, I felt them heavily. They were everywhere, even if they couldn’t be talked about or acknowledged.

The Dirty Underwear Incident

On this occasion, I went into the bathroom and there was a pair of underpants on the floor filled with blood. It was a startling sight and I wasn’t sure if it was blood or feces, or both. I went upstairs and told E. what I’d seen. Silence. I asked if she could please explain what I had seen. Silence. Did she think I was making it up? Could she go see what I had just seen so we could agree on this reality? Silence.

“If her silence was justified by her psychoanalytic stance of abstinence, then surely allowing me to witness underpants filled with a huge amount of blood or feces was a frame transgression and not in keeping with therapeutic neutrality.” Please could she confirm reality? I felt alone. Alone with my perception, alone with my feelings: isolated, unthought-of, and disliked.

I realize that my bringing up the unsightly bathroom discovery was perhaps my own aggression coming out—I felt righteous and somewhat gleeful at the same time that I was distressed to have discovered proof of the horror I felt all the time in that house. But E. would not acknowledge my attack on her. That would be admitting that I mattered enough to hurt her.

When I announced my engagement, E., who knew I’d longed for this moment deeply, didn’t show any pleasure in witnessing my joy. She often took my husband’s side when I brought quarrels to the sessions, but that felt like her way of suggesting that I should hold onto any man who loved me. When I was animated about a therapeutic idea I’d read about or something I’d experienced at one of my clinical placements, she met my enthusiasm with a look of boredom. Of course, she didn’t confirm or contradict my sense of her feelings, but her feelings were still there, coming out in myriad ways, even if she didn’t acknowledge them.

Pregnant Silences

“You’re making this about me, rather than staying with you,” she said in a clipped, measured tone.

“I want it to be about us just a little, maybe so I’ll feel less alone with my pain,” I said.

“Perhaps you find it difficult that other people don’t share this with you, that other people can get pregnant instantly and you can’t.”

I mulled this over. I felt like she was encouraging me to feel jealous… jealous of her? Envious that she might have had no trouble getting pregnant? I had once glimpsed her daughter. Did she want me to envy her? What was going on? But I had to limit my queries about our relationship or what was personal for her because it would be interpreted as me being intrusive, me making this work about her and not about me.

As my struggles with infertility continued, I became increasingly interested in the idea of adopting a baby. I felt excited and enlivened by this possibility, and my husband was open to this potential path as well. I brought this up in a session, excited and relieved by my own enthusiasm and renewed hope. “Adoption is second best, and you know it,” E. said. I became livid recalling this comment, and I brought it up in the following session. E. defended her statement, saying that adopted children inevitably have attachment difficulties, and it’s second best to having your own biological child. We argued and argued and couldn’t reach resolution on this issue.

Her heavy-handed insistence on burdening me with her personal views on adoption upset me intensely, and I discussed this with a couple of close friends who were also therapists. One of the friends suggested I report E. to the ethics committee. I thought about it but decided it would be like suing someone for breaking your heart—my case against E. was so emotional, so intensely personal, and it all felt nebulous and highly subjective.

The Challenge of Leaving

I wish that my extensive psychotherapy training had offered trainees more tools for recognizing and dealing with inadequate therapy. “For all of the rigor and scrutiny that goes into honing the craft of psychotherapy, we are not sufficiently educated in knowing how to evaluate our own personal experiences of therapy.” There is still a sense, as a trainee, that the therapist is the expert and the therapist in training is the student.

For all the discussions and studies on endings in therapy, it was only when I’d finished my training and qualified that I felt able to end my bad therapy. Perhaps it was her hoarding ways that allowed E. to hold onto me even if she didn’t consider me that valuable—she held onto ancient junk mail, after all. But she too should have let me go—if the work is life-diminishing, the therapist owes it to the client to at least acknowledge the impasse and danger of carrying on in a destructive and unhelpful way.

I finally ended my work with E. a month after I had completed my clinical training. That extra month was probably my last rebellious expression against being told what to do—now that I was no longer required to be in weekly therapy, I had to end my therapy on my own terms, and it wouldn’t have felt right for our last session to coincide precisely with the end of my training. I actually really needed therapy at this time in my life. I was still struggling with infertility and my anxiety and obsessive thinking around this issue was corroding my sense of self and affecting all areas of my life and even my work.

In anticipating our ending, E. had often suggested that we would finish at least temporarily when I had a baby. This contingency plan made me feel that pregnancy and motherhood would be the only legitimate excuses for getting out of this relationship. And the fact that I deeply longed to become a mother, and felt deprived and frustrated by my difficulties becoming pregnant, made me feel all the more trapped and stuck, in therapy and in life.

Finally, still not pregnant, still in weekly therapy with E., I arrived for a session and told E. I just didn’t think that continuing therapy was a good idea for me. “I don’t think you like me, and that feels like a big problem for me. Call it my narcissistic wound—in fact, I would love to know what you think, if you think it is my ego, or my distorted perceptions of how others experience me, or if I’m picking up on your real feelings—please do tell me if you can, but in any case, I want to stop. I don’t want to come here anymore.”

“Fine,” she said. I asked her to elaborate. She wouldn’t. I asked her—no—I begged her, to tell me what she thought about my sense of her sense of me.

“Please, could you give me some parting words, some closing interpretations I can take away with me, so I can look back at our years of work together and have some solid sense of your ideas about me?”

She responded with this: “Charlotte, you have been coming here for five years. You know my interpretations. You know my ideas about you.”

“I really don’t! I really, really don’t! I often feel as if you don’t like me. I don’t know if I should trust my sense of this or not. Please, even if you think you’ve said it all before, please say it again. Do I sound borderline, demanding this from you? Paranoid? Perhaps. But please, do it anyway! Tell me what you think of me!”

“You are like a ram with horns,” she said. “You press, and you press.” All true. Actually useful feedback, even if it seemed harsh. I appreciated her directness.

“You’re bright; you’re beautiful. You know that,” she said, looking utterly fatigued.

I felt like crying, though the tears just didn’t come. Was this everything I had longed for? Did her praise mean more to me because she wasn’t emotionally generous and she’d been so withholding all this time? Was it worth it? Not really. But it helped. Though her comment about my looks seemed odd and out of character. I didn’t dare ask her to say more. That was enough.

I wanted to end the work thoughtfully, especially given how long I’d stuck it out up until this point. I had to justify the long and grueling struggle. E. disagreed with my sense that we should have a termination phase, and said that “given the givens,” we could end the following week. I found this notion cryptic, but that was nothing new. I left our final session feeling buoyed by the freedom to walk away from something that doesn’t feel healthy or good. The following weeks, I breathed more easily; I felt lighter, freer, empowered. It was that glorious feeling of finally letting go of something that’s bad for you and that you don’t actually need.

The Happy Ending

I ran into E. at my training institution a couple of weeks later. I walked through the turnstile with my student ID which had not yet expired, and saw E. struggling to get through from the other side. I was never sure if she had poor peripheral vision or simply pretended not to see me on the few occasions I’d spotted her out in the world. Her stuckness was awkward and she snapped at the receptionist that she should not have such difficulty. I decided I had to have one final encounter, and I was desperate to tell her my news.

“E! Hello!” I said, meeting her on the other side of the turnstile. She smiled opaquely. “I’m so excited to tell you some news,” I said, grinning unabashedly. “I’m finally pregnant. It’s early days—five weeks or so—but at least now I know I can get pregnant, whatever happens.”

“Yes, indeed,” she said, allowing a smile out. “Five weeks. Hmmm. Perhaps it was my parting gift to you.”

“Yes, I like that idea. I wanted you to know because it felt really significant that it happened the same week we ended.”

“That’s interesting,” she said. ?

“I’m so happy to finally give you this news,” I said. “I’ve wanted to be able to tell you this for a really long time. So thank you.”

“You’re most welcome,” she said. And that was that.

My work as a psychotherapist has helped me see that my wants and needs as a client were legitimate. They were nothing to be ashamed of, or hide, or regret. “I had a right to want more from my therapist, and I encourage my clients to expect nurturing and care from me.” I encourage them to want connection and attunement. I give my clients what I wish my therapist had given me, so in that sense, my work has also been therapeutic for me. And my experience of bad therapy has helped me become a better therapist because I know very well what doesn’t work and what isn’t helpful.

I also trust my clients when they talk about bad experiences in therapy. If E. did dislike me (or whatever she felt about me), I wish she had found a better way to deal with, or even use, her own countertransference. Recognizing negative feelings about a client can be helpful, and even illuminating and transformative, if a therapist deals with them properly.

Finally, in supervision recently, I brought up my unsatisfactory therapy with E. My supervisor told me that he and E. had been colleagues for many years. I’m very fond of my supervisor and we have a strong rapport. He asked if I wanted to know his opinion of E. “Yes,” I said, “desperately!” I’m not afraid to show him how I feel, and I don’t have to hold back.

“Oh dear,” he said. “I find it bewildering… You, with your warmth, your vivaciousness, your joie de vivre, were in therapy for five years with E? Dear oh dear. I understand your disappointment.”

“Tell me! Oh please, tell me,” I said.

“She’s just, well… she’s just so cold,” he said. “She’s cold, cold, cold.”

“What a relief,” I said. “So it wasn’t just me. Well, it might have been me too—she might not have liked me, but it wasn’t just me finding her cold all those years—my perceptions were reasonable after all.”

“Yes,” he said. “What a mismatch. Why did you stay with her for so long?”

“Because I kept thinking things would turn around; that I could get something out of the whole thing; that it was me, not her; that I was projecting and imagining things; that getting her to like me would be some kind of victory; that the difficulty of each session was somehow useful; that the struggle had merit; that I couldn’t be understood by anyone so I might as well stick with the familiar therapist even if she didn’t understand me or like me; that I couldn’t do better. That’s why. I’m sure it was more perverse than I realized. I thought that if I could warm her up, I could play against the house and win—I would succeed in getting her to like me and that would count for something, but it never happened, of course. Talking with you now has made me realize that, actually, she wasn’t the right therapist for me.”

I stayed with the wrong therapist for far too long. I didn’t have the confidence to trust my feelings and opinions sufficiently and end the relationship sooner. There was detritus and filth and junk right there between us and surrounding us and I felt it and sensed it and experienced it once a week for five years, even if the person sitting across from me denied the problem. Something was severely wrong in our work together. I’ll never know if she felt it too.

The Imprisoned Brain: Psychotherapy with Inmates in Jail

Officer Smith

There’s a strange smile I get from one of the correctional officers at the county jail where I do psychotherapy with inmates. The correctional officer?—?let’s call him Officer Smith?—?presides over the maximum security wing where one of my clients is housed. Officer Smith is not a talker. None of the small-town, yessir/nossir politeness or the jocular workaday chit-chat of some of the other COs. Just that smile?—?every time he buzzes my client out of his cell, shackles him up, escorts him to the multipurpose room where we do therapy, right up until he locks us in and steps away.

It’s an iceberg kind of a smile?—?the only visible portion a slight jut at the corner of the mouth; the rest of it looms somewhere beneath. And it conveys something different to me every day?—?anything from benign fascination to good-humored skepticism to impatience, disapproval, or even outright disdain for what I do (some COs refer to the jail counseling program as the Hug-A-Thug program). When Officer Smith smiles, I find myself smiling back, and I find myself feeling those same things?—?ranging from fascination to disdain?—?for what he does too.

It occurs to me that Officer Smith and I have been smiling at each other for months now across some kind of unbridgeable rift, and I’ve gotten to thinking about what that rift might be. We are alien to each other in so many ways. But strip away titles for a moment, his of Correctional Officer, mine of Psychologist-in-Training. Strip away disparities in age and physical stature. Strip away hierarchy and authority. Strip away every other superficial difference and I’ve realized that what really stands between officer Smith and me is this:

Mario

My client. His inmate. We’ll call him Mario. A lifelong addict who nearly killed a cyclist during a meth-induced paranoia. A man facing 25 to life for a third strike offense. A survivor of horrific, repeated, unchecked sexual and physical abuse since the age of four. A gentle, remorseful, introspective man who would almost certainly use and hurt someone again if he were to be let out of prison. A man who has sought professional help since his teens to no avail. A criminal and a victim who embodies the saying “Hurt people hurt people.”

And this is the rift: Every week Officer Smith and I smile at each other across Mario. And Officer Smith’s smile is saying “You think you can change him, but you can’t.” And my smile is saying “You think he can’t change, but he can.”

And my intractable fear is that Officer Smith may be right.

During a recent session Mario presented me with a thick document compiled by his public defender. The document presents a detailed, chronological account of the sexual and physical abuse Mario endured as a child, as well as his early exposure to drug-use by his own mother. Mario wanted me to read it because he didn’t feel comfortable talking about it. He sat there as I flipped the pages and I don’t know if my expression changed when I read the phrase “screws and bolts forcibly inserted into the anus,” or any of a dozen other phrases like it in the document. And then there were the accounts of his own crimes. His addiction and extreme aggression. The police report describing the raw and bloodied face of his ex-wife. The abject deeds done to support his habit.

Beautiful and Precious

Sometimes life just boggles the mind. It can so quickly overload our meaning-making engines?—?“hope” is one of these meanings, just like “justice”?—?that we are left slack-jawed and blank. During so many sessions Mario talked about what he would do if he got out?—?how things might be different for him. But at the end of each session Officer Smith would be there to unlock the door, and his smile would be there too, saying, “This guy?—?he’s gotten out before. He’s used again, hurt someone again, and gone to prison again. You think talking is going to change that? Talking?”

He has a point. And after reading Mario’s file I’ve felt the searing truth of that point?—?the cold, hard biology that I believe is the real mass beneath Officer Smith’s iceberg smile: that the human cerebral cortex doesn’t stand a chance against the reptilian brain. Reason, Abstract thought, symbolism, language, complex planning and executive function?—?the mainstays of talk therapy, and the very things that we insist set us apart from and above the rest of the animal kingdom?—?are imperfect and meager evolutionary tools in the context of our animal condition. My inability to make sense of the horrors of Mario’s life; Mario’s repeated relapses into drug use and violence. Inevitably?—?Officer Smith’s smile would surely insist?—?the higher brain fails to explain the world, and it fails to legislate our behavior in it.

Of course as a therapist, I’m trying to give Mario an emotional experience, not just a cerebral one. But it doesn’t change the fact that my tools for doing so are words and gestures. Mario’s own limbic system has far more potent tools?—?tools that can make even our highest, most uniquely human endeavors seem trifling. We revel in the fact that art can move us to tears, churn our stomachs, increase our heart rates, make us laugh, fill us with desire. But the limbic system can evoke these sensations with less effort and a great deal more intensity. A breathtakingly attractive person could walk by. A spider could scurry from beneath the blanket. You could be beaten, isolated, drugged, fed, fucked. Threat, reward, pain, appetite?—?art is nothing compared to this. Art is the neocortex trying desperately to emulate its older, more successful sibling. In the process it squawks and hollers about truth and meaning and humanity. But what do we generally know about the loudest ones in the room? They’re usually the weakest. The mammal in us is a quiet, ancient, powerful force. Our cortex is a small, yipping dog, ever making threats and pronouncements it can’t back up.

