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

Online Therapy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kyle and the Shame Spiral (Joseph Burgo)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Up Close and Personal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

 

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.

The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma

The following is an excerpt from The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma by Bessel van der Kolk, MD. Reprinted by arrangement with Viking, a member of Penguin Group (USA) LLC, A Penguin Random House Company. Copyright © Bessel van der Kolk, MD, 2014.

****

Marilyn was a tall, athletic-looking woman in her mid-thirties who worked as an operating-room nurse in a nearby town. She told me that a few months earlier she’d started to play tennis at her sports club with a Boston fireman named Michael. She usually steered clear of men, she said, but she had gradually become comfortable enough with Michael to accept his invitations to go out for pizza after their matches. They’d talk about tennis, movies, their nephews and nieces—nothing too personal. Michael clearly enjoyed her company, but she told herself he didn’t really know her.

One Saturday evening in August, after tennis and pizza, she invited him to stay over at her apartment. She described feeling “uptight and unreal” as soon as they were alone together. She remembered asking him to go slow but had very little sense of what had happened after that. After a few glasses of wine and a rerun of “Law & Order,” they apparently fell asleep together on top of her bed. At around two in the morning, Michael turned over in his sleep. When Marilyn felt his body touch hers, she exploded—pounding him with her fists, scratching and biting, screaming, “You bastard, you bastard!” Michael, startled awake, grabbed his belongings and fled. After he left, Marilyn sat on her bed for hours, stunned by what had happened. She felt deeply humiliated and hated herself for what she had done, and now she’d come to me for help in dealing with her terror of men and her inexplicable rage attacks.

My work with veterans had prepared me to listen to painful stories like Marilyn’s without trying to jump in immediately to fix the problem. Therapy often starts with some inexplicable behavior: attacking a boyfriend in the middle of the night, feeling terrified when somebody looks you in the eye, finding yourself covered with blood after cutting yourself with a piece of glass, or deliberately vomiting up every meal. It takes time and patience to allow the reality behind such symptoms to reveal itself.

Terror and Numbness

As we talked, Marilyn told me that Michael was the first man she’d taken home in more than five years, but this was not the first time she’d lost control when a man spent the night with her. She repeated that she always felt uptight and spaced out when she was alone with a man, and there had been other times when she’d “come to” in her apartment, cowering in a corner, unable to remember clearly what had happened.

Marilyn also said she felt as if she was just “going through the motions” of having a life. Except for when she was at the club playing tennis or at work in the OR, she usually felt numb. A few years earlier she’d found that she could relieve her numbness by scratching herself with a razor blade, but she had become frightened when she found that she was cutting herself more and more deeply, and more and more often, to get relief. She had tried alcohol, too, but that reminded her of her dad and his out?of?control drinking, which made her feel disgusted with herself. So instead she played tennis fanatically, whenever she could. That gave her a feeling of being alive.

When I asked her about her past, Marilyn said she guessed that she “must have had” a happy childhood, but she could remember very little from before age twelve. She told me she’d been a timid adolescent, until she had a violent confrontation with her alcoholic father when she was sixteen and ran away from home. She worked her way through community college and went on to get a degree in nursing without any help from her parents. She felt ashamed that during this time she’d slept around, which she described as “looking for love in all the wrong places.”

As I often did with new patients, I asked her to draw a family portrait, and when I saw her drawing, I decided to go slowly. Clearly Marilyn was harboring some terrible memories, but she could not allow herself to recognize what her own picture revealed. She had drawn a wild and terrified child, trapped in some kind of cage and threatened not only by three nightmarish figures—one with no eyes—but also by a huge erect penis protruding into her space. And yet this woman said she “must have had” a happy childhood.

As the poet W. H. Auden wrote:
Truth, like love and sleep, resents
Approaches that are too intense.

I call this Auden’s rule, and in keeping with it I deliberately did not push Marilyn to tell me what she remembered. In fact, “I’ve learned that it’s not important for me to know every detail of a patient’s trauma. What is critical is that the patients themselves learn to tolerate feeling what they feel and knowing what they know.” This may take weeks or even years. I decided to start Marilyn’s treatment by inviting her to join an established therapy group where she could find support and acceptance before facing the engine of her distrust, shame, and rage.

As I expected, Marilyn arrived at the first group meeting looking terrified, much like the girl in her family portrait; she was withdrawn and did not reach out to anybody. I’d chosen this group for her because its members had always been helpful and accepting of new participants who were too scared to talk. They knew from their own experience that unlocking secrets is a gradual process. But this time they surprised me, asking so many intrusive questions about Marilyn’s love life that I recalled her drawing of the little girl under assault. It was almost as though Marilyn had unwittingly enlisted the group to repeat her traumatic past. I intervened to help her set some boundaries about what she’d talk about, and she began to settle in.

Three months later Marilyn told the group that she had stumbled and fallen a few times on the sidewalk between the subway and my office. She worried that her eyesight was beginning to fail: She’d also been missing a lot of tennis balls recently. I thought again about her drawing and the wild child with the huge, terrified eyes. Was this was some sort of “conversion reaction,” in which patients express their conflicts by losing function in some part of their body? Many soldiers in both world wars had suffered paralysis that couldn’t be traced to physical injuries, and I had seen cases of “hysterical blindness” in Mexico and India.

Still, as a physician, I wasn’t about to conclude without further assessment that this was “all in her head.” I referred her to colleagues at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and asked them to do a very thorough workup. Several weeks later the tests came back. Marilyn had lupus erythematosus of her retina, an autoimmune disease that was eroding her vision, and she would need immediate treatment. I was appalled: “Marilyn was the third person that year whom I’d suspected of having an incest history and who was then diagnosed with an autoimmune disease—a disease in which the body starts attacking itself.”

After making sure that Marilyn was getting the proper medical care, I consulted with two of my colleagues at Massachusetts General, psychiatrist Scott Wilson and Richard Kradin, who ran the immunology laboratory there. I told them Marilyn’s story, showed them the picture she’d drawn, and asked them to collaborate on a study. They generously volunteered their time and the considerable expense of a full immunology workup. We recruited twelve women with incest histories who were not taking any medications, plus twelve women who had never been traumatized and who also did not take meds—a surprisingly difficult control group to find. (Marilyn was not in the study; we generally do not ask our clinical patients to be part of our research efforts.)

When the study was completed and the data analyzed, Rich reported that the group of incest survivors had abnormalities in their CD45 RA?to?RO ratio, compared with their nontraumatized peers. CD45 cells are the “memory cells” of the immune system. Some of them, called RA cells, have been activated by past exposure to toxins; they quickly respond to environmental threats they have encountered before. The RO cells, in contrast, are kept in reserve for new challenges; they are turned on to deal with threats the body has not met previously. The RA?to?RO ratio is the balance between cells that recognize known toxins and cells that wait for new information to activate. In patients with histories of incest, the proportion of RA cells that are ready to pounce is larger than normal. This makes the immune system oversensitive to threat, so that it is prone to mount a defense when none is needed, even when this means attacking the body’s own cells.

Our study showed that, on a deep level, the bodies of incest victims have trouble distinguishing between danger and safety. This means that the imprint of past trauma does not consist only of distorted perceptions of information coming from the outside; the organism itself also has a problem knowing how to feel safe. The past is impressed not only on their minds, and in misinterpretations of innocuous events (as when Marilyn attacked Michael because he accidentally touched her in her sleep), but also on the very core of their beings: in the safety of their bodies.