“Life is precious,” it insists. But I’d guess Mario has had a decidedly more animal experience of it; to the criminal justice system, to his community, to his own family?—?life was and is cheap, violent, and appetite-driven. “Life is beautiful,” our meaning-making machine cries. But it is also ugly and terrifying and senseless and painful. Nor, as we would sometimes like to believe, is even ugliness the sole domain of human behavior. Reading about Mario’s childhood, I was tempted to think, “Only humans are capable of such atrocities.” But this is just another way of setting humans apart, of maintaining our own centrality in the tapestry of life. Copernicus might have warned us of the unfolding truth?—?that the great discoveries have been a series of decenterings, of dethronings. The Earth is not the center, nor is the sun. The possibility of life beyond this planet is now a probability. And everywhere there is life, there are atrocities. Sea otters rape baby seals to death for sport. Chimps kill and dismember their own kind. Infanticide, gang rape, and physical and sexual abuse of the young and helpless are practiced?—?in the complete absence of any threat to survival or territory?—?by all manner of mammals including lions, dolphins, penguins, and meerkats. Put a rat in a cage with a lever that dispenses an opiate, and the rat will choose that lever over food, family, and ultimately, survival. We are distinctly human, yes. But far more damningly than the human condition, we inhabit the Animal Condition.

That is what Officer Smith’s smile tells me. “Let it go. They’re animals. We all are.”

And I’m almost convinced.

Except that when he smiles, I’m smiling too. And what’s that about? Defiance? Wishful thinking?

The validity of Officer Smith’s skepticism of psychotherapy is not lost on me?—?and in fact it’s helpful. When we attempt to impose the will of the higher brain, we should know what we’re up against. Any addict in recovery will tell you: taming the mesolimbic pathway?—?the brain’s reward system?—?takes a cortical feat of immense, sustained, almost unbelievable proportions.

And yet people do it.

In the overwhelming majority of significant battles, the animal brain may win; but every now and then, for some reason, it doesn’t. A torture victim finds a life beyond nightmares and flashbacks. A serial abuser tames the animal urge to hit, to hurt, to maim, and talks instead. An addict finds a way to stay sober in the face of blaring environmental and emotional cues to use.

But the thing is, the vast majority of these people?—?the ones I know of anyway?—?were only able to pull off their supermammalian feats in the context of relationships. Healthy, loving relationships. And that is what Officer Smith is missing?—?that therapists bring something decidedly animal to the table, something that a man like Mario has likely never experienced, not even from his own parents. Call it what you want: attachment, safety, nurturing, connection, love. This is not a higher function. It is basic and mammal and ancient and powerful and adaptive, just like fear and aggression.

And this, I hope, is why I smile back at Officer Smith. Because at the end of that session with Mario, after I’d finished reading his file, it so happened I had to inform him that I would be missing the next week’s session due to a medical procedure. And he’d responded, “You gonna be okay, man?”

And I’d said, “Yeah, Mario. Nothing serious. I’ll be back in two weeks.”
And just as Officer Smith opened the door to let us out, Mario said, “Well, shit, take care of yourself, brother. I’ll be sending you good thoughts.”

And in that fraction of a second?—?it was just a flicker?—?I saw Officer Smith’s smile falter.

Note: I have grossly simplified the structure of the human brain in service of clarity and meaning. And of course, personal details have been altered to protect confidentiality.

Brian McNeill on the Art of Supervision

What is Effective Supervision?

Greg Arnold: Brian you’ve been in the field of psychotherapy for over thirty years and you’ve done a great deal of research and work in the area of supervision. My first question is kind of a big one. It seems to me there’s more disagreement than ever in the field about what works in psychotherapy. How do we know what effective supervision is if we can’t even agree on what effective therapy is?
Brian McNeill: That’s a very good question. I think my reading of the psychotherapy literature might be a little bit different from yours, in that I see research on effectiveness of psychotherapy converging into what’s known as the “common factors” across divergent therapies. Wampold and his colleagues did a great deal of research on these factors in his most recent edition of the Great Psychotherapy Debate. Their research suggests primarily that we need to get away from the idea of manualized treatments, especially for training programs, where there’s way too much emphasis on it. I know it’s easy, I know it gives students something to get a handle on, but it discounts those common factors that account for so much of the variance across diverging approaches—relationship building skills, therapist qualities, world view—things that are now consistent with what APA has adopted as evidence-based psychology practice.
GA: So if you focused on the common factors you’d be well in the wheelhouse of accepted clinical science?
BM: Yes
GA: But you said it’s harder than just teaching a manualized treatment. Why do you think there is such a strong pull to fall back on a mechanistic view of the work that we do and to teach it through memorization of knowledge. Why is that so attractive and easy?
BM: I think it’s very attractive particularly for beginning counselors, because it provides a template for what to do in a given session. For example, for many cognitive behavioral approaches we set the agenda in the first 10 minutes; the next 10 to 15 minutes we review homework, and then we get into the agenda for the session.

It has its place at times, but I think it’s overused because it helps reduce a lot of that initial anxiety in beginning therapists, which comes from not knowing what to do if a session doesn’t go as planned. If the client stops talking, for example, it gives them something to fall back on. It’s harder to go in and listen very closely, very carefully—to really attempt to understand what your clients are saying as well as what’s not said and what the meaning is behind non-verbal behaviors, voice inflection. In other words, what a client is not saying, but trying to communicate nonetheless.
GA: Is there an attraction to the manualized approach from the supervisor’s point of view?
BM:
A manualized approach is easier than trying to train your students to be more reflective, or to examine themselves in terms of who they are as a person how that impacts their professional practice.
I think it gives supervisors a break in the sense that if you’re promoting a treatment manual approach, it’s much easier to go in there and say, “Okay, you followed these directions correctly. You could maybe have included these items on your agenda, or reviewed things in a different way, or implemented these particular kinds of cognitive challenges, or engaged in more of a Socratic dialogue.” A manualized approach is easier than trying to train your students to be more reflective, or to examine themselves in terms of who they are as a person how that impacts their professional practice.
GA: Easier in terms of the supervisor’s anxiety?
BM: Yes, absolutely.
GA: So it’s more comfortable for each party—the supervisee and supervisor—to presume this mechanistic view of a manualized treatment and technical rationality, but they’re missing so much juicy, nutritious, formative development. What are they missing there?
BM: From the model that I work from, I believe that what they’re missing are the personal aspects that really play a large part in this journey to becoming an effective psychotherapist. I like the idea of competencies and the competency movement, and I think it provides good kinds of behavioral anchors for various stages of therapist development, but what they’re missing is the journey and the process of what it takes to become an effective therapist. That’s where therapists need to integrate their personal identity with their professional identity. To look at who they are as a person, how that impacts their work in this field, how it impacts their relationships with their clients, how they can engage in reflective practice and be self aware in their interactions with their clients.

Especially from an interpersonal process orientation, how they can use their self-reflections, their feelings in the session, in the moment, in a way that’s effective and helpful for clients, by sharing their perceptions, by giving clients feedback in the moment—those kinds of interactions.

Are Counselors Selected or Grown?

GA: Congruence, immediacy, using their human instrument, being a real person, being integrated—that’s hard work. What is the process of that journey you’ve identified through your research. Since it needs to be personal, and folks can’t hide behind their manuals, isn’t the success of the work tied to the actual person of the therapist? In other words, are counselors selected or grown? Who do we keep and who do we kick out? Are they a tomato plant or are they a diamond in the rough?
BM: Well, to me they’re grown. I know a lot of people gravitate to our field because they believe that they have some natural helping abilities or skills; they’ve maybe been told by friends that they’re good listeners and whatnot, but I think while that can be a nice start for folks, we still need skills and abilities that only training can provide. Becoming a therapist is different than becoming a biologist, or an engineer, in that it requires self-examination and a very high level of self-awareness.
GA: Can anyone undergo that process successfully?
BM:
I do believe that people who are motivated to really want to help others can learn the skills to be effective in this field.
Yeah, if you’re willing. If you are motivated enough, then just about anyone can go through that process. People who are resistant to self-examination are definitely going to struggle in this field. If you’re suffering from a personality disorder, it’s going to be much harder to engage in that kind of self-examination and be insightful. But for the most part, I do believe that people who are motivated to really want to help others can learn the skills to be effective in this field
GA: So barring real outliers, if you engage in this process of self-reflection and vulnerable, non-defensive engagement with training, you’re going to develop these capacities for using yourself and therapy in a way that is effective?
BM: Yes
GA: What does it say about the field that many doctoral programs in psychology are harder to get into than medical school? I’ve seen one spot per 360 applicants at certain programs and there are all these aptitude requirements to set you apart.
BM: I think that is where we’re still very far behind. I never have believed that the traditional selection variables of college GPA and GRE scores have ever been predictive of someone’s interpersonal skills or abilities to interact personally on the level that we do as clinicians and therapists.

With my program, and I know others out there as well, we try to expand those selection variables a bit, but it’s still very difficult. We try to read into what could be some of those qualities through letters of recommendations or statements of purpose, or past life experiences, a kind of outlook—variables that just aren’t very easy to quantify.

The Developmental Approach to Supervision

GA: So you’ve expanded the selection criteria, you get the individuals selected for this privilege, then how do you balance the inherent dual relationship built into supervision? If someone is operating on your license, there’s a tension between oversight—where you have to think of client safety and liability and the reputation of your clinic—and the more humanistic, nurturing role of standing behind trainees when they make mistakes, which are essential to learning, but they also pose a liability. So how do you balance your gatekeeping role and your role as a supervisor tasked with nurturing their development?
BM:
We are thankfully moving away from the idea that to be an effective supervisor you just need to be an experienced effective clinician.
We are thankfully moving away from the idea that to be an effective supervisor you just need to be an experienced effective clinician. Over the past 30 years we have come to understand that these are very different domains. It’s taken awhile, as you can see from the just recently published supervisor competencies that the APA put out.

We now have more of a developmental approach to supervision. We know that beginners are going to be exhibiting certain kinds of qualities and have certain needs, versus intermediate or advanced trainees. It takes a skilled supervisor to assess where a given trainee is at developmentally and to provide the appropriate supervision environment that is going to enhance acquisition of skills—not only in terms of interventions, but abilities to be self-reflective, to develop as a therapist personally and professionally.
GA: How does a person go from a lay person, totally uninitiated through the whole journey of maturation to a great clinician?
BM: We look at three levels of psychotherapist development. At the beginning level we have trainees that are obviously just entering the field. It’s a novel situation for them and they’re typically highly invested. In most programs, probably 80% of your students want to be clinicians, even though we do obviously take a scientist practitioner kind of approach.

It’s anxiety producing for beginners, and as supervisors we need to help them reduce that anxiety, to help them take the focus off themselves early on during sessions and give them some structure and support. We focus on formulating relationships with their clients and learning those important listening skills.

Then we look at dependency versus autonomy. Obviously a beginning student is going to be very dependent upon their supervisor for structure, direction, and support. We look at self-awareness, both in the cognitive and affective realms and, again, a beginner is not going to be very self-aware in terms of how they come off in a session.

We believe that if you attend to the appropriate level of structure, direction and support, especially at the beginning level, that helps them progress onto an intermediate level.
GA: Let’s hang out at level one for a second. What could go wrong at that level?
BM:
Students get anxious. They feel like they need to do something, that listening isn’t enough.
Students get anxious. They feel like they need to do something, that listening isn’t enough. And that’s when they want to fall back on a manualized approach, but even a manualized approach, at least in my mind, is not going to be effective unless you have that base of all effective therapeutic intervention and that is the relationship. Things can go awry if students aren’t acculturated to the research about the therapeutic relationship being the basis of all later therapeutic intervention.

That’s the thing that I harp on the most, because I think that that’s what I see going awry the most. The lack of appreciation for developing those basic interpersonal skills early on.
GA: Really believing and internalizing that value, that this relationship is really important to cultivate.
BM: Yes, and that I need to effectively listen and communicate empathy.
GA: What about for the supervisor in this level? What can get in the way of them providing what the student needs at level one?
BM: Well, much like the therapeutic relationship, the supervisory relationship serves as the base of any kind of supervisor effectiveness as well. If for whatever reason the trainee and the supervisor don’t hit it off personally, the supervision isn’t likely to go well. I see that the most where the supervisor is not focusing in on the beginning trainee’s needs; they take an old line perspective that they shouldn’t be providing advice to their supervisees.
GA: Let them squirm. Encourage autonomy.
BM: Yeah, sink or swim. Or we’ll also see supervisors get hung up on their approach to psychotherapy and apply it to supervision. So if they’re very psychodynamic or interpersonally oriented, they want to get in there with the beginning supervisee and start processing with them, whereas the supervisee is really more concerned about what do I do with this client in the next session.

The Adolescent Stage

GA: So assuming all goes well and the supervisor is able to build a great supervisory dyad, attending to the person as an individual in an empathic way that builds a relationship and then providing structure to mitigate their anxiety and then the supervisee is able to get out of their own head, cultivate some self-awareness. They’re starting to be able to balance the focus on the clients, all that stuff. We move into a new intermediate stage.
BM: They then move into second stage or level two. At this point they’ve had some experiences with success in their interventions with clients and they’ve also had some failures. In other words, they’ve been through a couple of semesters of actually seeing clients and engaging in clinical work, so they have a greater sense of the complexity involved in providing psychotherapy. They’ve come to the realization that maybe it’s not as easy as they thought it might be.

It’s hard at times. Clients don’t come back and you’re left asking yourself what happened. Or the client is very resistant. In these cases, the supervisee’s motivation then can fluctuate—they start to question themselves and in some cases they might question whether they’re suited for this field because of some of the failures that they’ve experienced.

At the same time, hopefully they’ve had some success and so they want to develop a sense of autonomy or independence. They are becoming more self-aware. They’re not only able to focus on what they’re experiencing during the session, but they start to be able to focus in and sometimes at this level maybe a little bit too much towards what the client’s experience is.
A pitfall for students in the intermediate stage is that they can get a little bit overly enmeshed in their client’s issues.
A pitfall for students in the intermediate stage is that they can get a little bit overly enmeshed in their client’s issues.

This calls for a different kind of supervisory environment—one where you have to give them a little bit more autonomy. You do have to allow them to try out things that they’re interested in. Let them make some decisions. Of course, overriding all of this is the concern of client welfare, so you constantly have to monitor client welfare and make sure that ultimately your trainees are still following what you would see as required kinds of interventions in the interest of client welfare. But, they want to be able to come up with some more things on their own. They’re less dependent upon the supervisor. And so you’ve got to give them some leeway here.

They’re also more open to some examination of who they are as a person and how that impacts their clinical work. In fact, at this stage they really want that kind of self-examination. They want to look at transference, counter transference kinds of reactions and those kinds of implications because they’re getting a little bit more advanced in their abilities, their skills, their knowledge. So you have to be flexible as a supervisor and be able to assess where your trainee is at.

The analogy we draw is that it’s almost like dealing with an adolescent. They’re gaining some skills and perhaps they want to demonstrate their autonomy.
The analogy we draw is that it’s almost like dealing with an adolescent. They’re gaining some skills and perhaps they want to demonstrate their autonomy. If you can’t lighten up a bit, or deal with that kind of therapeutic adolescence, it’s going to create some resistance, and even some rebellion at this point. If you want to just stay with a completely structured kind of approach of always directing your trainee, we’re saying that that’s not going to work at this stage. You have to help them through stages or periods where they feel like their motivation is low because they’re discouraged with some clients or certain client types. You have to be able to identify that when you’re reviewing recorded sessions.