Note: Find out about Bessel’s new in-depth, online Trauma Certificate Course

Bessel van der Kolk on Trauma, Development and Healing

Talking About it Doesn’t Put it Behind You

David Bullard: Bessel, you are the medical director and founder of the Trauma Center at Justice Resource Institute and professor of psychiatry at the Boston University School of Medicine. You have been one of the most influential and outspoken clinicians, educators and researchers contributing to our understanding of trauma and its treatment.
I don’t remember reading a professional book in several intense sittings like I just did with your new book, The Body Keeps The Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. It’s been praised by everyone from Jon Kabat-Zinn and Francine Shapiro to Jack Kornfield, Peter Levine and Judith Herman, who called it a “masterpiece that combines the boundless curiosity of the scientist, the erudition of the scholar, and the passion of the truth teller.” (Read an excerpt from the book accompanying this interview.)
Let me start with some basics: Could you say something about why talk therapy alone doesn’t work when treating trauma?
Bessel van der Kolk: From my vantage point as a researcher we know that the impact of trauma is upon the survival or animal part of the brain. That means that our automatic danger signals are disturbed, and we become hyper- or hypo-active: aroused or numbed out. We become like frightened animals. We cannot reason ourselves out of being frightened or upset.
Of course, talking can be very helpful in acknowledging the reality about what’s happened and how it’s affected you, but talking about it doesn’t put it behind you because it doesn’t go deep enough into the survival brain.
DB: Would you say that is one of the distinctions between your work and Edna Foa’s “prolonged exposure therapy”? In a New Yorker article on trauma, Foa talked about rewriting memories, rather than destroying them, and describes her work with a patient with PTSD who had been raped years before: “We asked her to tell the story of that New Year’s Eve (when the rape occurred) and repeat it many times….to distinguish between remembering what happened in the past and actually being back there…and when, finally, the woman did that she realized that the terror and her rape were not her fault.”That sounds like cognitive learning.
Bv: That’s a lovely example of the ability of talk to get a better perspective. But there is a mistaken notion that trauma is primarily about memory—the story of what has happened; and that is probably often true for the first few days after the traumatic event, but then a cascade of defenses precipitate a variety of reactions in mind and brain that are attempts to blunt the impact of the ongoing sense of threat, but which tend to set up their own plethora of problems. So, trying to find a chemical to abolish bad memories is an interesting academic enterprise, but it’s unlikely to help many patients. It’s a too-simplistic view in my opinion. Your whole mind, brain and sense of self is changed in response to trauma.
In the long term the largest problem of being traumatized is that it’s hard to feel that anything that’s going on around you really matters. It is difficult to love and take care of people and get involved in pleasure and engagements because your brain has been re-organized to deal with danger.
It is only partly an issue of consciousness. Much has to do with unconscious parts of the brain that keep interpreting the world as being dangerous and frightening and feeling helpless. You know you shouldn’t feel that way, but you do, and that makes you feel defective and ashamed.

EMDR and Body Awareness Approaches to Trauma Treatment

DB: You are a big proponent of body awareness approaches to trauma treatment—and for a fully lived life. For example, you’ve done research on yoga for trauma survivors and recommend yoga for patients. I saw recently that your Trauma Center offers trainings to yoga teachers in working with the trauma of their students. You also speak very highly of the body-oriented therapies of Peter Levine and Pat Ogden, and especially of EMDR. You devote a whole chapter to your learning EMDR and examples of your use of it.
Bv: We have done the only NIMH-funded study on EMDR. As of 2014, the results of that study were more positive than any published study of those who developed their PTSD in reaction to a traumatic event as an adult.
There are opinions and there are facts.
Traumatized people often become insensible to themselves. They find it difficult to sense pleasure and to feel engaged. These understandings force us to use methods to awaken the sensory modalities in the person.
The facts are that the EMDR study was spectacularly successful in adults, a bit less with childhood trauma–at least not in the short period of time (eight 90-minute sessions) in the research protocol. But our research found that the impact of trauma is in the somatosensory self, trauma changes the insula, the self-awareness systems. Traumatized people often become insensible to themselves. They find it difficult to sense pleasure and to feel engaged. These understandings force us to use methods to awaken the sensory modalities in the person.
DB: The following quote from your book beautifully addresses some of this:
“The neuroscience of selfhood and agency validates the kinds of somatic therapies that my friends Peter Levine and Pat Ogden have developed…. [In] essence their aim is threefold:

  • to draw out the sensory information that is blocked and frozen by trauma;
  • to help patients befriend (rather than suppress) the energies released by that inner experience;
  • to complete the self-preserving physical actions that were thwarted when they were trapped, restrained, or immobilized by terror. 

Our gut feelings signal what is safe, life sustaining, or threatening, even if we cannot quite explain why we feel a particular way. Our sensory interiority continuously sends us subtle messages about the needs of our organism. Gut feelings also help us to evaluate what is going on around us. They warn us that the guy who is approaching feels creepy, but they also convey that a room with western exposure surrounded by daylilies makes us feel serene. If you have a comfortable connection with your inner sensations—if you can trust them to give you accurate information—you will feel in charge of your body, your feelings, and your self” (p.96).

EMDR trainers now seem to be focusing more on sensory modalities than when I first was taught about EMDR, and they also use “resource installation” (Leeds) and more recently “dyadic resourcing” (Manfield). But if there has been an identified single trauma that doesn’t resolve after several sessions, they look for an older “feeder memory,” and get there by asking the patient to focus on body sensations to see if he or she has ever felt those sensations before. It often is a gateway to an earlier trauma.
Bv: A lot of different schools do that, where the body is a pronounced part of therapy. My own teacher, Elvin Semrad, in the early 1970s in Boston, was very somatically oriented; same thing for Milton Erikson and many schools of hypnotherapy. Most people I hang out with who work with traumatic stress are somatically oriented.

The Limits of CBT

DB: The popular media are often puzzlingly ignorant about the nature of trauma and its treatment. You are very well aware of this, but an otherwise interesting article in the May, 2014 issue of The New Yorker magazine stated that a study “published in Nature in 2010, offered the first clear suggestion that it might be possible to provide long-term treatment for people who suffer from PTSD and other anxiety disorders without drugs.” That article never even mentioned EMDR, which was listed in a 1998 task force report of the Clinical Division of the American Psychological Association as being one of three psychological therapies (together with exposure and stress inoculation therapy) empirically supported for the treatment of PTSD. How could they miss that?
Bv: Well, they often get things not quite right! It intrigues me how the public is much more fascinated with the potential of false memories in patients than in the gross distortions of our society’s memory of trauma.
Articles like the one you cited often relate to the study of memories in mice. It is a huge leap, of course, from rodents to human beings, which not only leads to misinformation about the nature of traumatic stress and its treatments, but also about the rather trenchant differences between humans and mice. Humans are profoundly social animals—everything we do and think is in relation to a larger tribe. Our brains are cultural organs. It probably has something to do with people’s temperaments; people who do rodent research are drawn to the simplicity of rodent brains. In order to work with humans you need to have a taste for culture, complexity and uncertainty. People would be astonished if a psychotherapist gave advice to rodent researchers on how to run their labs! But the popular press takes the liberty of making these misinformed leaps with the general public all the time.
DB: How best to treat trauma is a crucial question, of course. You saw CBS’ 60 Minutes television show that first aired in November, 2013, describing a Veterans Administration program treating war veterans using “cognitive processing therapy” and prolonged exposure treatment methods. Your understanding of and approach to treating trauma is very different. Can you address a couple of points that distinguish your views from those presented by that VA treatment program?
Bv: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (and “Trauma Focused CBT”), talk therapies, and prolonged exposure therapies can make some changes in people’s distress, but traumatic stress has little to do with cognition—it emanates from the emotional part of the brain that is rewired to constantly send out messages of dangers and distress, with the result that it becomes difficult to feel fully alive in the present. Blasting people with the memories of the trauma may lead to desensitization and numbing, but it does not lead to integration: an organic awareness that the event is over, and that you are fully alive in the present. The VA seems to be surprised by how many veterans drop out of prolonged exposure therapy. It would be helpful for them to find out why, but the likely answer is that it is re-traumatizing them.
DB: More recently, there was the profile of your work with trauma in the Sunday Magazine of the New York Times (May 22, 2014). The author shadowed you for a month, and it seemed to me that the article minimized the outcome of the clinical demonstration you did with an Iraqi war veteran at an Esalen Institute workshop.
Bv: The current Family Therapy Networker magazine just ran a piece about all the inaccuracies in that article, and the difficulties journalists have in getting the story straight. “Eugene” was the participant in the workshop, and he said “The takeaway when I read [the New York Times article] was that I was confused by the experience and that it didn’t help, which just isn’t true…When I spoke with the reporter, I said very positive things about the concrete ways that it helped me in terms of physical symptoms that disappeared, and also the fact that Dr. van der Kolk recommended people for me to work with afterward. He really spent some time finding a good recommendation for EMDR, and it really helps.” He wrote a letter to that effect and they wouldn’t publish it. I just got an email from him with a picture of my new book saying, “Thank you for helping me to regain the capacity for calmness and focus to be able to engage, and read books again.”
DB: The New York Times article also quoted sound bites from some other researchers, seemingly questioning your work, but later corrected some misinformation.
Bv: That’s another intriguing issue. There seems to be a tendency among therapists to become very religious about their own particular method—some seem to be more committed to their method than to the welfare of their patients. When patients don’t improve, they blame their resistance, and slam the people who point out that one size never fits all. The New York Times article also alluded to the Roman Catholic Church’s problems with clergy abuse and trying to defend itself by claiming that these plaintiffs suffered from “false memories,” and were the victims of “repressed memory therapy.” Testifying on behalf of pedophiles became a whole industry that seems to have entirely disappeared now that these trials are over.
DB: The newspaper did publish your brief (and, I thought, restrained!) rejoinder clarifying the issues presented, and you received an overwhelmingly supportive response in other letters to the editor and online comments. Here’s an excerpt from your letter to the New York Times:
Trauma is much more than a story about the past that explains why people are frightened, angry or out of control. Trauma is re-experienced in the present, not as a story, but as profoundly disturbing physical sensations and emotions that may not be consciously associated with memories of past trauma. Terror, rage and helplessness are manifested as bodily reactions, like a pounding heart, nausea, gut-wrenching sensations and characteristic body movements that signify collapse, rigidity or rage…. The challenge in recovering from trauma is to learn to tolerate feeling what you feel and knowing what you know without becoming overwhelmed. There are many ways to achieve this, but all involve establishing a sense of safety and the regulation of physiological arousal.
Bv: I also mentioned in the Networker article, “What happened …is a reflection of the incredible difficulties society has with staring trauma in the face and providing people with the facts of what happens, how bad it is, and how well treatments work.”

Talent and Compassion Aren’t Enough

DB: I appreciate your emphasis on research and fact-based discussions versus theoretical ones. Along those lines, George Silberschatz, a past-president of the international Society for Psychotherapy Research, said in a recent interview that the between-therapist effects were as large if not larger than the between-treatment effects in current psychotherapy research, and this is perhaps from non-specific treatment effects.
Bv: Well, talent and compassion are central elements of being an effective therapist, but learning to feel your feelings and be in charge of your self, and working with someone who knows how to deal with bodily sensations and impulses can make all the difference between visiting an understanding friend once a week, and actually healing your trauma.
DB: Could it relate to Stephen Porges’ description of the Polyvagal Theory and the social engagement system? The nonspecific treatment effects from psychotherapy research seem to be powerful about the therapist helping to create a safe environment.
Bv: I have been very much inspired by Porges’ work. The reason that Porges has become an important part of our world is his finding that trauma interferes with face-to-face communication. It is very important how you get regulated in the presence of other people. We need to learn very specific ways to activate the social engagement system. Sitting in your chair and chatting might not always be the most effective way of doing that.

Porges’ work was very helpful and clarifying about where in the brain trauma makes it difficult to feel comfort, to feel intimate and connected with other people. Knowing those things can help therapists to become more conscious about the specifics of their interactions, and should become part of the training of therapists. For example, I recently took a month-long intensive training course for Shakespearean actors to learn how the modulations of my voice, the configurations of my facial muscles, and the attitudes of my body affect my self-experience, and that of the people around me.
Porges’ work points to the importance of working with the reptilian brain—the brain stem, as well as the limbic system. We need to teach breathing and movement and work with the parts of the brain that are most impacted by trauma—areas that the conscious brain has no access to.
So I am dubious about the nonspecific relational impact of treatment on benefiting traumatized individuals. Seeing someone nonspecifically does not help the fear circuits and that collapsed sense of self. We need to learn very specific ways to activate the social engagement system. Sitting in your chair and chatting might not always be the most effective way of doing that.
DB: A colleague of yours from your Harvard days, neuroscientist Catherine Kerr, recently writing about mindfulness research, said:
The placebo effect is usually defined, somewhat tortuously, as the sum of the nonspecific effects that are not hypothesized to be the direct mechanism of treatment. For example, having a face-to-face conversation is not hypothesized as what makes psychotherapy work—you could have a face-to-face conversation with anybody. But for some reason, if you go every week to therapy, you are going to get better. But you could talk about the weather! When we perform these rituals with a desire to get better, we often do. We now know that a lot of the positive therapeutic benefit from psychotherapy and from various pain drugs may come from that initial context; it often has nothing to do with the specific treatment that is being offered. It is really just about the person approaching a situation with a sense of hope and being met by something that seems to hold out that hope (October 01, 2014, Tricycle Magazine).
And I think Allan Schore at UCLA would say that there is “unconscious right brain to unconscious right brain communication” going on, between therapists and patients, or between any of us in close relationships that might be what is otherwise thought to be “nonspecific” in therapy research. A deep ability to be present and connect empathically with patients is easier for some individual therapists than for others. Perhaps we are discussing a situation in therapy of “necessary, but not sufficient!”
Bv: I can’t really comment on all that—you’ll have to ask Catherine Kerr and Allan Schore. I have always been a bit puzzled about that “right brain to right brain” stuff. The research shows that the part of the brain most impacted by trauma is the left hemisphere, and I would imagine that every single part of the brain is necessary for effective functioning and feeling fully alive in the present.
DB: Well, I will be interviewing Schore next month, so we now have some good material to discuss!
Bv: I’ll look forward to reading that.