In that sense it does take a lot of work on the part of the supervisor to accurately assess and intervene with their trainees to foster their continued development as a therapist.
GA: It sounds like it could be a really rewarding time for everyone involved.
BM: Yes, absolutely. It can be very challenging, but ultimately very rewarding.
GA: So take me through level three really quickly.
BM: At this point, we’re probably looking at a trainee at the advanced stage of level two moving off into internship. Typically what we would see as a level three trainee is in my mind developed during that internship year.

They’ve kind of weathered that storm of level two in terms of that dependency/autonomy conflict and they’re able to pretty much operate at an independent level. Motivation is high. They understand the complexities of this endeavor of our field. They go into their work with an understanding that, yeah, there’s going to be successes but there’s going to be some failures, there’s going to be difficult clients. There’s going to be some client types or populations or diagnostic categories that I work best with and others that maybe just push my buttons and that I’ve got to be careful with.
GA: We can’t help everybody all the time.
BM: Exactly. They demonstrate that high level of self-awareness and self-insight on both cognitive as well as affective levels. They’re self-aware enough to know that if there’s something that isn’t working for them, if they need some help on something, or if they don’t have the experience in a given domain—maybe marriage and family therapy as opposed to doing individual therapy—they know and have the awareness to consult with somebody run it past their supervisor.

And they’re not going to be reluctant to do that. They just understand that that’s really part of what they need to do to develop their skills, and that ethically that’s what’s called for. Hopefully that occurs by the end of internship or is fully developed out there with some post-doctoral supervision. That’s what we envision as the advanced psychotherapist and one that hopefully develops into later years as a master psychotherapist.
GA: Talk about post-doctoral supervision, where you’ve got your degree but you’re not yet licensed because you still have 1500 hours to complete [in some states].
BM: Post-doctoral supervision used to be in name only. As long as you had an identified supervisor, it really wasn’t necessary to meet or document. Maybe if you had a problem or some questions you’d go and consult with your post-doc supervisor. It was also the norm that your post-doc supervisor just had to be a clinician with three years of experience.

I think we have made progress on that front, too. For example, APA and our programs now requiring training in supervision.
GA: Many programs still don’t require that, though.
BM: It puzzles me how programs can get accredited by saying that they offer a workshop on supervision, or they implement a module during practicum training. That’s really not enough, but I think that’s the case with the majority of programs.

In that sense I’m happy to see APA publish the supervisor competencies, which I think is going to help a lot. More strictly enforcing that APA requirement that all trainees receive training in supervision is going to help.
GA: What’s the risk of this all-lip-service post-doctoral supervision? What’s the pitfall of someone who says, “Oh, I’m level three, I’m done growing. I don’t need consultation.”
BM: Well, if an advanced trainee has that attitude, that’s definitely problematic. More often than not there are areas where they need to develop and to grow, as well as weaknesses they need to attend to.

We run the risk of just assuming that because someone has completed their coursework and internship and training requirements that that’s all there is. The journey does continue to becoming a master therapist and some of those qualities manifest themselves later down the road. Experience matters and learning doesn’t stop. You can always learn from a mentor at any point in your career.
GA: Forever.
BM: Yes, absolutely.
GA: In closing, pretend I’m your student and I am thinking about what to do with my career and I’m saying, “This supervision stuff is a lot of work. It’s not compensated very well. The field doesn’t seem to value it very much. I’m not sure I’m going to pursue supervision in my career.” How would you talk me into it?
BM: I would say that a lot of clinicians gravitate to training programs at the internship and post-doc level because it’s tough work to just be seeing clients all the time. It’s easy to get burned out just seeing clients.
Supervising can be a nice break, a way to stay current, and also just really enjoyable to have the opportunity to work with trainees.
Supervising can be a nice break, a way to stay current, and also just really enjoyable to have the opportunity to work with trainees. The relationship with trainees can be long-lasting, and you may get calls from them in the future for advice not just about clients, but about their careers or other aspects of their lives. It’s very rewarding to have the wisdom that you’ve developed over a number of years valued later on.
GA: I’m sold. We all must go forth and propagate quality supervision.

Any closing thoughts to share with our readers, your wisdom from these 30 years of studying this and experiencing it personally?
BM: Well, I listen to a lot of music, a lot of jazz. And I draw a lot of parallels for how we operate in the moment as clinicians, as supervisors based on our accumulated experience and skills. One of my idols, a jazz bassist named Charlie Hayden, passed away recently, and I remember reading an interview with him in which he said, “to be a good musician, to really communicate as a good musician, you have to be a good person.” What he meant was a good, humble individual who is willing to look closely at him or herself and implement that humility in their work.

I strongly believe that as clinicians, and by extension trainers and supervisors, that if we work on being a good person—and that can take many forms in terms of personal development, spirituality, etc.—it helps us to be good clinicians, good supervisors, trainers of our students. And it affects our clientele. So I tell my students all the time to be a good clinician, try to do your best to develop yourself as a good person.
GA: It’s been an absolute pleasure. Thank you so much for sitting with me.
BM: Thank you so much for the opportunity.

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.

 

The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry

Editor's Note: The following is excerpted from The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry by Gary Greenberg. Published by arrangement with Blue Rider Press, a member of Penguin Group (USA).

In 2002, the APA officially announced that [the DSM-IV] had had its day. In A Research Agenda for DSM?V, a book that kicked off the official revision effort, the APA acknowledged that the reification of the DSM?IV’s categories, “to the point that they are considered to be the equivalent of diseases,” had most likely “hindered research.” Nor was “research exclusively focused on refining the DSM-defined syndromes [likely to] be successful in uncovering their underlying etiologies.” Searching for the causes of the illnesses listed in the DSM was proving to be not unlike a drunk looking for his car keys under a streetlight even if that’s not where he dropped them. Scientists were unlikely to find the causes of Generalized Anxiety Disorder or Major Depressive Disorder or any of the other DSM categories­—as descriptive psychiatrists had been promising to do since Kraepelin—because it increasingly seemed unlikely that they really were the equivalent of diseases.

So the APA did what organizations everywhere do when they find themselves flummoxed. They convened a committee. To be exact, they convened thirteen committees that, beginning in 2004, held a series of “planning conferences” at APA headquarters. Because the conferences were explicitly devoted to finding that new paradigm—which, according to the Research Agenda, was “yet unknown”—the NIMH helped pay for them.

Among the people appointed to organize the conferences was a Columbia University psychiatrist named Michael First. First had been the text editor for the DSM?IV and the editor of the DSM?IV?TR. Since 1990, part of his salary at Columbia had been paid by the APA, for which he consulted on all matters related to the DSM. He’d already worked on DSM?5, editing the Research Agenda and writing its foreword.

When he’s not traveling around the world, lecturing on diagnostic issues or consulting to the Centers for Disease Control or the World Health Organization or teaching clinicians how to use the DSM, First can be found in a basement office at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, part of Columbia Presbyterian hospital on the northern tip of Manhattan. He’s bent over in his office chair when I arrive, searching for something amid the piles of papers that have spilled over from his desk and tables and onto the floor. Bearded and rumpled, he looks like a psychiatrist in a New Yorker cartoon. When he talks, thoughts tumble out like the papers in his office, one on top of another, but somehow usually making sense. So you’d be mistaken to think that he’s absentminded. If I hadn’t interrupted him, he would surely have reached into the mess and found just what he was looking for, just as he seems to be able to rummage around in his memory and retrieve the slightest detail of the DSM’s history.

“In a way, I was born to do the DSM,” First told me. But he didn’t always think so. “When I first saw DSM-III”—at the University of Pitts-burgh’s medical school in 1978—“I thought it was preposterous. I saw the Chinese-menu approach and thought, ‘This is how they do diagnosis in psychiatry?’ It seemed overly mechanical and didn’t fit my idea of what the study of the mind and psychiatry should be.”

First had a second love: computer science, which he had pursued as an undergraduate at Princeton. He’d almost chucked pre-med for computers, and during medical school, he continued his interest, working with a team using artificial intelligence for diagnosis in internal medicine. He took a year off to earn a master’s degree in computer science, working on a program to diagnose neurological problems. When he returned to medical school, he settled on psychiatry as his specialty, and his interest in using computers to aid diagnosticians made that Chinese-menu approach seem not quite so preposterous. “I thought, ‘Well, psychiatry is actually relatively straightforward. It’s got a book with rules in it already—an obvious good fortune if I was going to try to get a computer to be able to do this.” Which he was, and which is why he decided to go to the New York State Psychiatric Institute, the professional home of Bob Spitzer, where he planned to exploit his good fortune.

Spitzer had already flirted with computer­-assisted diagnosis in the 1970s, when he was first developing the criteria-based approach. He’d abandoned the attempt, however, and soured on the idea. First managed to negotiate a bargain: he could work on his program so long as he helped out with one of Spitzer’s—an old-fashioned paper-and-pencil test Spitzer was developing called Structured Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders, or SCID. The SCID, which is still in use, is straight forward to use. If you answer yes when the doctor asks you if you’ve been sad for two weeks or more, then he is directed to ask you about the next criterion for depression—whether or not you have lost interest in your usual activities. If you answer no, then he moves on to a criterion for a different disorder. This goes on for forty-five minutes or so, the questions shunting you from one branch of the diagnostic tree to the next until you land on the leaf that is your diagnosis.

First eventually did develop his own diagnostic program. He called it DTREE, but it was a commercial failure. “I learned a lesson,” First said. “Doctors don’t care much about diagnosis. They use diagnosis mostly for codes. They don’t really care what the rules are.” When a patient comes in complaining of pervasive worry and jitters, with a little dread thrown in, most clinicians don’t take the time to climb around on the diagnostic tree. They don’t bother consulting the DSM’s list of criteria to diagnose Generalized Anxiety Disorder. They just write the code, 300.02, in the chart (and on the bill) and move on.

“That was my first lesson in how people think about diagnosis,” First told me.

First doesn’t think the solution is more reverence toward the DSM. Indeed, there may be only one thing worse than not paying attention to the DSM and that is paying it too much heed. “I think people take diagnosis too seriously,” he said. The DSM may appear to be a master text of psychological suffering, but this is misleading. “The fiction that diagnosis could be boiled down to a set of rules is something that people find very appealing, but I think it’s gotten out of hand. It is a convenient language for communication, and nothing more.” The rules are important, but they should not be applied outside of a very particular game.

In this respect, First thinks, “the DSM has been a victim of its own success.” If it was merely the lexicon that gave psychiatrists a way to talk to one another, then it might live in the same dusty obscurity as, say, Interventional Radiology in Women’s Health or Consensus in Clinical Nutrition does. If it was treated as a convenient fiction fashioned by expert consensus, and not the embodiment of a scientific understanding of human functioning, then newspapers would not be giving psychiatrists valuable op?ed real estate to debate its merits. If it hadn’t escaped its professional confines, it would not be seen as a Rosetta Stone capable of decoding the complexities of our inner lives. If it had not become an epistemic prison, psychiatrists wouldn’t be languishing in it, trying to find the biological correlates of disorders that don’t really exist, that were invented rather than discovered, whose inventors never meant to make such mischief, and whose sufferers, apparently unreasonably, take medical diagnoses seriously enough to expect them to be real.

First is right about at least one thing. Most clinicians don’t care what the DSM’s rules are. I know I don’t. I rarely take it down off my shelf. I use only a handful of the codes and by now I know them by heart.

At the top of my favorites list is 309.28, which stands for Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. Here’s how the DSM?IV defines it:

A. The development of emotional or behavioral symptoms in response to an identifiable stressor(s) occurring within 3 months of the onset of the stressor(s)

B. These symptoms or behaviors are clinically significant as evidenced by either of the following:

  1. marked distress that is in excess of what would be expected from exposure to the stressor
  2. significant impairment in social or occupational (academic) functioning

C. The stress-related disturbance does not meet the criteria for another disorder

D. The symptoms do not represent Bereavement

E. Once the stressor (or its consequences) has terminated, the symptoms do not persist for more than an additional 6 months

I’m sure you can see why 309.28 is popular with clinicians, and why insurance company claims examiners probably see it all the time. It sounds innocuous, which makes it go down easy with patients (if, as I do, you tell your patients which mental illness you are now adding to their medical dossier) and with employers or insurers or others who might have occasion to scrutinize a patient’s medical history and be put off by a more serious-sounding diagnosis. It offers all kinds of diagnostic flexibility. Take Criterion B1, for instance. It is easy to meet; it is easy enough to use the fact that the patient made an appointment as evidence of “marked distress.” And that lovely parenthetical in Criterion E makes it possible to re?up the patient even after the six months have elapsed.

But Adjustment Disorder also has a special place in my heart because it was my own first diagnosis, or at least the first one I knew about. I got it sometime in the early 1980s, when I was in my early twenties and the DSM was in its third edition. I don’t remember why I wanted to be in therapy or very much of what I talked about with my therapist. I do remember that my father was paying for it. He was probably hoping I would discover that my self-chosen circumstances—living alone in a cabin in the woods without the modern conveniences—were a symptom of something that could be cured. What I was being treated for, however, was not “Back to the Land Disorder” or “Why Don’t You Grow Up Already Disorder,” but rather, as I discovered one day when I glanced down at my statement on the receptionist’s desk, Adjustment Disorder.

I guess the tag seemed about right. I definitely wasn’t adjusting; and if it occurred to me that by calling my lifestyle an illness (if indeed that’s what he meant to do, as opposed to just rendering the most innocuous-sounding diagnosis possible), my therapist had passed judgment on exactly where the problem resided, I didn’t think much of it at the time. But I do remember that I noticed, for the first time, that I’d been going to these weekly appointments in a doctor’s office. It happened to be in a building adjacent to the office of my childhood pediatrician, but it did not smell like alcohol or have a white­shoed woman bustling about, nor did its business seem a bit related to the shots and probes I’d suffered next door, so the discord stood out. But still the fact of that diagnosis, right there in black-and-white, was undeniable. I was a mental patient.

I was eventually cured of my maladjustment—not by therapy, but by a family coup that resulted in my grandfather’s being relieved of the farm he’d inherited from his mother. That happened to be the land on which I’d built my home, and so I was evicted, my cabin eventually bulldozed and the land converted to McMansions, and it became necessary for me to earn a living. Of the many adjustments I have had to make, diagnosing people in order to secure an income was one of the strangest—not only because the DSM’s labels seemed so insufficient, its criteria so deracinated, the whole procedure so banal in comparison with the rich and disturbing and ultimately inexhaustible conversation that was occurring in my office, but also, and much more important, because of the bad faith involved. I didn’t mind colluding with my patients against the insurance companies; sometimes I actually enjoyed the thought. I brought them in on the scam, explaining exactly what diagnosis I was giving them, sometimes even taking out the book and reading the criteria and occasionally offering them a choice. But the fact that we were sharing the lie didn’t make our business any less dishonest.

I know therapists who diagnose everyone with Adjustment Disorder unless the insurance company limits benefits for its treatment on the grounds that it isn’t enough of an illness to warrant much treatment—at which point the patient often contracts a sudden case of something much worse, like Major Depressive Disorder. Myself, I prefer to mix things up a little. But mostly I prefer not to do business with insurance companies, so I often don’t have to bother with such dilemmas. Of course, that means I get paid less money, since not everyone can afford my rates without a little help from their friends at Aetna, so I end up giving people a break in return for steering clear of the whole unsavory business. Over the thirty years I’ve been in practice, I’ve probably left a couple million dollars on the table by avoiding the DSM. It’s an expensive habit, but I think of it as buying my way out of bad faith.