Neurofeedback & Yoga

DB: Is there anything in your own thinking that you feel has significantly changed in the last couple of years due to your continuing growth in the work and in all you are exposed to?
Bv: The biggest has been my exposure to neurofeedback (a type of biofeedback that focuses on brain waves, instead of peripheral phenomena like heart rate and skin conductance). In neurofeedback you change your brain’s electrical activity by playing computer games with your own brain waves. Learning how to interpret quantitative EEG’s helped me to visualize better how the brain processes information, and how disorganized the brain becomes in response to trauma. What made it necessary to look for other, non-interpersonally-based therapies was the realization, followed by research that dramatically illustrated how being traumatized may interfere with the ability to engage with other human beings to feel curious, open and alive.
Learning how to interpret quantitative EEGs allowed me to actually visualize what parts of the brain are distorted by traumatic experiences, and this can help us target specific brain areas where there is abnormal activity and where the problem actually is.
The trauma is not the story of what happened long ago; the long-term trauma is that you are robbed of feeling fully alive and in charge of your self.
For example, for the part of the brain supposed to be in charge, after trauma it will have excessive activity, keeping people in a state of chronic arousal—making it difficult to sleep, hard to engage and to relax. We find neurofeedback can change the activity in parts of the brain to allow it to be more calm and self-observant.
In another example, the frontal lobes of traumatized people often have activity similar to that of kids with ADHD, which makes it difficult to attend with the subtlety that we need to lead nuanced lives.
DB: So would the neurofeedback be with or without exposure to a particular traumatic memory?
Bv: Again, traumatic stress results in not being able to fully engage in the present. The trauma is not the story of what happened long ago; the long-term trauma is that you are robbed of feeling fully alive and in charge of your self.
DB: You would say that also is a positive outcome from yoga and other body awareness exercises, activating and strengthening the parasympathetic nervous system?
Bv: In our NIH-funded yoga for PTSD study we saw people did considerably better after 8 weeks of yoga. It can make a contribution to help people be more present in the here and now. The whole brain gets reorganized. Some quotes from participants in that study included:

  • “My emotions feel more powerful. Maybe it’s just that I can recognize them now.”
  • “I can express my feelings more because I can recognize them more. I feel them in my body, recognize them, and address them.”

This research needs much more work, but it opens up new perspectives on how actions that involve noticing and befriending the sensations in our bodies can produce profound changes in both mind and brain that can lead to healing from trauma. When we understand these things about the brain, how it works, we learn more about how to adjust our treatments.

DB: I’ve heard you say that you do not identify as belonging to any one particular school of therapy; that you do not even identify as an EMDR therapist even though you often utilize it.
Bv: Well, that would be like a carpenter saying he was a “hammer carpenter.” We need many different tools that will work for different patients and different problems.

Meaningless Pseudo-Diagnoses

DB: Can you talk a bit about your battles to get deeper and more sophisticated understandings of trauma treatment into the professional arena? Your book recounts the research you did that identified a traumatized population quite distinct from the combat soldiers and accident victims for whom the PTSD diagnosis had been created.
Bv: Yes, well, in the early 1990’s our PTSD work group for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders voted nineteen to two to create a new diagnosis for victims of interpersonal trauma: “Disorders of Extreme Stress, Not Otherwise Specified” (DESNOS), or “Complex PTSD” for short. But when the DSM-IV was published in May 1994 the diagnosis did not appear in the final product.
Fifteen years later, in 2009, we lobbied to have “Developmental Trauma Disorder” listed in the DSM-5. We marshaled a lot of support, such as that from the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, who serve 6.1 million people annually, with a combined budget of $29.5 billion.

Everybody who holds forth should have a practice, otherwise you get seduced by your ideas and don’t get confronted with the limits of your ideas in clinical practice.
Their letter of support concluded: “We urge the American Psychiatric Association to add developmental trauma to its list of priority areas to clarify and better characterize its course and clinical sequelae and to emphasize the strong need to address developmental trauma in the assessment of patients.”
It was turned down also, and a lot of criticism of DSM-5’s approach has since been levied and they have lost credibility from a variety of professional sources.
DB: You recently published the results of an international survey of clinicians on the clinical significance of a Developmental Trauma Disorder diagnosis. Can you tell us why it might be so beneficial to have such a diagnosis?
Bv: Because it would help us to start focusing on helping kids feel safe and in control , rather than labeling them with meaningless pseudo-diagnoses like oppositional defiant disorder, impulse control disorder, self-injury disorder, etc.
DB: A significant part of your career at the Trauma Center has been working with traumatized children. There is a lot in your book relevant to work with children.
Bv: Yes, with Joseph Spinazzola and Julian Ford, we are involved in studies through the Complex Trauma Treatment Network of the National Child Traumatic Stress Network, which now is comprised of 164 institutions in almost all States.
DB: You are doing so much traveling with international teaching, you are involved in ongoing research, and you have quite a large staff at the Trauma Center in Boston to manage.
Bv: About 40 people are working at the trauma center now.
DB: Are you still personally able to do one-on-one clinical work or only have a supervisory role?
Bv: Everybody who holds forth should have a practice, otherwise you get seduced by your ideas and don’t get confronted with the limits of your ideas in clinical practice.

Posttraumatic Growth and Aliveness

DB: I’ve always liked the subtitle of Peter Levine’s book Waking the Tiger: Through Trauma Into Aliveness. Others are talking about “posttraumatic growth.”
Bv: That’s what the New York Times article should have been about. The guy they described so poorly actually recouped his life. People get better by befriending themselves. People can leave the trauma behind if they learn to feel safe in their bodies—they can feel the pleasure to know what they know and feel what they feel. The brain does change because of trauma and now we have tools to help people be quiet and present versus hijacked by the past. The question is: Will these tools become available to most people?
DB: You are certainly doing your part, Bessel, by being so very active and productive. I counted 35 workshops out-of-town on your calendar for 2014, in addition to your teaching at the various medical schools in Boston, at the Trauma Center and a new certification program. Right now you are about to embark on a 10-day bo

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.

Michael Yapko on Psychotherapy and Hypnosis for Depression

Understanding Depression

Rafal Mietkiewicz: Welcome, Dr. Yapko. I am delighted to have the opportunity to talk with you today. Let’t start off with the question of how do you understand depression? Where does depression come from?
Michael Yapko: Depression comes from many different places. There isn't a single cause for it; there are many contributing factors. And in a general way, the factors are grouped into three areas. There are biological factors that contribute: genetic contributions, biochemical contributions. There are psychological factors: your individual temperament, your coping style, your attributional style, your personal history, all those kinds of things and more. And then there's the social realm: the social factors that contribute to depression, the quality of your relationships, the culture in which you live. Those are all three contributive domains. Consequently, the predominant model in the field is called the bio-psycho-social model and simply acknowledges that there are many, many different factors that contribute. And it's because depression is a complex phenomenon, and the fact that there are so many different factors. When I started studying depression 30 years ago, we knew of only two risk factors—one was gender and the other was family history. Now we know there are dozens and dozens and dozens of risk factors, factors that increase your vulnerability to depression. And so we've learned a lot over the last 30 years.

RM: What is the role of childhood, including the first experiences of the child, along with family history?
MY: Childhood obviously is a time when socialization forces are the most intense. And so the quality of your attachments, the modeling that you learn from your family about how to cope with stress and adversity, the way that you are taught as a child to explain the meaning of life events are all factors that can make you quite vulnerable to depression. And so the childhood is important, but I think one of the things that we've learned quite well is that depression isn't about events that happen in people's lives. It's more about ongoing processes of how the person uses information, how the person forms relationships, how the person interprets the meaning of things that happen to them.
RM: Isn’t the way in which a person formulates interpretations determined by his own phenomenology, his own life history?
MY: It's partly determined by that, but socialization goes on your entire life. It doesn't stop when you're five years old; it doesn't stop when you're eight years old.
RM: Some people could say that these are the most crucial years, and that making any changes later is very hard.
MY: People could say that.
RM: Do you agree?
MY: Not entirely. If you look at the fact that some of the most successful therapies for depression never examine childhood, that should tell you something. You look at the three therapies that have the highest treatment success rate—cognitive therapy, behavioral therapy, interpersonal therapy—and right behind it, behavioral activation—none of those treatments focus on childhood.
RM: So, you’re saying you can cure people from depression without taking care of events that happened long ago in the past, without dealing with the big traumas?
MY: Clearly. It's not an opinion—look at the research. In fact, cognitive-behavioral therapy is the most widely researched treatment there is. And this is an approach that has no interest in the past. Now, people will come in and they will naturally talk about the past—"Here's what happened to me when I was eight years old." But a cognitive therapist is not going to sit around and talk about that in great detail, but rather will ask, "So what does that lead you to think, and how does it lead you to behave, and how can we change what you think and how can we change how you behave?" And guess what? It has the best treatment success. And when you look at the analytic approach, it comes in almost at the bottom of treatment success studies—for a reason. See, the problem is, it's a treatment model that you use with everybody, as if everybody's the same, as if everybody has the same pathway into depression. But in fact each person has their own individual pathway into depression. For one person, it's about failed relationships. For another person, it's about trauma as a child. For another person, it's about the surgery they just had and all the drugs they're on. And for somebody else, it's about the hormonal imbalance, and for somebody else it's because their diet is so terrible and they never exercise. There's no blueprint. The model of depression that came out of the analytic world was that depression was anger turned inwards.
RM: Yes…
MY: That was disproved 30 years ago.
RM: However, it’s still considered as something important and valid for many people…
MY: Well, that's wrong. You know, I rarely make a statement that's that flat. Usually there's an element of truth in something, and maybe the truth gets exaggerated, but the idea of depression as anger turned inwards has been disproved. It's an old, outdated concept that doesn't work in the face of modern research. And consider the fact, how many people get out of depression and stay out of depression without addressing anger and without addressing trauma and without addressing childhood. It's always interesting to me that when somebody says, "Well, I think exploring your past is vitally important." Okay. You think it's vitally important. That doesn't mean it is. You want to believe that? You can believe that. You're allowed. You can think whatever you want. But if we go into the realm of research and we compare different treatments and which ones have higher treatment success rates and which ones have lower treatment success rates, such as psychoanalysis—I don't mean to bash psychoanalysis in a global way—but if we ask the question, "Are there some treatments for depression that work better than others?" the answer is yes. It's not as if all treatments are the same. And when we look at which treatments are better, they're the ones that teach people specific skills, whether it's skills in how to use information, how to make decisions intelligently, how to form relationships in a way that's healthy, how to manage yourself and be self-efficacious, and learning skills of emotional self-regulation. And if you look at things that go on in analysis, they actually work against people getting better in two very specific ways. Part of the problem with people who suffer depression is they make meaning out of events and their style of making-meaning hurts them. So to give you a simple example, I call you. You're not home. I leave a message for you. I say, "Call me back."
RM: And I don’t.
MY: And you don't call me back. Now, if I'm a depressed person, how do I interpret that?
RM: Probably like “I’m not worthy…”
MY: "I'm not worthy, you don't like me."
RM: Yes…
MY: "You don't think I'm important. What's wrong with me? How come nobody ever likes me?" It's facing an uncertain or ambiguous situation and projecting negative meanings into it. Analysis is filled with making negative interpretations, negative projections in the face of uncertainty. "What does this dream mean? What does this symbol mean? What does this image mean?" And so much of what happens in analysis is teaching a person to make interpretations that are the same as the analyst. That doesn't help the person learn how to think and use information more critically. And then the second thing that happens in analysis, when we look at coping styles there's a particular style of coping called rumination: spinning things around and analyzing them and analyzing them and analyzing them, at the expense of taking effective action. And when you look at the people who ruminate, they have higher levels of anxious symptoms, more severe depressive symptoms. Ruminating, analyzing, works against getting better. Action is what helps people get better. And when you look again at the therapies that have the highest treatment success rates, it's not a coincidence that every single one of them gives homework. Every single one of them gives tasks to do in between sessions. Every single one of them emphasizes teaching specific skills, whether it's relationship skills, thinking skills, behavioral skills—but the emphasis is on movement, not analysis. That's why people in the other domains call it the analysis paralysis: instead of encouraging people to take effective action, instead, they spend more time thinking and analyzing and miss opportunities to do things that would help themselves.

Nobody Wants to be Depressed

RM: It sounds refreshing and optimistic, but I’m just wondering, if patients are willing to change their behaviors, learn new skills right away, are they ready for it– especially, when we consider secondary benefits from depression.
MY: Who said there are secondary benefits? You said that. I didn't say that. I don't believe that.
RM: You don’t believe the idea of secondary benefits from depression is true?
MY: No.
RM: Why not?
MY: Everything you experience has consequences. Everything. Going to a conference for five days has consequences. It means you're away from your family. Does that mean you want to be away from your family? You make choices. But to suggest that the consequences drive the pattern to me is so offensive because it blames the depressed person. Depressed people don't want to be depressed. What makes it look like secondary gain or secondary benefit is when you see depressed people who don't lift a finger to help themselves, the easiest conclusion is they must not want to change. They must be getting benefits from being depressed. And that is a fundamental misunderstanding that I wish people would let go of already. Nobody wants to be depressed. But the basis of depression is helplessness, hopelessness. Most depressed people don't go for help not because they want to be depressed, but because they don't think help will make a difference. Why would I go see a therapist if I believe that it's never going to help me? That's why depression has so few people who seek treatment. Only about 20 to 25 percent of depression sufferers seek help because they don't believe it's going to make a difference.
RM: So it sounds like you don’t really believe in the unconscious?
MY: You're going off in an entirely different direction now. Of course there are unconscious processes.
RM: I am not blaming a person for being depressed, or saying that it is the choice a person makes; however, there are many benefits of being depressed I could think of…
MY: But by saying it that way, you're suggesting that there is a motivation to stay depressed.
RM: Unconscious ones…
MY: And I'm suggesting that is incorrect. It's damaging. It's unfair to the patient. And it delays getting effective treatment. It's not a useful concept. And again, when you look at the therapies that work, none of them explore that domain because it is theoretically interesting but it isn't really what the nature of depression is about. And it's one of the things that every analyst needs to do, is be able to distinguish between their interest in a particular theory versus what the client's actual experience is. Instead of fitting the patient to the theory, how about if we learn something about how this person generates depression? It's a very different question—how does this person generate depression, instead of why. As soon as you ask why, you're now inviting theorizing.
RM: That is true to some extent.
MY: And what I'm interested in is, "Here's how this person does this. How can I interrupt that sequence so that instead of going from here to here to here to depression, can I introduce some new possibilities that move them in a new direction?"
RM: I see.
MY: That's the problem with when people make theories and then they actually believe themselves.
RM: What you are telling us is that you’re very concentrated on the individual, rather than generalized theories.
MY: Every person's different. And that's the point–
you have to generate a new theory for each person, instead of fitting the person to some preexisting idea.
you have to generate a new theory for each person, instead of fitting the person to some preexisting idea. And that's the problem with any approach that adapts the person to the theory instead of the reverse. And that's the danger for any model. You know, I wouldn't want a cognitive therapist to only read cognitive literature. I wouldn't want a behavioral therapist to only read behavior literature.
RM: The more you know the better for the patient?
MY: Yeah, when I said there are so many factors that have been proven to contribute to depression, it means that each practitioner needs to know something about genetics, needs to know something about epigenetics, needs to know something about biochemistry, needs to know something about social depression and the cultural contributions to depression, needs to know something about cognition, needs to know something about diet and exercise. You know, exercise has a treatment success rate that matches antidepressant medications and has a lower relapse rate. Now, that without ever saying a word to somebody. Doesn't that complicate the picture a little bit when you ask, "Well, how does somebody get better exercising if they never deal with their unconscious and they never deal with their traumas?" That's an important question.
RM: Good point!
MY: And that's where you would hope the people reading this would be curious enough to ask, "What is it that cognitive therapists have learned that have made the treatment so successful without doing any of the things that the people who are loyal to analysis think you should do?" And then, of course, part of the model is to dismiss it as superficial. "Well, that's not really therapy if they're only seeing people for six sessions." Well, you can take that position. It's a very arrogant position to take to say that you know what the right way is, other people are doing it the wrong way, when the other people actually have the data to show that it works better and lasts longer and prevents more episodes than any other approach.