And it’s not just my rank­and-file colleagues and I who think of the DSM as if it were a colonoscopy: a necessary evil, something to be endured and quickly forgotten, and surely not to be taken seriously unless you have to. I once asked psychiatrist and former president of the APA Paul Fink to tell me how the DSM was helpful in his daily practice.

“I have a patient that I’ve been seeing for two months,” he told me. “And my secretary said, ‘What’s the diagnosis?’ I thought a lot about it because I hadn’t really formulated it, and then I began to think: What are her symptoms? What does she do? How does she behave? I diagnosed her with obsessive­ compulsive disorder.”

“Did this change the way you treated her?” I asked.

“No.”

“So what was its value, would you say?”

“I got paid.”

It is at least ironic that a profession once dedicated to the pursuit of psychological truth is now dependent on this kind of dishonesty for its survival. But I suppose that any system guided by the invisible­hand—financial markets no more than healthcare financing—is bound to be gamed. And the DSM, whatever its flaws, has proved to be a superb playbook.

Gary Greenberg on the DSM and Its Woes

The Book of Constructs

Deb Kory: Gary Greenberg, you are a psychotherapist and a writer, author of Manufacturing Depression: The Secret History of a Modern Disease and, most recently, The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry, from which we’re featuring an excerpt to go along with this interview. You’ve written for Mother Jones, Harper's, Rolling Stone, The New Yorker, The Nation, and McSweeney's to name a few. In these books you've taken on the mental health industry, psychiatry, pharmaceutical companies, and the culture they have created. Let's start with your most recent book, The Book of Woe. Why did you decide take on the DSM?
Gary Greenberg: Well, I actually didn't decide. I was happily ignoring the whole thing and knew what any person scanning The New York Times would have known until I got a phone call from Wired magazine asking me if there was something about the DSM that might be worth their while. At the time I was sort of aware that there was this rebellion at the top within the American Psychiatric Association—that the guys who had done the DSM-III and the DSM-IV were really unhappy about the DSM 5—and so I started looking into it and realized that their complaints were really about the nature of psychiatric diagnosis. That interested me and I told the magazine I would write the article. I've been thinking and living in this whole set of questions for many years, and it didn't seem all that remarkable to me, but the reaction I got from people who I thought would have also seen it as old hat was pretty strong, so the decision that I made wasn't to go out after the story, but having gone after the story I decided to feed the curiosity of the people who responded to it. In particular because everybody grouches about the DSM.
DK: It’s kind of a monstrosity. Unwieldy on so many levels.
GG: Nobody likes the DSM, including, for the most part, the psychiatrists who author it—but also therapists, clinicians, researchers and academics too.
Nobody likes the DSM, including the psychiatrists who author it.
And when you look into what people object to, a lot of their objections are—I don't want to sound haughty—but they're uninformed. There's an understandable, and for the most part accurate, instinctual objection to the whole idea of it. So I thought it would be interesting to do with the DSM something like what I did with Manufacturing Depression, which was to explore it as an instance of a problematic mental health culture.
DK: It seems like sort of the same book written from a different angle, where you're deconstructing the way that we think about mental health and disease, and taking on two of its principle constructs: depression and diagnosis. One of the things I've heard you say is that the DSM is a book of constructs, not of real entities. Can you explain what you mean by that?
GG: Whether it’s correct or not, in medicine real entities are those that have a biological basis, where you can find the causes and the boundaries of a disease through biochemical means, whether that's by culturing tissue, or looking under a microscope, or doing a blood test, or whatever it is you do. The problem with mental illness, or with psychological suffering in general, is that it's very difficult to come up with those biochemical assays. In fact, I shouldn't say, “very difficult,” but rather, “at this point, impossible.”
DK: Because?
GG: Mostly because the brain is so seemingly infinitely complex and the tools that we have for understanding it are comparatively crude. And if you pay attention to neuroscience, the field changes dramatically all the time. It's a moving target.

So you don't really have the basis for understanding mental illness in terms of real entities in that respect. On the other hand, for many different reasons, there is a strong need to have those entities. From the political and ideological having to do with the authority of medicine, right to the most practical having to do with how society decides to ration its health care resources, and everything in between. The way that psychiatry has bridged that gap is by using the rhetoric of science to create a DSM without ever being able to say that those scientific sounding categories are truly scientific. In other words, you can create the construct and then build all sorts of science around it.
DK: From inside it makes perfect sense.
GG: Right. But so does schizophrenia. And this is a problem with all ideologies. If you accept their basic premise, then everything else makes sense. In scientific methodology this is known as the validity problem. None of the categories in the DSM are valid, and that becomes a problem particularly because once you use that rhetoric it is inevitable, inescapable, that the categories will become reified, meaning that people will take them as real, and they'll use them as real, and they will become the basis for all sorts of political, economic, and individual decisions based on their reality.

One of the things that you find when you talk to the people who make the DSM is they're all really smart—well most of them are really smart people—and they're quite capable of understanding and appreciating the problem that we're talking about. But they have trouble taking account of the fact that the reification is a problem for everyone, not just for the professionals.
DK: Say more about that.
GG: In other words, they're happy to say to you, “Yeah, I understand that. We all know these are just constructs,” as if their knowing it is enough. But what that really means is that they don't want everybody else to know.
DK: Because it confers power on them?
GG: Right. It's the problem of the noble lie. Actually, I think that the best example isn't really the noble lie as Plato saw it, because that's a more complex topic. It’s more like what the Grand Inquisitor presents to Ivan Karamazov [from Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamozov], which is that, “We in the Grand Inquisitors coterie, we know this stuff and nobody else needs to know, and in fact we're using our knowledge to help people.” That's exactly the pitch that the Grand Inquisitor uses to justify what he's doing to Ivan Karamazov.
DK: That power dynamic does a lot of harm.
GG: Of course. Power unquestioned is always a problem, and the problem is always damaging to the people that don't have it.
DK: If I were to draw your work together thematically, it seems to be challenging power in its various manifestations. You’re also a journalist and have obviously written widely on a variety of topics, but because you're a psychotherapist, you’ve taken on its institutions of power.
GG:
Power unquestioned is always a problem, and the problem is always damaging to the people who don't have it.
I think that's an interesting point. I think that's true. I don't think any of that is particularly conscious. I imagine that’s why I chose these professions—they both try to unearth power relations in one way or another, and claim, anyway, that that's the truth that they're uncovering.
DK: But they reify that power at the same time that they are claiming to unearth it.
GG: In what way?
DK: I'm thinking more of psychologists and psychotherapists than journalists, though the claim could be made for them too. There is a power dynamic in the therapy relationship that I think we are often unwilling to recognize. They come to us, they pay us, they have all kinds of transference reactions to us that we help them “work through” while we choose to reveal those aspects of our internal experience we think might be helpful to them. Having gone through the medical system I think psychiatrists are much more clear about their power in relationship to “patients,” whereas many psychotherapists are not. You take on psychiatry a fair amount but haven’t necessarily gone after psychotherapists.
GG: Well, the only direct approach I make to that question is my critique of cognitive-behavioral therapy.
DK: Talk about that.
GG: Do I have to?

The Problem of Piety

DK: Well, you don’t have to but I think it might be interesting to our audience.
GG: Cognitive-behavioral therapy is an ideology of optimism that is used by therapists to induct people into a more genial understanding of their lives and their circumstances. It's in some ways the diabolical twin brother of Freudian psychoanalysis, in that it trades on optimism rather than pessimism. CBT believes in the perfectibility of the human as opposed to the depravity of the human. It posits, without saying so, a benevolent universe, which is the opposite of what Freud thought.
DK: Is it their certainty that you have a problem with? You seem to wrestle with the notion of certainty a fair amount in your writing.
GG: Well, piety is a problem. Ask the people at Charlie Hebdo. If power is the general preoccupation of my books, piousness is the specific preoccupation. Unquestioned belief. For all of his problems at the granular level, at the macro level Freud was the master of ambivalence and uncertainty, and I think that there is a connection to be drawn between understanding life as infinitely uncertain—at least mental life—and the tragic sensibility.
I think that cognitive-behavioral therapy tries to overlook, or ignore, or erase the tragic dimension of human life.
I think that cognitive-behavioral therapy tries to overlook, or ignore, or erase the tragic dimension of human life. So, to get back to your original question, why do I go easy on psychotherapy? Well, this is one way that I don’t go easy on it and, as you and I both know, CBT is the dominant theme of psychotherapy in this country right now.
DK: Along with “evidence-based” therapies.
GG: It links in with the evidence based therapy thing, which bleeds over into my second criticism of psychotherapy, which is that we're way too tied in to medicine. Regardless of what we individually, or even as institutions, believe about psychiatric drugs, that's not the issue. The issue is how do we get paid and how do we get our status and authority in society? When I pick up the phone and I call somebody and then say, “Hey, this is Dr. Greenberg,” I get a different response than I would if I called up and said, “Hey, this is Gary Greenberg.” I'm not averse to using that power, but I'm implicated in a whole web that I shouldn't be. That critique shows up in both of my books, where I repeatedly question the whole business of psychotherapy.
DK: These days almost everyone talks about therapy as a business.
GG: Well, you've got to make a living.
DK: True enough. But it’s disheartening to me, nonetheless.
GG: We're all doing it. You make your accommodation with it however you can. The problem, when it comes to the DSM and to the medical-model aspect of our practice is that it is so at odds with what we purport to do. If you start your therapy by giving a person a diagnosis that you don't believe in, there's no way that you can't see that as a contradiction of the terms of psychotherapy, because it's dishonest.

The Rhetoric of Disease

DK: That’s interesting. I recently had someone come in claiming to be bipolar, and I pulled out my DSM for the first time in quite awhile because, in my mind, bipolar is not something to dawdle around. It has a high suicide rate, and is one of those diagnoses we are taught is genetic and kind of untreatable without medication. How do you deal with something like schizophrenia or bipolar or autism where there's clearly a mental disorder of some sort happening, there’s a pretty compelling case for genetic transmission, etc. Is there some utility in using the DSM for something like bipolar disorder?
GG: Well, I don't know about the DSM, but I do know about the larger rhetoric of mental illness. The DSM is just the most obvious example. I believe that as symptoms get more severe, and as impairments get more severe, the justification for using the rhetoric becomes greater, because it is a rhetoric that is quite effective. For instance, the rhetoric would say, “Schizophrenia is a biological brain-based illness that is just the luck of the draw. Maybe you had some stressors, but you definitely had this serious predisposition and your brain's all fucked up and now you're going to have to manage this all your life. And the best way to manage it is with Geodon.” Or you can go farther with that. You can say to somebody, “You have to take responsibility for you who you are, just like I do. And who you are happens to be somebody with this vulnerability, and that means keeping yourself in situations that aren't likely to kindle your psychosis. It means recognizing the prodromal nature of it. It means taking medications when it seems to be necessary to keep you and the people around you safe.”

That whole rhetoric is very helpful. I believe at some point it makes sense. And I even would go farther and say that there are some psychiatric illnesses, mood disorders, certainly the autism spectrum, that really are the luck of the draw, in the same sense that type 1 juvenile diabetes is. So the best we're going to do is help you cope. And I think that the rhetoric is useful there.

The problem is that that's the model for everybody, and we have no way of determining who it is that we should consider that way and who we shouldn't. It's like not knowing the difference between who's got type 1 diabetes and who should just eat less sugar, and just treating them all the same way. That's a problem. And it's not a problem that's been intentionally created by psychiatrists. I'm not a Scientologist. I don't believe that that's what's happened here. But I do think that because of its blindness to its power—and I do hold psychiatry more responsible than the rest of us because you and I are just living off of their crumbs when it comes to this stuff—psychiatrists have failed to make those distinctions, have failed to start with the assumption that only a small minority of people who are suffering with mental illness, even severe mental illness, have that classic disease structure. Now it’s reasonable to say, “Let’s err on the side of caution.” We’re talking about serious stuff here, and it's a useful model.
DK: So you sometimes use it with your clients?
GG: I just had a patient go into the hospital because she was sure that laser beams were doing something to her bones. She was a howling, psychotic mess. She's in the hospital and I'm really hoping that one of the psychiatric drugs that they throw at her will work, because her brain's on fire. It’s a useful way to look at it in this instance.
DK: So you pull it out of your toolbox when you need it.
GG: Yes, but do we know when we should and when we shouldn't? Absolutely not. But to get back to your patient who came in with the bipolar diagnosis, you took out the DSM and then what? You never finished the story. Did you then get them to tell their history of manic episodes?
DK: I did. We went through all of the assessment and then I said, “Okay, according to this book”—I mean I literally said this—“you qualify, but I need to qualify that this book is also a load of B.S.”
GG: Yes! Now was this bipolar 1 or bipolar 2?
DK: It's still not clear.
GG: So my guess is, if somebody shows up in your office and they're basically okay, and they tell you they just got diagnosed with bipolar and you're thinking, “What?!” chances are that person is going to qualify for the bipolar 2 diagnosis.
DK: Right, with the less intense mania.
GG: It only requires hypo-manic episodes. And so what you have there is the diagnostic creep that I just outlined.
All of a sudden there's all these people that—sure, they’re not happy, but they are not psychotic—telling me that they're bipolar and they're on Depakote and they're on Abilify. And I'm thinking, “What in the world is going on out there?”
That diagnosis just arrived in 1994. I don't know how long you've been in practice, but I've been in practice for a long time and I remember when these people started showing up in my office with their diagnoses and their anti-psychotics and their stabilizing drugs. All of a sudden there's all these people that—sure, they’re not happy, but they are not psychotic—telling me that they're bipolar and they're on Depakote and they're on Abilify. And I'm thinking, “What in the world is going on out there?” I think there's cases where that's a totally useful and justified approach, and I think there's cases where it isn't, and that's where all the trouble lies.

The Serotonin Myth

DK: In your book, Manufacturing Depression, you say that serotonin came along and seemed to make people happier and so the drug companies had to find an illness that would make people need it, right?
GG: It's not quite that conspiratorial. In the case of depression and antidepressants and neurotransmitters, it’s like strands of a braid that came together advantageously for some patients, and many doctors, and most of all for the pharmaceutical industry, which was brilliant, clever, and lucky.