Diagnosing and Treating Depression

RM: How long does it actually take you to cure someone from depression?
MY: When you look at the literature, you look at the science of what the studies have shown us, they're usually around 12 to 16 sessions.
RM: And these sessions are structured?
MY: They're structured and they're educational. There's a lot of teaching—what's called psychoeducation—that goes into the process of teaching people how to think and how to use information, how to think clearly. And the same is true with interpersonal approaches. Interpersonal psychotherapy has a treatment success rate that is even slightly higher than cognitive-behavioral. And it teaches relationship skills, social skills. And when you think about the skills that go into good relationships, and we've known for half a century that people who are in good relationships have lower ratings of depression. Why? And what are those skills that go into good relationships? And what about now, when we're seeing depression on the rise and relationships on the decline? So it's such a complicated picture, but spending more time thinking of depression as only in the person, only in the person's unconscious, misses that there are big cultural differences. There are big differences within demographic groups within one culture. And when you look, then, at how do families increase or decrease vulnerability to depression; how do marriages increase or decrease vulnerability; why is the child of a depressed parent so much more likely to suffer depression than a child of a non-depressed parent now that we know that the main reason is not genetic?
RM: Could you give some hints for beginning therapists on how to recognize a depressed client? It is pretty easy with major depression, but how to recognize the signs of it in ongoing therapy with a client who is experiencing moderate depression or dysthymia? And the second question is about masked depression: do you believe it exists and, if so, how do you recognize it?
MY: It's so interesting how your questions all contain the analytic viewpoint.
RM: Really?
MY: Where it's really hard for you to get outside that long enough to even ask the questions differently. But let's take the first…
RM: I wasn’t aware of this. Maybe that was my unconscious…
MY: Well, "masked depression"—nobody uses that phrase anymore.
RM: I’m sure I’ve heard it many times in Europe, where I live and practice.
MY: I understand, I understand. Well, there are people in New York who would probably use the same language—New York being one of the main centers where analysis is still practiced in the United States.

The first question was, "How do you recognize depression?" Depression takes many different forms, so there are many different ways to answer this. If you look at the DSM IV, which is our diagnostic system, there are 227 different symptom combinations that could all yield a correct diagnosis of depression. So depression is a soft diagnosis. It's not an easy diagnosis to make because of all these different combinations.. The United States government has been pushing physicians for almost 10 years now to recognize depression more frequently. When I said earlier that only 20 to 25 percent of depression sufferers seek help from a mental health professional, more than 90 percent of them have seen a physician within the last year, presented the symptoms of depression, and many physicians miss it. So the government's been asking physicians to just ask two questions. One question is about mood; "Have you been feeling down, sad, blue, or depressed for the last month or more?" And the second question is about anhedonia, or the loss of pleasure; "Have you lost interest in the things that usually interest you, or have you stopped deriving pleasure from the things that normally give you pleasure?" Now, if somebody says yes to one or both of those questions, it doesn't automatically mean they're depressed, but it leads you to take a closer look.

Sleep disturbance is the single most common symptom of depression, and the most common form of insomnia is early morning awakening, what's called terminal insomnia because it interrupts the terminal phase of sleep. But there are other symptoms as well. People who are depressed are most often suffering a coexisting condition. Anxiety disorder is the most common coexisting condition, but there are others including substance abuse problems—alcohol especially—medical problems, and personality disorders. So that complicates the diagnosis. But when you're talking with somebody who is feeling hopeless and helpless—the two biggest characteristics of depression—it leads you to look more closely.

Now, the second question was about so-called "masked depression." And the reality is that moods fluctuate. Depressed people aren't in the same level of depression every hour of every day. Typically there fluctuations, times when they feel a little worse—early morning, for example—times when they feel a little better, times when today they're feeling optimistic, and tomorrow they feel rotten again. Today they can barely get out of bed; yesterday they had a good day. So what is a masked depression? The assumption is that the depression is being hidden by some other symptom or some other behavioral pattern. And a good diagnostician, someone who understands what depression looks like in all of its different forms, would simply say instead of "masked depression" that this person has a comorbid condition. They have another coexisting issue, whether it's an anxiety disorder or alcohol abuse or something like that.
RM: It’s obvious for me right now that you don’t deal with the matter of transference and countertransference, but let me ask you about the role of the relationship between you and the patient.
MY: There are over 400 different forms of psychotherapy, and every single one of them emphasizes the importance of the relationship. If you don't have the connection with the person, then how do you attain the level of influence that it takes to teach them new skills, to motivate them to follow homework assignments, to share your sense of optimism that their life can be different if they do some things different and learn some things differently and approach some things differently? So for me, and I think any therapist would say this, the relationship is critically important.

Learning from People’s Strengths

RM: Let’s move to the area of core techniques. You write about so many different techniques that are useful with working with depressed persons. I’m wondering what are your favorite techniques.
MY: Well, my favorite technique is the one that works.
RM: You’re not attached to techniques.
MY: For me, what defines the work that I do is I respond to these questions. First question: "What is the goal? What does this person want?" And secondly, "What are the resources they're going to need to do it? What specific skills will this person need in order to be able to do this?" You know, I think one of my unique contributions to the field has been in asking how people do things well. Studying how somebody becomes depressed, asking the question, "Why does somebody become depressed?" Okay, that's interesting….
RM: But it’s half-baked?
MY: Yes. What I'm really interested in is people who have faced adversity and didn't become depressed. Why didn't they become depressed ? What's different about the way they think about it? How do they cope differently? For somebody who had a difficult family life or had traumas as a child but didn't become depressed, why not? And you can do one of two things. If you are prone to pathologizing people, then you would say, "Oh, they're in denial and they have great defense mechanisms." And if you're more focused on the strengths of people the way I am, then you say, "Okay, how do I understand these strengths so that I can teach the same strengths to other people?"
I'm focused on what's right with people rather than what's wrong.
I'm focused on what's right with people rather than what's wrong.