I guess that's a little cynical. I have to be fair, the cynicism in the pharmaceutical industry didn't really start until the mid-1990s, by which time scientists knew that this whole serotonin deficiency theory of depression was bullshit. They knew that it was wrong, and then they did tone down the rhetoric to some extent in their advertising. The consumer advertising started right around the same time that scientifically the serotonin myth fell apart, the late 90s, but you wouldn't know that to look at the ads. That, to me, was their most egregious move.
DK: They didn't correct for it, they just took advantage of it.
GG: Exactly. They knew that if you could sell it as that kind of disease, it was so overdetermined that it would succeed and they could not resist it. You would have to be some kind of Boddhisattva of advertising to resist that temptation.
DK: A lot of people, myself included, only recently came across this information that it's really not about serotonin deficiency. We literally have no idea why they work, and for whom they work.
GG: Right. Now you say you just came across that. You're an intelligent, well-educated person with a PhD, right?
DK: Yes, but I’ve also benefited from antidepressants, so I had a little bit of denial in the game around it. I’m one of those people with a seeming genetic predisposition for depression for whom SSRI’s just helped, with no bad side effects. I thought I understood why they were helping, but it turns out no one knows yet what they do.
GG: There's two ways to look at that question of why. One of them is, do we know neurochemically what's going on and what, if any, deleterious consequences there are? And the answer to that question is no.
DK: Well, we know a little bit.
GG: We know that you're increasing the activity at certain receptor sites, including some of the serotonin receptor sites, although these drugs aren't as precise as they are sold as. And we know that serotonin appears to be associated with increase in neurogenesis. And we know that at really high doses you can see the axonal growth that appears to be the direct result of increased serotonin activity. So there's all these things that we know, but why that changes a person's mood…
DK: There's no causal correlation.
GG: Right. In order to know that you would have to have an account of how the brain produces consciousness, and good luck with that, because that's just not going to happen. So what you're left with is to say, “Okay, well this drug makes me feel better.”
The cynicism in the pharmaceutical industry didn't really start until the mid-1990s, by which time scientists knew that this whole serotonin deficiency theory of depression was bullshit.
And I don't mean that necessarily in the same way that smoking a joint or whatever makes you feel better. It just makes you feel better, and it works, and it doesn't hurt my life in any other way, and I'm going to take it. To me, anyway, the only problem I have with that approach is the same as with any drug. It's like, “Okay, well, am I hurting myself in any way?” It's the same question I have about vaporizing nicotine. Obviously, the reason that that's become controversial isn't because we know that it's bad for you.
DK: It's because we don't know that it isn't bad.
GG: No, I think it's because we are an anti-drug society, and it just makes it really clear what's going on in smoking cigarettes. People don't smoke cigarettes to get cancer. They smoke cigarettes to get high, and the vaporizer just eliminates the middleman and delivers to people the drug that they want. And in our society, unless you're on antidepressants, or happen to be addicted to caffeine or alcohol, you can't just openly say, “I'm going to do this in order to change my consciousness.”

So I think that the controversy arises because of that, and then it is also true that we don't really know the long-term effects of using nicotine—although we know enough to know that it is not carcinogenic.
DK: And we don't know the long-term effects of taking an antidepressant.
GG: Right.
DK: So how do you deal with people who come in and seem to suffer from depression—have a family history of it and display severe depressive symptoms—who then respond really well to antidepressants?
GG: The way you do with anything that you're wondering about. You just take it as it is. You support it. “Okay. So, tell me about it.” Of course, people aren't stupid, and they tend to expect, particularly from me because of my relatively high profile, that I will disapprove. So I have to spend a little time reminding them that I really don't disapprove. If they actually read what I wrote, as opposed to listening to what people say about it, they would know that. You have to start by letting them know that, for the most part anyway, it's cool with me if this is what you decide to do. But one of the hallmarks of being mature and self-possessed is recognizing that you can't have it both ways. If you want to be on drugs, you've got be on drugs, and live with whatever that means to you and with whatever the implications are. And among the things that it means to be on antidepressants, particularly long-term, is struggling with the question of what's you and what's the drug. People have these severe doubts about their functioning and about their success. There's a whole version of the imposter syndrome that goes along with being on long term antidepressants.

Does Depression Exist?

DK: Do you think depression exists? Is it real?
GG: What does that mean?
DK: Is it an actual illness? You say that it is manufactured.
GG: No, I’m saying that I’m sure there are situations, brains, people who certainly qualify. Let's say that the ability to feel depression as it's described in the DSM is heterogeneous—in other words, there are many ways to get there, both existentially and biochemically. I'm sure that's true. And let's say that some subgroup of people who qualify for the diagnosis—which is insanely broad—
DK: It covers a large swath of American culture.
GG: —nine symptoms, five of which qualify you; there's 125 different combinations to be depressed, just for starters. But let’s say some subgroup of the people that qualify are suffering from some identifiable biological fuck up, some hiccup somewhere. Or maybe more than one. And it wouldn't matter what their circumstances were, once the depression was kindled, they're screwed. Again, I don't know who they are. Nobody knows who those people are. In the meantime, the presumption is that everybody is. And that's the problem.
DK: There's not a model for the remaining majority.
GG: Yes. And I also think that the question of, “Is it an illness? Is it real?” is, in some respects, a red herring. Because why are you asking the question? What is the importance of that question?
DK: Hmmm. That’s a good question.
GG: Why does it matter to know that it is or it isn't?
DK: I guess I’m interested in how much of our internal lives are constructed by social structures and beliefs. I listened to an amazing podcast called "Invisibilia" recently, an episode entitled “How to Become Batman” where a blind guy, blind since birth, learned to “see” by using echolocation, a clicking sound with his mouth, and because his mom let him run wild and didn’t treat him like he was blind. Let him ride bikes, climb trees, fall and get hurt, all of that. Apparently his visual cortex has actually created something like sight for him. It made me think about how we are both blinded and liberated by our beliefs. So if we had an entirely different model and way of seeing depression, it could transform the world.
GG: So the reason that you're asking the question is because you see certain shortcomings, at least potential shortcomings, to understanding it as an illness.
DK: Oh, for sure, at the very least.
GG: The advantage of seeing it as an illness is that certain social resources become available to you if you see it that way. Drugs, medical care, sympathy, understanding, none of which is to be sneezed at.
It's notable that one of the major ways of getting social resources in our society is to be sick.
It's notable that one of the major ways of getting social resources in our society is to be sick.

But there are also disadvantages, as you just pointed out. If you see yourself as sick then you act sick, and if you're sick you're less empowered, maybe you're less active, maybe you take less responsibility for yourself. You cited an extraordinary example, but you're certainly not going to do that if what you decided to do is to live the life of a blind person. So, yes, there's something liberatory about it which is much more likely to be achieved if we understand illness as a contingence category as opposed to an absolute category. As something human-made as opposed to something scientific and medical.
DK: I’ve written extensively about psychologists’ complicity in torture at Guantanamo and other CIA black sites, and in researching what led to it, I found that the profession of psychology emerged out of war, has been funded in large part by the military in terms of training programs and research grants, and is thus inexorably linked to the American war machine. I haven’t had a chance to delve into the role that scientism plays in all of this—and I understand scientism to be viewing science as a religion, basically—but one of my speculations was that this desire for the profession to be perceived as a hard science, to be seen essentially as a “man among men,” was a big part of the problem. You wrote some about this in your article in Harper's, where you take on positive psychology guru Martin Seligman, whose own research is deeply embedded with the military and who coached the very psychologists who created the program at Guantanamo in his theory of learned helplessness. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts about the role of scientism in the militarization of psychology or if you see any connections between what you're critiquing in your work and what's happened with the psychology profession becoming kind of an arm of the military.
GG: Well, I think to start with, there's lots of psychologists like yourself who are appalled at that outcome, so it's pretty clear that it's not a necessary outcome. There are even psychologists who don't buy Marty Seligman's self-serving excuses for his own implication in these things. That conference that I wrote about in Harper’s took place in 2009 and the issue was still alive at the time, and Seligman had some very greasy responses to those questions.
DK: Yes, he claimed to have had no clue what they were intending, which wasn't very credible given where and when he delivered his lectures and the meetings he was involved with.
GG: But there are people who don't buy it and who are critical when these discoveries are made. But, having said that, I think your point is well taken. There is a kind of wish among all the medical health disciplines to be on the inside rather than on the outside. And whether you're on the inside by virtue of having a professional license or by virtue of having the authority to declare people mentally ill, or to get services for kids through special education, or to help the military figure out how to make soldiers resilient, I think this desire to be considered an insider can be problematic. And that in itself is complicated because sometimes it's simply wanting to make a living, or to make a decent living. Obviously, if we didn't have our professional licenses then we probably wouldn't make as much money as we do. If we didn't have our ability to bill insurance companies or, in my case, help people get reimbursed, then we would make less money. So some of it is just about that, but a lot of it is about wanting to be in the mainstream, because, like I said earlier, you can't have it both ways. If you're not in the mainstream, there are some severe prices to be paid.

A Foot in Each World

DK: Do you feel like an outsider in this profession?
GG: I have one foot in each world. Yes, I feel like an outsider in the sense that there's lots of things that I don't do that I would do if I wanted to be on the inside, like joining insurance panels and stuff like that. I probably feel better about that than I ought to though because it's not that important. It does restrict my access in some ways, but mostly what it does is restrict my income.
DK: Right, it can be a tough choice to side-step the whole insurance industry.
GG: Yes. But I'm clearly an insider in the sense that I described before. I pick up the phone and say, “This is Dr. Greenberg,” then I get somewhere on the phone tree.
DK: Do you do that with a smirk?
GG: No. I do it totally straightforwardly, because I'm just trying to be effective and that is the way you're effective. These questions can come down to a kind of moral anorexia—a sort of refusal to take in the goodies that are out there because we all know they're tainted. I think that in some ways you've got to be fair to yourself and to others and say that the life lived entirely outside is very, very difficult and in some ways less effective. There are people who I have helped not by virtue of my education, or my training, or my insider-ness, or my license. It is something inherent to those that have allowed me to help them, but my availability to them, even if it's not about money, just the fact that I'm out there and legally practice my trade, just the fact that I'm available to them is what made it possible for me to help them.

The Writer as Therapist or the Therapist as Writer?

DK: I also was a journalist before becoming a psychotherapist, and I tend to come at things with a critical point of view, and I often have the experience of being critical of the “profession,” of training programs, of the way that we organize—and don’t organize—around issues of justice, etc. But at the same time, I simply love the work, itself, with clients and some of my very best friends are therapists. I feel like I’ve got a real love-hate relationship with the profession that I haven’t fully worked out yet.

One of the reasons I’m so interested in your work is that you seem to be able to traverse both worlds—to be a writer, and to write honestly and critically and self-revealingly about the profession while still very much being in it. Do you see the writer in you and the psychotherapist in you as fundamentally complementary? Do they ever come at odds? Do you ever not write about things because you're worried about your clients?
GG: In both of the books that we've been talking about, I write a little bit about my actual practice, but I hate doing it. I would not be disappointed if I never did it again. I don't know if that's a principled stand—I just don't like doing it. I think it's really hard. I don't know if you ever saw the TV series “In Treatment.”
DK: Yes, I loved it. It rankled me, but I loved it.
GG: That was the most realistic handling of psychotherapy ever, that I've seen, in the mass media—and it was boring. Nothing happens.
The person that I am as a therapist is not someone that I want to write about.
I mean, it's okay with me, I was interested in it, but I don't think it did well because it's just day-to-day what goes on in therapy. It's really hard to write about. There are some people who can pull it off nicely, like Irvin Yalom, but for me anyway, the person that I am as a therapist is not someone that I want to write about.
DK: What do you mean?
GG: If someone comes into my office for therapy, I feel like it's a total breach to write about them, even if I ask for permission. Even if I disguise them. That's how I feel about it, having done it now a few times. The Book of Woe went through a very, very extensive legal review and the case material was altered to the point that it was no longer factual. It was really fiction, and if I'm going to write fiction I should write fiction. I really believe that. I don't know that a reporter has any obligation, or even ability, to be objective, but to intentionally make shit up? If you’re going to make it up, make it up. If you're not going to make it up, don't. And if you can't write about it without making it up, don't write about it.
DK: Do you feel like you have to sort of forget about your therapist self when you're writing? Are you split off in some way?
GG: I guess so. I never really thought about that. No, I would say it’s the other way around. I have to forget about my writer self when I'm doing therapy. I can't really think about myself as a writer when I'm working with people. Once in a while something so fascinating occurs, so remarkable that you picture yourself writing about it, but in general therapy is something that I go and I do, and it's a performance—and I don't mean that in a cynical way—it's a thing that I do. But the writing draws on all of me in a way that the therapy doesn't.
DK: So do you feel you are more of a writer than a therapist?
GG: I guess so. I never really thought about it before. There's something that I do as a therapist—there's a way that you use yourself, and all of you has to be available to yourself. But you also as a therapist have to bracket certain things.
You have to look at the fact that you want to write about somebody, and that has to be just as subject to scrutiny as your desire to have sex with your patient.
You have to look at the fact that you want to write about somebody, and that has to be just as subject to scrutiny as your desire to have sex with your patient. It's like, “Okay, yeah, that's something that I feel, and I've got to figure it out, and I've got to deal with it here.” But I can't take it for granted any more than I can take it for granted if I had a sexual impulse, or some strong negative reaction to somebody. Whereas with writing, that's a whole different kind of discipline, where you have to take whatever it is and transform it into words.
DK: You aren't thinking, “What if Sheila reads this?” when you write?
GG: No. I probably should, but I think if I did I wouldn't be able to maintain both disciplines, because people actually do read my writing.
DK: And they come in to talk about it sometimes?
GG: Oh yeah. Sometimes they do. I've got a relatively wide readership, but I'm certainly not a famous writer, and therefore most of the people that I work with may not even know that I have a writing career.
DK: So you don't bring it in.
GG: No. I don't bring it in at all. My books aren't in my office. I don't mention it.
DK: Do you feel like it would be an intrusion?
GG: Yeah, of course. I don't talk about the argument I just had with my son either. Actually, there are situations in which I might talk about writing, but it very much depends. I see people who are artists or writers, and with those people I do sometimes bring it in.
DK: That’s interesting. I'm struggling with my identities in a way that it sounds like you haven't and don’t. You just write, and you're not tormented about it.
GG: Well, I was doing therapy for many years before I got into writing.
DK: Well this has been a fascinating interview. Thank you so much for your time.
GG: Thank you.

In Search of the Perfect Private Practitioner

It all began in my undergraduate abnormal psychology class after I made the curious observation that our faithful professor was absent for each and every one of our exams. The professor's pattern of behavior struck me as odd. I leaned over and asked a fellow student who worked as a teacher's aide what he knew about this since I figured he might just have the inside scoop.

My cohort whispered, "You really don't know. The guy is in private practice and he charges $50 an hour, man."

Seriously?

I nearly choked on my Adam's Apple. I didn't know a single soul who commanded $50 for an hour back then. I decided at that very moment that since I wanted to devote my life to helping others, I might as well do it with a bank account that rivaled the worth of US Bullion Depository at Fort Knox. I was going to be a private practice therapist. Yes indeed, a private practitioner, the most noble profession on the planet.
Soon after snaring my master's degree I set up shop in a plush psychotherapeutic district of the city. I wanted to be on the strip where all the other greatest local minds in the field of psychotherapy practiced their craft.

I was able to afford the raised gold leaf lettered ink business cards (okay barely), but renting an office in this venue was a whole different story. The rent was extremely expensive and was way out of my league. But I knew I was living right when I spied an ad for a choice office location for under $100 a month. It had to be a mistake. Nope, I contacted the real estate office and it was for real. Some guys just have all the luck.

But it didn't take long to see why I landed this lead airplane of an office for less than a C-note every 30 days. The office was heated by radiators and the temperature was controlled by the real estate company. When the radiators kicked in they generated a banging noise that sounded like a steel drum band. Try to do a little creative visualization here. I am attempting to perform hypnosis, systematic desensitization, or relaxation therapy, and it sounded like Gene Krupa, or perhaps the lead drummer from Led Zeppelin, had set up shop in the suite next door. Worse yet, the office temperature soared to Death Valley levels, to the point that it was wilting my books and artwork. I coped by showing up for some of my clients' sessions wearing a light short sleeve golf shirt on days when the thermometer was hovering near zero and the streets were covered in ice and snow.

To fight off the intense heat I installed two window AC units that raised the already high decibel level to a fever pitch. In case you are missing the point, this was not turning out to be the private practice made it heaven.

But an even bigger problem emerged. The slick business cards and the cool custom white lettering I personally purchased and mounted on the office suite door did nothing to bring in clients. What in the world was I thinking when I opened the practice? Was I pondering that somebody would be strolling down the street and just happen to mosey into the building for no special reason, and make the sojourn to the second floor? Then, while on the second floor, spy my compelling sign replete with my degree and think, "Awesome. I'll march right in and see this Rosenthal guy. Now would be a great time to do something about that anxiety problem of mine."

Actually, that's exactly what I was thinking would occur.

Then came the dawn. I needed a role model, a hero, someone to pump me up and make me optimistic. While spending time in my, ahem, comfortable cubby-hole excuse for a private practice, I read numerous books on psychotherapy since the office wasn't exactly brimming with clients.

Enter my savior, Dr. Karen Asch. Luckily, the neighborhood had a free community newspaper replete with a column called "Ask the Counselor," penned by a therapist named Dr. Karen Asch. Her distinguished confident mug shot graced every issue.

Each week she would take clients' questions and answer them. Her answers were solid and beyond insightful. I loved it. I finally knew there was psychotherapeutic light at the end of the tunnel.

In my mind Dr. Asch had it all. Here was a practitioner who was so well liked that clients were writing the newspaper weekly just to correspond with her. I imagined she had the perfect private practice. I didn't know how big it really was, but I knew it was big!

I made up my mind right then and there that one day I would be like Karen Asch. Indeed, I too would live the good life. I would write my own "Ask the Counselor" newspaper column and head up a mega private practice, packed with clients, just like hers.

I had never met Dr. Asch, but it is safe to say that I admired her from afar.

Fast forward approximately five years into the future. Although I was still running a part-time private practice (several miles down the road from my old office where the radiators and the twin window boxes kept things jumping), I had acquired a day job working for a nonprofit agency, where I gave numerous mental health lectures to the corporate world, schools, community groups, and organizations.

One evening I presented to a burgeoning mental health center. The lecture went well. But it was what occurred immediately after the talk that was significant.

As I was packing up my handouts to leave I froze. There she was. In the flesh. My hero, Dr. Karen Asch was standing in front of the coffee pot adding a dash of cream to her brew. She looked just as confident and successful as her picture in the throw-away paper made her out to be. She had not attended my lecture, but then again, who could blame her? Would you expect Albert Pujols to come to a beginning course on baseball for little leaguers or Martin E.P. Seligman to sit in on an introductory lecture on positive psychology? Well would you?

I nervously approached her. I didn't want to blow it. This was a seminal point in my career. "Dr. Asch."
She turned to face me. "Yes, may I help you?"

Me, behaving like a ten-year-old kid who just ran into Taylor Swift at a yogurt bar, "Are you the Dr. Karen Asch?"

"What do you mean the Dr. Karen Asch? Why do you say it like that?"

In sixty seconds or less, I encapsulated the saga of my anemic private practice and how she had been my much needed role model and hero. I described to her precisely how in my mind she had become the poster child for running a successful private practice.

What came next was totally unexpected.

Dr. Asch, the open, honest, and candid person that she was, revealed she could honestly never remember a single question submitted for her "Ask the Counselor Column." She created (translation: made up) the questions herself. She added that she just couldn't make it in private practice, because it was too darn difficult to get clients. Her dream private practice, I so vividly had created in my mind, didn't exist. She was now working full time at the agency where I had just given my speech as an administrator.

The next day my first call was from Dr. Asch. She candidly admitted that she was not happy at the agency where I had run into her the evening before and wondered if I could give her a few viable job leads. I did.
So in the end, the moral of the story is that the carpet is not always greener in your neighbor's private practice, though to be sure, their heating and cooling system might be a hairline quieter than your own. Or perhaps that we shouldn't judge a fellow private practitioner's business by our insides . . . or something like that.

Psychotherapy and the Care of Souls

To Serve the Soul

In Greek mythology, the wise healer and teacher Cheiron is part horse and part human, a centaur of sorts, but quite different from his wild and hardly civilized half-horse/half-human brothers. He did his work of healing and teaching in a cave. As a therapist, I sometimes think of myself as part animal, sitting in my cave, dealing with primal aspects of human existence, barely able to distinguish healing from teaching.

The modern therapist seems to think of the problems that come to him or her as deviations from the standard of normalcy and health. The point is to restore a person to a point where the presenting symptoms have been removed, as if by psychological surgery. I don’t see it that way. People come to me because deep down they can’t experience the joy of being who they are. They don’t feel in the positive flow of life. They may feel stuck in some repeating pattern that seems to go back far into their history. They may be focused on, or better, mesmerized by some symptom like an obsession or paranoia or anxiety. Generally, it’s the nature of life to flow, like a river, and not to be stuck or stopped.

Whenever I want to get on track with my work as a psychotherapist, I think back on the word. It is made of up two key Greek terms: psyche (soul) and therapeia (serve). “Psycho-therapy” means “to serve the soul.” Psyche is not mind or behavior, and therapeia does not mean healing or making better. I always keep in mind that my job is to serve the soul, or care for it. When I used an ancient phrase, common in Platonic literature, as the title of my most popular book, Care of the Soul, I was simply putting the word “psychotherapy” into English.

I think of the soul as the life in us that is immeasurably deep. Sometimes it feels like a spring or font of existence, making us feel alive and giving us something of a direction and identity. To a large extent it is autonomous, having its own purposes, desires and intentions. When you delve deep into it, you encounter basic human themes and patterns, what Plato and Jung and others call “archetypes.” The need for love, the desire to create, the comfort of home, the excitement of travel—these aren’t the characteristics of any particular person. They are, at least potentially, ways in which all people may experience life.

When these archetypal patterns come to life in a person, they usually have a strong force and allure. You are happy to be in love and can think of nothing else. You fear illness and death, and that emotion, with its clinging thoughts, gets hold of you. You glimpse a certain career, and you go after it with a passion.

Soul is intimate, embedded in life, vital and energetic. It seems to constantly want more life and vitality and therefore can be a threat to the status quo. “As you tend your soul, you may try to sense what it needs and wants, and you may discover that its needs may not dovetail with your own wishes.” In that spirit, the Irish poet W. B. Yeats said that his poetry came out of a tension between his own ideas and those of an antithetical self he felt inside him.

As I see it, this other being in us, the soul, is vaster than our small minds can contain. It’s strong and mysterious, and at times a true adversary. Our job is to get to know the soul and cooperate with it, understanding that our happiness and peace on earth depends on a positive and creative response to it. Psychotherapy may entail simply living in a way cognizant of the soul and its purposes.

Soul offers a deep and powerful sense of identity that counters any tendency to be caught in the limited understandings and values of the family or the culture. It asks that we each become individuals, not so identified with the structures around us. This need is so strong that I imagine it in the familiar imagery of rebirth: we are born into biological life and culture, and then we have to be born again into our own individuality and uniqueness. Along with Socrates, I would describe psychotherapy as a kind of maieutics, or midwifery. We have to assist at the birth of the soul into life, which implies the arrival of a unique person. Socrates said: “My concern is not with the body but with the soul that is in the travail of birth” (Theatetus, 150 b).

The Travail of Birth

The travail of birth is exactly what happens in therapy, to one degree or another. Travail means labor, but I see it more as a process. In formal therapy you reflect openly and seriously on the past, on dreams, on emotional difficulties, on relationships and a number of other issues, the material of a life, and process them. As you look more deeply and imaginatively at them, you see better what wants to be born and what hinders the birth. For many people, early traumas and bad parenting and unfortunate adult influences and threatening injunctions keep their longstanding hold and stand in the way of the soul’s movement into life.

Years ago I read the religion scholar Mircea Eliade’s unsettling description of a primitive rite of passage, and it has stayed with me. Young people would be placed in the earth, naked, perhaps under a pile of leaves, overnight or for several days, within a ritual context of masks, drums, body paint and dance. Then they’d be taken out and washed and clothed, adults now and fully part of the community.

I see therapy along these lines. “To be born into your individuality is no light matter. You need an impressive experience of death and rebirth.” Most of the time a real and transformative round of therapy is a step-by-step process of being reborn. The therapist is the elder in charge of the rite, but he or she is only the guide, not the healer. The point is to arrange an effective rebirth, letting the person then go on to discover his life. The therapist does not decide what life is best for the person, whether to be more dependent or independent, emotionally contained or effusive, whether to be married to a different person or to live somewhere else. The therapist doesn’t know what is best for the person, he or she can only assist at the birth of the soul.

Above all, a therapist needs purity of intention, the capacity to hear stories of suffering without responding unconsciously out of his own prejudices. A therapist has to know himself so well that he will pass on any temptation to engage in his own typical reactions. He will not take credit for any progress, and in fact will not think in terms of progress, but only care. Care is not heroic, it isn’t getting anywhere and it has no need to solve problems. A good therapist doesn’t see life as a problem to solve but as a gift to be observed closely and supported.

A therapist will not be deluded by the delusions of his patient. He will not be taken in by any loose complexes in his patient that try to trip up the therapist. If a patient says, “You haven’t given me your full attention today,” a good therapist won’t defend or explain himself. He might simply say, “You’re right. I’m preoccupied with my own situation today. Let’s start again.” He will not feel the guilt the patient wants him to feel and will not accept any adulation the patient tosses his way. Both are traps. He is neutral, not willing to get pulled away from his center by a patient’s neurotic need. In the face of sober and heavy influence, he may find neutrality in lightness of spirit and good humor. He may laugh easily but never sardonically.

Overcoming Our Complexes

A good therapist has moved past his need to help. While it’s true that doing therapy is being in therapy—the therapist may work through some of his own issues while being with another—the therapist is also neutral about his life work. He is not thrown when a patient doesn’t respond well to the therapist’s ideas and efforts. He doesn’t himself need a patient to get better or to go through the therapeutic process the way the therapist thinks is best. The therapist surrenders any pet enthusiasms, such as hoping that his patient will become more independent, artistic, self-aware, or emotionally expressive.

This neutrality is not indifference but an achievement in the therapist’s own opus, the work of his soul. He is not led on by his complexes in relation to his patients, the deeper meaning of the interesting classical notion of counter-transference. He is not at all perfect, but he is not acting out with his patients. He has an unusual degree of self-possession. He can reflect effectively on his own allegiances, philosophies, theories, techniques and ideals. He has developed his own approach and is not completely identified with a given figure in psychology or with a special theory.

A therapist also has to know how to deal with complexes of the people he assists. Jung described a complex as a sub-personality. I would put it differently: a complex has a face. Acting out a complex is like putting on a costume, though you don’t know that you’ve put it on. These figures of the deep psyche that take over a person, like Dr. Jekyll swamping Mr. Hyde, are unusually intelligent, convincing and full of shadow.

A person with a mother complex may strike you at first as being caring, thoughtful and capable of deep emotion. Only later do you see that this figure, this daemonic possession, dominates the person and may suffocate and overpower others who come into its domain. A mother who is atrociously critical of her daughter may believe that she is only doing what is best. Others may tell the daughter how lucky she is to have such a wonderful mother, and the daughter is thrown into painful confusion. Should she be grateful, or should she run away?

The therapist has to deal cautiously with the complex that enters his consulting room. He must not get caught, but that kind of neutrality is not easily achieved. He may be especially susceptible to certain complexes and not see them for what they are.

Complex is not the best word, perhaps, but it is traditional and important. A complex is more like a powerful presence that can assume the cohesion of a personality, although sometimes it is only an urge or an impulse. It can completely overwhelm a person or it can be merely an influence. In any case, a therapist needs courage and circumspection to deal with one, whether in his patient or in himself.

Religious traditions teach as much about these presences as psychology does, and it might help a therapist to do some study in religions and even see his role as being both psychological and spiritual. Religion specializes in rituals that help us meet the complexes in highly symbolic ways. In traditional Catholic confession, for example, you acknowledge dark spirits that invade your life, and the confession of these presences goes a long way toward dealing with them.

Personally, I have cultivated powers of intuition, skill at working with images, and knowledge about traditional spiritual rites and images so I can be prepared for images people use in telling their life stories and reporting their night dreams. I have drawn on the model of C. G. Jung, who was concerned both to be an intelligent, rational thinker and researcher and at the same time to go to great effort to employ the non-rational methods of the spiritual traditions. He was a stone-cutter, calligrapher, painter, and architect in his own way, making his personal environment link closely with his inner life.

Guide of Souls, Leader of Rituals

My mentors—Jung, James Hillman, and Rafael Lopez-Pedraza—have emphasized the role of the mythic Hermes in the work of therapy. Jung said that the work or opus begins and ends in Mercury (the Roman name for Hermes). This means that in this work you have to be imaginative, clever, quick-witted and skilled with language. You appreciate paradoxes and apparent opposites. You see past and through any material that is presented, and you go beyond the modern notion of the highly educated, trained expert. You need a deep and probing appreciation for the intricacies of the psyche, and your preparation has to be both scholarly and personal.

I have a deep appreciation for the work of therapists and I honor and support any therapists I meet. They have a key role in modern life as they address matters of the soul and spirit. In some ways they are the modern priest, priestess, guide of souls and leader of ritual. Their work is challenging for all its depth and mysteriousness, but it is equally rewarding precisely because it goes so deep.

But some therapists make a mistake in thinking of their position as one of a trained advice-giver or aid to adjustment and smooth living. Their job, rather, is to be courageous enough to face the demons with their patients and get tangled in the complicated mysteries of a human life. To do their job effectively, they need to know depth psychology, philosophy, solid religious thought and art. They should be at home with dreams and extraordinary fantasies. They should be able to see through aggression and masochism to glimpse the positive mysteries trying to be expressed and lived.

This kind of therapist has thought deeply about the mysteries of human personality and doesn’t reduce them to simple patterns. Throughout his life and career this therapist continues to explore complex matters, prizing any resources that help, and faces his own complexes. He is always on the border, Hermes-like, between the inner and the outer, the personal and the universal, ordinary life and the sacred, and the surfaces and the depths. He is shaman-like, able to traverse levels of reality and experience. He has adapted to the mysterious nature of his work by being himself a mysterious person, not too easy to read and comfortable being neutral in the face of another’s passion.

The Cheiron therapist works in a cave, a place set apart from the normal way of seeing things. He needs a lot of animal in him to sense the many messages from his patient and from within himself. He has to take on the mythic dimensions of a centaur because work with the soul is too much for the human mind. “The therapist is willing to be bigger than life and almost other than human, a person of huge imagination, able to hold almost any manifestation of human struggle.” He has to be naturally religious, in the sense of honoring the natural life flowing through himself and his clients and responding effectively to the great mysteries that only the best art and religious forms have been able to grasp. He is a person able to contain the immense joys and sorrows that visit every human life. And all of this in an ordinary person, humble in the best sense, in love with life and able to love those in distress. It’s a wonderful calling and a grace to those who accept it.