So when I encounter somebody who's been through a terrible set of experiences and they're strong and they're motivated and they're positive and they're happy, I don't look at that as a defense. I look at that as health. I want to know how they did that so I can teach it to somebody else. So that's where the techniques that I've developed come from: studying people who cope well in the face of adversity, the people who manage intense stress well, who have lost people and then managed to love again instead of saying, "I'll never love again." The people who fall down and get back up again. And I think there's much, much, much more to learn from them than there is from analyzing people and talking everyday about how bad they feel and how crummy their childhood was. What a waste of time! It's like putting 10 people together in a group who all have airplane phobias. Now you have the blind leading the blind. You're not going to learn anything about how to get on an airplane comfortably by sitting in a room with nine other people who have the same fear you do.
RM: From your point of view the most they could do is just share similar experiences?
MY: There's so much that goes on in the name of therapy that's simply silly. So my focus is, "Okay, here's somebody who has a particular skill that helps them. This person could learn that skill and benefit from it." The techniques that I put in the books are about, "How have I found ways to teach somebody that skill?" Life is filled with uncertainties. The example that I used earlier: I call you, you didn't call me back–it's unclear why you didn't call me back. It is a skill to prevent myself from interpreting it negatively and saying, "He must not like me," because then I'll feel rejected and I'll feel hurt. But for all I know, you had an emergency, and simply forgot to call me back, or somebody else took the message off the answering machine and never gave it to you. But for me to interpret that it's evidence that you don't like me is a big jump, and one of the most important skills you can learn in life is to be able to recognize and tolerate uncertainty.
RM: Changing thinking and the way we make attributions will also affect our feelings or emotions?
MY: That's certainly a big part of it. Well, think about it. You apply for a job. You don't get the job. What does it mean? Well, if you're sensitive about your age, you'll say, "Well, it's because of my age." and if you're sensitive about your gender, you'll say, "Well, it's because of my gender." But you don't know that. You're never going to know that they hired the boss's nephew. You're never going to know that. So to form these explanations that hurt you is what depressed people do very, very well. So one of the skills is knowing when to analyze something and when not to. To be able to make a distinction, what question is answerable and what question can I ask that no amount of research is ever going to generate an answer to? When this woman is depressed because her two-year-old son died from leukemia, and she says, "Why did this happen?" Is there any answer you can give her that's going to make her feel okay?
RM: I guess not.
MY: What can you say? It's a tragedy. And the last thing that you want to do is say, "It happened because you had a drink when you were four months pregnant." We don't know that. Now, can she still find meaning in it that helps her? Can she say, "I want to start a support group for other mothers who have lost young children"? That would be a great thing to do. But it's different than asking, "Why did this happen to me?" It's a very different question than "What can I do about this that will enhance my life?"

Using Metaphors and Hypnosis in Therapy

RM: Let’s talk a while about metaphors.
MY: Okay.
RM: Do you like using metaphors? Do they just pop right into your head or is it hard work to make a metaphor?
MY: I wouldn't say it's hard work. The metaphors are all around us all the time. But let me back up a second. I like the use of metaphor, but not for everybody. And again, techniques don't have any value by themselves. What gives them value is the client. It's not the technique that works. It's the relationship between the technique and the person. No technique is worth anything if the relationship doesn't support it. There are people who will listen to the story and they'll be entertained by it; they'll find it interesting, but they won't learn anything from it.
There are some people who don't value deep thought; they're much more interested in who's going to win the big game this week.
There are some people who don't value deep thought; they're much more interested in who's going to win the big game this week. And then there are other people who listen to the story and they see a deeper meaning in it. What drives metaphor, what makes metaphor valuable, is when you have somebody who engages in what's called a search for relevance. They're willing to actively engage with the metaphor and ask themselves, "How does this apply to me? What can I learn from this? What can I learn from this other person's experience or from this situation?" But not everybody does that. There are some people that the metaphor goes in one ear and out the other, and they just don't think about it.

But the point about the use of metaphor—it has become so basic in the practice of hypnosis to be able to absorb people in a story and encourage multiple-level processing. The conscious understanding, and then stimulating the unconscious processes of the person to build new understandings, build new associations. I'm obviously a big fan of hypnosis. Many of my books are about hypnosis. And hypnosis is such an extraordinarily powerful context for teaching people things and helping people get focused on and absorbed in new ideas and new possibilities. And it helps to understand that hypnosis cures nothing. It's what happens during hypnosis that has the potential to be therapeutic—the new understandings the person develops, the new associations they form in their mind, the new perspectives that evolve for this person as they go through the hypnotic experience. So the hypnosis itself, where metaphor is most commonly used, simply provides a context in which this person can learn things in a much more concentrated way.
RM: You said during your lecture that the viewpoint that hypnosis cannot be used with psychotic patients is wrong…
MY: Somebody asked me that question. My answer was, "Of course it can."
RM: Yes. How so?
MY: There's a distinction that I make between formal hypnosis and informal hypnosis. Formal hypnosis, where you identify this procedure as hypnosis—"Now we're going to do hypnosis. Sit back, close your eyes, focus." But you don't need the announcement for hypnosis to occur. Every time you immerse someone in memory, you're doing age regression. Every time you say to somebody, "I want you to stay focused right here, right now, as you remember," you're doing dissociation. Every time that you focus someone on their feelings, you're focusing them. Every time that you offer interpretation, you're giving a suggestion. And the use of suggestion and how to use suggestion skillfully is what the study of hypnosis is about. But there's no form of treatment—especially analysis, which is a highly suggestive approach—where you're not using suggestions routinely. So the question is how much deliberate focus you create.

I worked in an acute care psychiatric hospital for three years, working with very psychotic patients, very chronic patients. Now with some of them, they could focus long enough, five minutes, ten minutes to actually, "Sit back, close your eyes, let's do an exercise here." And then there are others where it was just being very deliberate about getting their attention for a moment to say something in a way that would focus them and introduce another possibility. Now, that's not formal hypnosis, but it's using the same patterns, the same principles of hypnosis. And so that's what I was talking about.
RM: It seems like everyone can benefit from this form of treatment, this approach.
MY: Yes. What I'm really saying is, I don't know how to separate psychotherapy from hypnosis. They're so merged together because, you know, if you give me a transcript of one of your analytic sessions, I promise you I can highlight suggestion after suggestion and tell you what kind of response that suggestion was trying to create.
RM: So every psychotherapy is partly hypnosis.
MY: Involves suggestion, yes. And what hypnosis involves is the focused use of suggestion. For example, the most empirically supported application of hypnosis is in the realm of behavioral medicine, using hypnosis for pain management. Now, the idea that you can do hypnosis to create anesthesia with someone through language, and this person can now go into an operating room, have their body cut open, and have surgery—that's remarkable. But that's what I do, and that's what many people who practice hypnosis do. Here in the United States, I don't think there's a behavioral medicine program in the country that doesn't have people doing hypnosis, because it is so effective in helping people manage pain with reduced or no medication, to prepare people for surgery so they have better and faster recoveries, and fewer postsurgical complications.

And hypnosis now is such an obvious contributor to our understanding of the brain, and the relationship between brain and mind, because it's an obvious research question: "What changes in a brain when someone is able to go into hypnosis, generate an anesthesia, and have a surgery?" Using fMRI scanning techniques, PET scans, SPECT scans, the person has a scan, then they go through hypnosis and some procedure and then they have another scan, and you literally watch how their brain changes. We're learning about how brains change in psychotherapy or through suggestive procedures, whether it's cognitive therapy or some kind of hypnotic protocol. But the fact that hypnosis is now at the heart of the new neuroscience, this is how fields advance.