Lynn Ponton on the Challenges and Joys of Working with Teens

A Delicate Balance

Rachel Zoffness: Lynn Ponton, you are a practicing psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who has been working with teens for over thirty years, and are author of the books, The Romance of Risk: Why Teenagers Do the Things They Do and The Sex Lives of Teenagers: Revealing the Secret World of Adolescent Boys and Girls. Let’s start with some of the salient issues that come up when you’re working with children and teenagers. I find that confidentiality when working with kids and teens is often a tricky subject because teenagers have rights as clients and they want to maintain their privacy, which is critical to the alliance. But at the same time parents want to know what’s going on with their children. How do you maintain this delicate balance?
Lynn Ponton: I think it begins with the first session, and even before, when you talk with the parents on the phone—you have to alert them about how you run your therapy practice and your work with kids. I almost always say that I try to encourage privacy with the teens so that they feel open to talk with me, and I will tell their child during the first session that I’m going to try to keep things confidential, but that there will be some exceptions, and I let parents know that right away on the phone. In general, I meet the teen with the parents before I even start and I alert everybody to the parameters and the boundaries around confidentiality.
RZ: So that both the teenager and the parent are on the same page and know exactly where you stand.
LP: Exactly. The kinds of things I would need to share with parents, which I’m clear about right from that first session, would be drug use that was risky or risky behavior that would result in serious self-harm. And sometimes other things—abuse when it’s disclosed has to be shared with the parents for a variety of reasons, and because I’m a mandated reporter.

It’s often hard for a teenager to tell their parents these things directly, so I’ll offer to meet with them and their parents and we’ll work together to help them disclose this material. Collaboration with the young person assures them that even if they do tell me something, it’s not going to be reported over the telephone to their parents. They’re not going to find out about it by surprise. Instead, we’re going to collaborate together as a team to make sure that parents know this.

Of course there are times when this doesn’t always work perfectly. Having worked with kids for more than 35 years, there have been exceptions where I’ve found out quickly that a teenager is suicidal and I have to let the parents know. Maybe we have to work toward a hospitalization period or something like that, but I try as much as I can to have the teenager be part of this process and be involved with it.

Cutting

RZ: You mentioned a very hot button and interesting topic, cutting, which to me seems to have become almost a contagious and trendy behavior among teenagers. What’s your thought about that?
LP: Well, self-mutilation in all of its forms is something that therapists have to learn to feel comfortable with working with teenagers. It’s a big part of our work to connect with them, to know about it, to seem comfortable with it and not put off by it when we hear about it in a session. I first saw it about 30 years ago and wrote a paper on it in the ‘80s, which talked about self-mutilation as a communication. As you point out, it’s a contagious risk-taking behavior. In a group of teenagers, one will do it and the others will copy. They’ll think, “I’ll try it and see what I can learn from it.” That’s how that process really starts. In the ‘80s there were big concerns about self-mutilation because of sharing of implements and a lack of understanding around HIV risk, so we had to be very careful about that until we better understood it.

I think it’s often scariest for parents. So how do you work with teens around the cutting for parents? How do you help a teenager who is cutting really find other ways to cope with some of their feelings and to develop identity in a healthier way? In general I try to educate teens about cutting. I often employ them to get involved in it, to look online, look up articles about cutting. We’ll have conversations about it so that it’s really an educational process with them.

Some teens don’t want to engage in that process.
They may tell you they’re cutting, but they don’t want to learn about it, they want to do it.
They may tell you they’re cutting, but they don’t want to learn about it, they want to do it. This is something private that they’re going to do to help themselves feel better, so I’ll respect that, but I’ll still engage in conversations with them about it. I want to make sure that if they are cutting that it is safe in other ways. There’s significant risk of scarring, of infection—there’s a whole lot of risks that are associated with it.

Many teens cut because they say they feel better afterwards. A number of papers point to the beta endorphin release with cutting—the focus then becomes the physical cut and not the emotional pain that they’re feeling. So it accomplishes a lot for teenagers, but it is an unhealthy coping strategy and risk-taking behavior that you have to work with teens to limit. There are many different ways to do that.
RZ: The way you talk about cutting, it sounds like it might serve an important function for the teenagers who are doing it. What would you say to people who say that it’s just an attention-seeking strategy?
LP: Your question is well placed because I think a lot of times therapists who work with teenagers are faced either by teachers or parents or even other therapists who say, “I don’t want to work with those teens. They’re engaged in a lot of attention-seeking behaviors. How do you handle that?”

I think many behaviors in life are attention-seeking, and often we’re seeking greater attention from ourselves, that we pay attention to our own pain. Teens usually cut because they’re in pain and they don’t necessarily understand their own emotional pain but when they cut, it allows them to at least understand that it’s a painful thing that they’re dealing with. So, yes, it is attention-seeking, and adults will often be drawn in to it. Teachers at school are shocked when they find out about it and they’re worried other kids will cut.

But I think there are a lot of other factors that play in to cutting besides seeking attention. I’m also interested in questions about molestation with cutting. Were they ever hurt? Did they ever suffer abuse? Are they using that in the context of cutting? Has it become very ingrained, so it’s a behavior that they use as a coping strategy that they may have done thousands of times and they find themselves unable to stop? How does it fit in with their family?

Does their family know much about it?
There are many, many reasons why young people cut, and attention-seeking is only one of them.
One of the cases that I worked on for a long time, a girl cut because her father was a surgeon. He talked about cutting all the time, a different kind of cutting, but she imitated him in a kind of identification with her father. It took a long time to unravel, as it wasn’t obvious at the beginning of her treatment. There are many, many reasons why young people cut, and attention-seeking is only one of them. And it’s not often the major one. You have to address the complexity of the behavior and also the feelings that go with them.

Five Perspectives

RZ: I think some professionals are concerned that giving too much time and attention to cutting might be positively reinforcing. So it seems to me that as a clinician addressing it you want to find a balance between over-reacting and under-reacting.
LP: I think that’s more of a strict cognitive behavioral model way of looking at it, and it gets to the question of models and how they affect our work. Cutting is a behavior, but it’s attached to many other perspectives that we look at when we’re engaged in therapy. I try to look at things from at least five perspectives.

One is the more dynamic-relational, where you engage and are looking at aspects of the relationship—how it affects you, the parents, the cutting behavior, all of that. How disclosure plays a role in that. Attachment. Therapeutic alliance. Then there’s the behavioral model. A lot of therapists don’t use that model, but I think it helps to focus on the behavior. I often have kids keep a timesheet or a workbook on their cutting behavior and have them draw their feelings at the time that they’re cutting in addition to recording the number of times they cut. It’s a kind of cutting journal that we look at from a behavioral perspective. We also look at their thoughts that are occurring at the time that they’re cutting, so we can target really negative thoughts.

Then there is the family system. Cutting is usually very much connected with parents in some way or another—they’re worried about the parent’s reactions; they’re worried about feelings they have that they feel the parents can’t help them with. A lot of our kids have trouble with self-soothing, so they’ll cut to self-soothe. The parents might like to learn how to help soothe their teen, or help their teen gain self-soothing mechanisms, but they don’t even know the cutting is going on so they can’t focus on that area with them. Or they, themselves, may be unable to self-soothe and not know that it’s an important skill that you need for raising teenagers.

Carl Whitaker always said, "You lose the parents, you lose the family, you lose the case."
And then there’s the aspect of meaning for the teenager. What does cutting mean to them? Do they think about suicide? Some cutting is related to suicide. Self-harm that is related to suicide is very important to pay attention to, not just for our board tests but in our office with our kids.

Lastly there’s the biological perspective. With some kids that I work with, they carry biological conditions which may lead to increased cutting behavior. Prader-Willi Syndrome is one of those that has some increased cutting and self-harm. You want to be thinking about underlying conditions that might contribute to this behavior.

All of those things are going through my mind, so I’m not thinking, “if I pay attention to this behavior I will reinforce it.” Instead I’m working on all of these levels if I can. I didn’t start with this in the first year or two of being a therapist working with kids, but the longer I’ve worked with kids, the more I’ve been able to see the complexity of so-called simple behaviors.
RZ: I really appreciate that more systemic approach to working with families because when you work with children and teenagers you’re never just working with a child. You’re always working with the family and the larger system.
LP: One of my greatest teachers was Carl Whittaker, a well-known family therapist I worked with as a young medical student therapist in Wisconsin. He always said, “you lose the parents, you lose the family, you lose the case, Lynn.” I kept that in mind and it’s really helped me with all of these cases.

Manualized Treatments

RZ: Apropos of what you just said, I was trained in manualized treatments and I do see a use for them. But a lot of therapists think they’re mumbo jumbo and that they don’t address and can’t respond to the spontaneity of what happens in treatment face to face with clients. How would you make a case for manualized treatments, if at all, or what would you say to people who don’t believe in them?
LP: Well, there are now manualized treatments in dynamic relational work. There are over 400 manualized treatments that I know of in working with children and adolescents from a behavioral modality. Family therapy, too, has manualized treatments. I don’t think there are any in the more existential perspective, because it kind of runs counter to manualization. In biological therapies they have always had manualized treatments for how you evaluate symptoms and work with things.

When I work with young therapists—and I supervise a lot of residents, fellows, psychologists, psychiatrists who are at all stages of training—I really encourage them to pick one or two manualized treatments and really learn them—go away for a day or a weekend, learn the strategy, practice it, and try to become familiar with it. Even if you’re going to be a strict psychoanalyst or family therapist, I think they’re valuable because they teach you how to focus on specific things, how to evaluate. Often manualized treatments have an evaluative component built in, so you have to look at your actions and evaluate how they’re working at the end. That’s a very important part of all therapy.
RZ: Measuring one’s progress?
LP: Exactly. That’s the key, I think, in mastering some of our work. Now, which ones would I recommend? I think one of the best ones to know about is the basic cognitive behavioral therapy approach as developed by Aaron Beck at Pennsylvania. He was my supervisor when I trained there as a resident, and it’s a very successful modality to use. It helps us understand the impact of negative thinking. Another supervisor of mine was Joe Weiss, who worked on Control Mastery theory—which is about negative thoughts and ideas and the power of unconscious beliefs. I admire Marsha Linehan a great deal and the Dialectical Behavioral Therapy model. I’ve had some wonderful conversations with her about her work with adolescents and I think she really grasps what it’s like to work with high-risk adolescents. I would encourage almost anyone to look at her book on working with high-risk adolescents. It’s a wonderful model and it adds much to the work we do with young people. A third area that I think people should look into is trauma. We work so much with trauma as child and adolescent therapists. There is a trauma focused interview that we can do with kids that I use all the time. It’s very useful in diagnosis and at looking at symptom category.

I think learning a little bit about any one of these models helps any child and adolescent therapist function in a more complete way.
RZ: So it sounds like what you would advocate for is an understanding and knowledge of these manualized treatments because it gives you, as a clinician, more tools in your tool belt to pull out for individual clients as they come to you with their individual differences.
LP: It’s one of the reasons the tool belt concept is helpful. But it also makes you feel more comfortable as a therapist, knowing that you have some grasp of these different ideas. Knowing that you’re not following one dogma, but are open to new ideas, because I think ultimately as therapists we end up constructing our own way of working. The theories that we use to support our work, the collection of tasks and techniques that we define and use—these form the basis of our work . It’s very valuable to look at other people’s constructions, integrate them into our own work and say, “hey, this is useful for me. It works with these patients. I can really take this and run with it.” I mentioned five perspectives that I’ve accrued over maybe 35, 40 years of work, but I anticipate over the next 40 years there are going to be others that will greatly benefit our work as child and adolescent therapists.
RZ: There are therapists and other mental health practitioners who would say that defining yourself as eclectic dilutes your work. Do you believe that that’s true? How do you define your theoretical orientation when asked?
LP: I remember that same question from 35 years ago in residency. I think having multiple perspectives strengthens our work, and there are multiple perspectives within each of these theories, so it’s not like people who belong to one model are necessarily doing some ossified therapy that was created by some individual or group of individuals. In my work, I want to stay open and patients open me up.

One reason I like adolescent work, even though I feel like I’m getting older, is that it keeps me young. It keeps me open to new ideas. My patients actually taught me how to text on my cell phone; my patients are coded in by their first name so that they can call me and have a relationship with me.
My patients actually taught me how to text on my cell phone.
I remember one of my other supervisors, Hilda Brook, who worked a lot with eating disorders, was working with teens into her 70s and early 80s in a wheelchair, and she had greater facility with them than even I have today in my 60s. We can continue to grow in our work with teens if we stay young in other ways.

Texting

RZ: You bring up a very important and hot button issue when working with teenagers, which is texting. And I think doing therapy with teenagers and kids today is a whole new world because teenagers and kids are used to communicating through their technology. What are the upsides and downsides of deciding to be a clinician who texts with your clients as you are?
LP: I think it’s important to be aware of some of the legal parameters around texting. Many of us work with large organizations, and it’s important to be aware of HIPAA regulations and such. HIPAA doesn’t regulate all therapists, only certain therapists who are involved with electronic billing, which you might be if you work in a large institution and you bill electronically. In that case you are HIPAA regulated and with regard to texting, HIPAA states that you cannot be sending clinical decisions through a texting modality or an unsupervised modality. You have to have some regulations around it.

When I worked at UCSF for 35 years, I was in a large system that was HIPAA regulated. My texts, which I did with teenagers for 10 years during that period, dealt with scheduling, and if they texted me about an issue that I was clinically concerned about, I’d have them come in so that we could then talk about it and then work on it in person.

But the texting connection I think is very, very important with teens and therapists. Not all therapists can do it for a variety of reasons. Not everyone feels comfortable with it and not all teens have phones. I’ve done a lot of work with homeless teens, who usually don’t have phones, so you have to figure out other ways to communicate with them.

But the bulk of teens out there today do have access to texting and they will communicate that way, often just to check in with you. They may just want to know you’re there and I think that sets up a relationship with them. I don’t always respond to those texts, but they know that I’m receiving and reading them.

But let’s say you’re not HIPAA regulated, so you can put anything on text. I would still say if you’ve got a big clinical concern with a teen—let’s say they text you, “I’m cutting, I think it’s out of control, I’m feeling really anxious”—I’m going to call them immediately rather than text, and most likely try to get them in to see me if I can. So it’s not that I’m sending long texts back and forth about that type of behavior. I’m really using it as a way to communicate to stay in touch.

Other ways that teens will keep me informed, they’ll often text me, “Saw an article you should be reading, doc,” or “thought you’d like this.” Those things are important because it is a reciprocal relationship. I’m largely involved in educating young people, but they help me a lot, too, and I get a lot from them.
RZ: For therapists in private or group practice who don’t work for large organizations, is there a downside to texting? For example, what if you lose your phone?
LP: I think that gets back to just have their first name, maybe an initial afterwards, but no way that they could really be identified. And if they’re very sensitive texts you can also erase them, although we all know that things are out in the cloud forever. So be aware that that information is out there.

This is also one of the things that you should discuss in the first session. I often discuss with my patients my availability, how they can get a hold of me, so they know that I will have their first name on the cell phone, and their phone number, and that I’m fairly easily accessible. I believe one of the reasons I’ve been so successful with teenagers and their parents is because I have very good accessibility. I take my cell phone all over the world when I travel. I do have somebody on call to cover, but I’m available in that way. But let’s say that cell phone is lost, and I’ve never lost my cell phone, though I fear it all the time, Rachel. I’m looking around for it and I worry about memory loss and loss of cell phone. But if it’s lost I think you have to alert the patients, especially those that you’re texting with, that there is a risk and the cell phone was lost. Most of them are not that concerned about it because their whole name is not out there. There’s not a lot of information out there. But I think it’s important to do that. But I also know from forensic cases that you can actually remove data from a distance off of a cell phone, which might actually be required if you work for a university or large organization.

Sexting

RZ: Technology and internet use seems to be a primary source of conflict between parents and kids. Do you see this a lot in your practice? And how do you go about addressing it both with the parents and with the children?
LP: Very young kids, 9, 10, 11, 12 are using the internet or videogames or other media for large periods of time, and parents are often seeing symptoms—kids are struggling with school, their concentration is impaired, and they’re not engaged in other activities or relationships.
Some boys are being prosecuted for texting sexual photos and parents of boys are very concerned about this.
I think that that’s a very important area to be aware of. Parents need education around the signs to be looking out for when kids are struggling. We need to think about their media profiles, how much time are they on TV, how much time they are playing videogames, how much time are they on internet, and what different modalities they’re involved with.

When families come in, I’ll have both the kid and the parents keep a journal and write their feelings down about what’s happening when there’s a confrontation at home regarding this behavior. And all of that comes back into the session. I often will use the family modality to meet at that point and we’ll talk about what’s going on in that type of interaction.

The other area that comes up frequently with teenagers is sexting—texting sexual material. During the past five years I would estimate I’ve had 50 teenagers referred to me who have been involved in sexting activities.

In general, the girls are involved in sexting pictures, nude photos of themselves that have caused some great difficulty. These are often selfies where the girls will hold the camera out in front of themselves, often in their bedroom or bathroom, sometimes partially clothed, sometimes not, and then they’ll text the photo to a friend or friends, and then it gets texted everywhere. That type of interaction is very important to pay attention to and I’ll generally work with the teenage girl alone and talk with her about what happened. The feelings around sexual development are very private and tender, and it’s deeply shocking that this is suddenly exposed to a large group of people. I work with the family around this behavior, too, and sometimes will meet with parents alone to help them understand why this behavior might have taken place.

I would say a smaller number of the sexting cases, roughly 20%, are boys texting nude photos of themselves, but they’re mostly texting nude photos of girls. There are also laws involved with this and I’ve been involved with the FBI and other law enforcement officials around how to handle these cases. There’s awareness in high schools now that they have to report these cases when they discover that boys are texting sexual photos of girls. Some boys are being prosecuted for texting sexual photos and parents of boys are very concerned about this.
RZ: How do you handle those cases when they come in?
LP: First be aware of the legal ramifications. Second, encourage them to get legal advice, because we as therapists can’t provide all of that. Third, I often will meet with the boy individually and try to get a sense of what happened and work with them around that. Many boys are shocked that this has happened. They may have thought they were doing what the other guys at school were doing, that it was cool, they were getting more status. But I’ve also seen boys who’ve had long-standing problems and the texting of the sexual photos is connected to other sexual difficulties that they’ve been struggling with. They may have been molested. They may have molested another person. So to be aware of that, to be open to hearing about that is very important.

Parents of boys are often very angry about this process. They feel that the boy is at a disadvantage because though he sexted the photos, it was the girl who originally sent the photos out so it should be her responsibility. Helping the parents see that we have to take a deeper look at what’s going on with their son under these circumstances is really, really important and not easy to do. You have to stay open to their feelings about their boys being scapegoated, but at the same time point out this is something we have to pay attention to.

The intersection of online work and sexuality is really a key area to focus on, to get as much help as you can as a therapist. Sometimes if I have a question, even today I’ll go to another therapist that I think has more expertise in this area and get supervision.
RZ: Are there particular resources for therapists who want to learn more about how they can be better clinicians when addressing something like sexting?
LP: Yes. I’m not going to toot my own horn about this, but I’ve written an article that’s online about sexting and working with clinicians that I think is very helpful. It has a literature review of a couple of cases and ten guidelines for parents and therapists around this area. There are not recent and current books because it’s a fairly new topic, but I think it’s something we’re going to see more of in textbooks and articles. A lot of young psychologists’ dissertations have been done on sexting, and those are valuable if you can get a copy and read them.

Learn to Like Kids

RZ: What advice do you have for beginning clinicians treating kids and teens?
LP: The most important thing about doing this work is that you have to be knowledgeable about your own childhood and adolescence. You have to have thought about it, its impact on your own development, the issues that you might bring to the work, questions and preconceptions about it, etc. I encourage almost all therapists to have their own experience in therapy and to explore some of these issues.

Second, what helps the most in this work is really loving children and adolescents. Having a strong love for that age group or working toward it. Let’s say you don’t love it, you’re kind of afraid of it, maybe you’re going to work toward a passion in that area. You’re going to learn why you’re afraid of that age group and you’re going to try it out and get supervision with somebody who is really very good at it. It is a group that is fun to work with, is very challenging, and can really be a growth opportunity for you as a therapist. But I’d say try to develop a passion for it. Learn to like kids. Learn a lot about child and adolescent development. I think either being a parent or playing a role with your nieces and your nephews and other kids is really important.

Third, you’ve got to be able to work with parents. When I was younger and starting out one of my mistakes was that I thought I knew what it was like to be a parent long before I was a parent, and I was often angry with how parents treated kids. By now I’ve gone through decades, I’ve had my own kids and I see it differently. I see myself as a valuable resource to parents and I have great empathy for them.

Sometimes I have to do very difficult things with parents.
Once I had to climb through a glass window when a young mother was holding her new baby and was psychotic and trying to do something to the baby.
Once I had to climb through a glass window when a young mother was holding her new baby and was psychotic and trying to do something to the baby. The police were there and there was obviously a lot involved with this, but we had to save the baby and rip the baby out of the mother’s arms. So there are things that you often have to do in this work that are not very easy with parents and I think I’ve learned how to do those with concern and empathy as I’ve grown older and become an older therapist. But at the beginning I would say stay open to the work with parents. Keep your eyes open. Realize you don’t know everything.

Fourth, Don’t just accept a dogma. Try to integrate and construct your own idea of how to do the work. I talked earlier about the five perspectives I use but think about those that work best for you, yourself, as a therapist, and with the patients you’re working with.

Lastly I’d focus on the first session and developing a good alliance with kids relatively quickly. That first session is really important—how you connect to your passion, staying open, not being judgmental. Watching tapes of other therapists do first sessions can be really helpful, or being in a study group where you share information about your sessions with kids. Or even observing preschool teachers, who are often very good with kids, welcome kids into the classroom, integrate them, and get them playing and involved in activities. All of that adds to our abilities in that area.
RZ: What do you think has helped you become a better clinician?
LP: Years of experience have helped a lot. Reading widely has helped a lot. Having my own children has helped a lot. I have four—two step sons and two daughters—and I’ve learned from all of them. It’s not been easy.

Supervising younger therapists has also been really helpful, because I’ve listened to their problems and I really try to figure out what they’re going through, which keeps me more in touch with what it’s like to start this work. This is not easy work. There’s a lot to learn. We make a lot of mistakes in it, but we do a lot of good.

Maybe the last thing I’d say about it is I’ve been so impressed over all the years of working with adolescents how many return. They bring their own kids back for treatment. That keeps me in it more than anything—having the kids come back with their own children, and seeing that they’ve shared things I said to them. This is not everybody, of course, because I’ve had over the course of my career two adolescents who killed themselves. I’ve gone through a lot of difficult experiences, as have my patients, but I am impressed with this type of work and how much we can help kids if we stick with it.

It’s wonderful work that makes you feel very good about your life’s work at the end of it. I don’t see myself at the end of it, but I have talked with others, like James Anthony, a role model of mine who was a wonderful child therapist who worked with Anna Freud. When I was a very young student I had the opportunity of working with him in London. He loved the work and he still continues to teach me things—and he’s in his late ‘90s. He talks about having patients come back and treating the grandchildren of the children he saw. That is an amazing thing. It’s a chance to be very connected with others in life really.

Suicide

RZ: It sounds incredibly powerful to have had such a positive impact on someone as a teenager that they want to bring their own teenagers to you once they have had children. It also sounds incredibly powerful to have lost an adolescent client to suicide and I’m wondering if you feel comfortable talking about that a little bit.
LP: It’s a reason that a lot of therapists seek out supervision.
RZ: It’s admittedly my worst fear.
LP: I think it is for all of us. It’s not just the legal aspects of it. We all carry liability insurance and we’re worried about that part of it—but it’s also just the connection. I will say that I really remember these patients and their treatment very, very well because of going through this and thinking about it a lot. The first was a young man who killed himself when I was the director of the adolescent unit at UCSF.
RZ: How old was he?
LP: He was 19 and he had very severe bipolar disorder. He stopped his medicines when I went on vacation and then went into the woods and shot himself. I had arranged for somebody to cover me during this period of time. It was a short vacation, but still enough for this to happen. I’ve thought about it a great deal, of course. It’s changed the way I take vacations. I still take them, but I’m very alert, thinking about coverage and concern about these teenagers and children when I leave.

I spent several months working with his family. They had anticipated it more than I had and that surprised me. I went to the service and worked with them in a collaborative mode, which I did not charge them for, and they were very grateful. I’ve stayed in touch with them in some ways, though that happened I’d say roughly about 30 years ago now.

The other suicide was about 20 years ago and was a patient I’d worked with for years. She had a chronic psychotic condition. She was a very bright young woman and I had spent a lot of time with her. She had promised me that she would not harm herself until she was 30 years old, and then she killed herself not long after her 30th birthday. So she stayed alive working with me for years I think to try to get better, and we tried everything. Family therapy, medications—and it was clear that she was going to be living with a chronic psychotic illness that was incredibly painful for her.

I still think about her all the time. I think she helped me in many ways to understand that sometimes we work with individuals who are suffering so much that from their perspective, their life is really not worth living.
Sometimes we work with individuals who are suffering so much that from their perspective, their life is really not worth living.
We can discuss that with them, we can work to help them, many different things can be done, but there are limits to the work that we do. She left me a number of drawings she drew and painted. I think a lot about her family. I worked in much the same way that I described with the earlier boy. I met with her family and had contact with them for a long period of time. I still think about her all the time.
RZ: I bet. I think this is particularly important to talk about for young therapists who are, as you mentioned before, maybe put off entirely by cutting because they’re so scared of it, or don’t want to work with suicidal clients because they’re so afraid of losing a patient. It’s really valuable for me as a young therapist to hear you talk about having gone through this worst fear with a couple of your clients and not only did you get through it, but it made you a stronger clinician ultimately.
LP: I think ultimately it did. Of course, a big part of this was questioning what I had done with them and if I had made the right decisions.
RZ: Of course.
LP: Had I done something wrong?
RZ: That’s natural.
LP: I think any therapist who has had a patient suicide question their work. Families question their interactions with their children after suicide. We all think about it. I work with many teenagers, especially here in the Bay Area, who have had friends suicide, and the young teens question what they could have done to help their friend. It’s not only us as a group of therapists who question ourselves, but it’s really the world that comes forward to question itself around suicides.
RZ: It seems like that’s the first question people ask friends, family, and therapists alike: What could I have done? Could I have done something different or better? And I think that is a real challenge.
LP: It’s natural and appropriate to ask those questions and explore them, but it’s also important to really understand that there are limits in life to what we can do. It’s important in this line of work to talk about this aspect of it.
RZ: That’s a very realistic and compassionate perspective. Thank you for your time and for your wisdom.
LP: And thank you for your good questions, Rachel.

On Quitting The Practice of Psychotherapy

Workplace Wounds

My name is Michael Sussman and I’m a recovering psychotherapist.

By this I don’t mean that I am a therapist who attends Alcoholics Anonymous, but rather that I’m in recovery from being a therapist.

I made a decent living as a clinician, and took great satisfaction in helping people in distress. Over time, however, the strains of practice overwhelmed my own coping capacities and I was forced to close up shop. Ironically, it appears that working as a therapist aggravated the very same wounds that first drew me to the field.

Like many practitioners, my early family experiences groomed me for the role of psychotherapist. As a typical middle child, I felt unsure of my place in the family and hungered for acceptance. I dealt with these insecurities by becoming mother’s little helper and confidante. Outwardly, I did all I could to help her care for my younger brother. But underlying feelings of jealousy and malice toward the intruder drove me to torment my brother on the sly. This, and my failure to somehow heal my parents’ troubled marriage, left me with deep reservoirs of guilt and remorse. As I’d later learn, such feelings—along with intense needs to atone and make amends—supply a powerful impetus toward pursuing a career in the helping professions.

Unfortunately, they also provided fertile soil for the development of emotional illness. By the age of 15, I was already showing signs of depression. In my late teens I dropped out of college and joined a cult, and by my early twenties I was bouncing in and out of psychiatric wards with bouts of both depression and mania.

I eventually stabilized enough to return to school and earn a bachelor’s degree in music composition and performance. And who knows? If I’d become a professional musician or a music teacher, perhaps I would never have suffered another episode of severe mental illness Instead, with considerable trepidation, I entered graduate training in clinical psychology.

From the start, graduate school undermined my emotional stability by weakening my defenses. As I learned in class, we all employ an array of defense mechanisms to help maintain psychological equilibrium. These protective strategies tend to function largely outside of conscious awareness. Why? Because our psychic defenses—like a nation’s military strategies—must remain concealed in order to be effective. If you become aware, for instance, that you’re using denial to avoid facing painful feelings, those feelings are more likely to emerge.

By gaining understanding of these defensive maneuvers, my own defenses were inevitably compromised. And in a variant of what has been dubbed medical students’ disease, I began experiencing the symptoms of the disorders we covered in class.

If studying psychopathology was a bit dodgy, actually working with disturbed people turned out to be downright perilous. The empathy that allowed me to tune in and connect with patients also left me vulnerable to taking on their pain. In addition, I was ill prepared for the enormous burden of responsibility entailed in caring for the sick. During my third year, a middle-aged patient of mine jumped to her death from the window of her 20th-floor apartment, shortly after transferring to a new therapist. Though devastated by her death, it only intensified my dedication to the calling.

But as the years passed, the emotional toll mounted. Overly dedicated to work, I neglected my social life and grew increasingly isolated. Rather than freeing me from an introspective disposition, clinical practice only deepened it. And while clinical successes were exhilarating, they did little to assuage the guilt from my childhood “crimes.” Clinical setbacks and failures, on the other hand, intensified my inner sense of badness. Far from bringing redemption, the practice of psychotherapy engendered in me what the psychiatrist Richard Chessick termed soul sadness.

Ultimately, my career was cut short by full blown major depressive episodes requiring electroshock treatment. I’m better now and have had former patients literally plead with me to return to practice. But my susceptibility to depression precludes me from providing emotional stability to others. Moreover, I can no longer ignore the fact that practicing psychotherapy is hazardous to my own health.

Recovery

So, what broader lessons can be drawn from my saga?

First, wanting to help people is not sufficient reason for becoming a therapist. Admissions committees must help applicants explore their hidden motivations for practice.

Second, although a mild to moderate degree of emotional conflict needn’t be problematic, training programs ought to be wary of admitting applicants with a history of serious mental illness.

Third, all applicants ought to be fully warned about the potential dangers inherent in learning and practicing psychotherapy, and therapist self-care should be included in the curriculum.

Fourth, the last bastion of the stigma of mental illness appears to be within the mental health profession itself. It can no longer be denied that a substantial percentage of practitioners are significantly stressed or impaired. It’s imperative that the professional community stops fostering shame, and begins creating an environment in which struggling clinicians dare to reach out for help and support.

Meanwhile, I’m writing fiction. I’ve spoken to several former colleagues who are also in recovery. One runs her own bakery, another owns a bookstore, and a third raises llamas. What’s disturbing to contemplate is that, in all likelihood, there are thousands of therapists out there who ought to be doing something else, but continue to practice.

*This article was originally published in the May/June 2013 issue of New Therapist magazine.