No form of therapy that I'm aware of doesn't include suggestion as a basic part of its procedures.
No form of therapy that I'm aware of doesn't include suggestion as a basic part of its procedures. Even the suggestion, "If you lie on the couch, you'll feel better. If you talk about your dreams, you'll feel better. If you feel your deep, innermost thoughts, you'll feel better." That's a suggestion. That "if you come here four times a week and talk about these things, you'll get better in a couple years"—that's a suggestion. And to say to somebody, "It'll take you a couple years to do this," is a very powerful suggestion. Because what you're now telling the person is, "You really shouldn't start to feel any better any sooner than that."
RM: That’s a strong statement.
MY: "And if you do start to feel better sooner than that, then that's a problem. That's a defense. That's a flight to health." It's an unusual way of framing it. But the point is, how is it that somebody can practice a form of therapy and not understand the role they play in how the therapy proceeds? That it's not just uncovering what's in the person. There are two people in the room; you're influencing this person whether you realize it or not. And the danger for me is when people are influencing someone and they don't realize it. It's like the big controversy we had here in the United States 15 years ago, about false memories.
RM: Oh, yes.
MY: You had therapists who didn't know that by digging for the memories, they could actually create them. They thought they were just uncovering memories. They didn't know that they were influencing what kind of memories came up and what the quality of those memories were. That's what's dangerous. That's when therapy goes badly–when people don't recognize they are a fundamental, unavoidable part of the process.
RM: It seems obvious that every therapy approach would benefit from learning something about hypnosis and suggestions…
MY: I certainly feel that way, yes.
RM: Can this approach be combined with any other therapeutic approaches?
MY: Well, it isn't a therapy, so the answer is yes. It is routinely incorporated by practitioners who use hypnosis in different ways. There is one form of hypnosis called hypnoanalysis, where therapists use hypnosis to enhance the processes of psychoanalysis. There are others who do cognitive-behavioral hypnotherapy, and they're doing hypnosis from a cognitive-behavioral framework. You name it and there are people who are doing it. So hypnosis isn't really a therapy.
RM: It isn’t an approach either.
MY: It's a tool. It's a way of organizing ideas, it's a way of delivering information, it's a way of creating a context where this person can listen to what you have to say and can talk about what they need to say. So how any one therapist would use the principles of hypnosis—that's going to be up to them. It's the equivalent of learning a language, and then each person expresses themselves in their own way. So some people will use hypnosis to give commands to someone: "You will do this, you will do this, you will do this." Personally, that's not my style, and I don't particularly care for that style. There are other people who simply introduce possibilities: "You might want to think about this."
RM: And this is your style.
MY: It's closer to my style.. The reason why I think people should study hypnosis is because hypnosis has studied the quality of communication between a therapist and client. It studies whether your approach should be more direct or more indirect, whether you should be more positive or more negative, whether you should give more detail or less detail, whether you should be more directive or less directive. It teaches you flexibility in how to adjust your style to the patient's need—"How does this person process information so that I can present information to them in a way that fits?"—as opposed to fitting the client to, "This is my theory, this is what I do. And if you don't benefit from it, it's because you're really sick."

Surprising Origins, Unexpected Discoveries

RM: All right. Let’s finish with the question that is usually asked at the beginning of an interview. What stirred your interest in depression, and how did your understanding and ways of treating patients evolve during that time?
MY: When I was studying and getting my degrees, it might interest you to know that I spent my first four years studying psychoanalysis and learning to speak that language fluently. I understand psychoanalysis. I've studied it at one of the finest academic institutions in the United States, the University of Michigan, which was at the time a very heavily psychoanalytic school.
RM: So it’s not like you’re rejecting some ideas that you’ve just heard about, but you’re rejecting ideas that you know profoundly well.
MY: I do definitely, profoundly. Some of the most distinguished analysts in the United States were my professors. But I was moved by the fact that depression was and still is the most common mood disorder in United States–indeed in the world. And there were no good treatments for it. A depressed person is never going to go into analysis anyway—they don't have the frustration tolerance, they don't have the ability to feel bad day after day after day for years waiting for the therapist to say something helpful—the problem doesn't fit the solution. Analysis isn't going to be valuable for most depressed people. They want an answer and they want it now. They want to feel better now. And it's part of the pattern of depression to want it now—it's called low frustration tolerance. Do we say, "Well, that's part of the problem and we shouldn't have to change what we do to fit their problem?" To me that is the opposite response I have, which is, "How do I help this person from within their own framework, instead of expecting them to somehow magically come to my framework?"

At that time, cognitive therapy was in its absolute infancy. It wasn't well developed yet. There were no good therapies, and there were no good drugs. And so to watch people suffer in depression, and to know that nobody's doing anything that really makes a difference, for me it was a challenge. "Can I make a contribution here? Here's the most common problem, and I want to be able to do something about it."
RM: You wanted to have some influence. You wanted to be able to help these people.
MY: I wanted to be able to help. I wanted to be a true clinician and help as many people as quickly as possible. And so the idea of developing short-term interventions was obvious in importance. It's how people use therapy. It's interesting that when you look at the studies of people in therapy, the average number of sessions is between six and seven. The most common number of sessions is one. Can you really do therapy in one session? You saw a video of my work, with 10-year follow-up.
RM: Yeah, it was pretty amazing.
MY: So what does that do to the psychoanalytic viewpoint? It challenges it. And that's the point–you can either dismiss it, or you can say, "There's something here worth studying," depending on how open and how flexible you are. If you're rigid, you pathologize it. If you're open, you say, "There's something there worth studying." And so I was very interested in studying people who have recovered from depression, and asking "What made the difference? What helped you overcome all the helplessness and hopelessness and all of that? What changed for you? How did you cope? How did you learn? How did you relate? How did you, how did you, how did you?" What I realized very quickly when I got into clinical practice was that
everything that I had been studying for the last four years was irrelevant in the real world.
everything that I had been studying for the last four years was irrelevant in the real world.
RM: I think you had a lot of courage to make such a statement.
MY: To me it didn't seem like courage. It just seemed like common sense, that one of two things is going to happen: I'm either going to build my own little world and try to bring people to it, or I'm going to go out into the world and talk to people in terms of the way they think and the way they do things. So to me it didn't seem like courage—it seemed like common sense. And it took me years to unlearn everything I learned.
RM: Everything? Or is there anything left?
MY: If you ask me today, is there one thing that I learned then that I still use? I can't think of a single thing. It took me a long time to unlearn that because I had been intensely trained to continually look for symbolism, to continually look for deeper meaning, to continually speculate about unconscious needs and wishes. And those were all things that got in my way of actually helping desperate people who needed help now.
RM: Thank you very much for this very inspiring conversation. I hope our readers will enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed talking with you.
MY: Well, predictably, readers are going to react in one of two ways. They're either going to get angry and conclude I don't know what I'm talking about, or hopefully they'll say, "Maybe now would be a good time to start to explore what other people have to say about dealing with these same problems," because then the question becomes "What is the most effective way to treat depression?" And there's no single answer for that.

But it's certainly interesting that, of the many different therapies that have good treatment success rate, it's interesting that none of them analyze childhood. None of them focus on symbolic meanings of things. All of them teach skills. All of them have an orientation towards the future that help the client come to understand how the future can be different in very specific ways. So instead of saying that the goal is insight, saying that the goal is change–that poses a direct challenge. And typically when people are challenged, they either get angry or they get open. I'm hoping at least some of the readers will get curious enough to see what else is going on that might inspire them to change some of what they do in ways that they feel good about.
RM: Any concluding remarks that you want to share with the therapists who might read this interview?
MY: You know, I am a clinician. I am treating the same kinds of patients, maybe even more severe patients than the average clinician treats. And I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for people who make psychotherapy their profession. It's almost as if it's a calling. You want to do something to reduce human suffering, and you are forced to make decisions about how you're going to practice and what the goals of practice are. Is the goal to be loyal to a theory, or is the goal to make a difference? Is the goal to continually filter things in life through your preexisting beliefs, or is the goal to be open and curious about what other people are doing to see if what they're doing works better? And for me, everything that I've learned has come from studying people who do things well, recognizing that they have abilities and strengths—even the people I treat who are severely depressed. Okay, they're depressed; it doesn't mean they're stupid. They have great wisdom, they have a great many skills, and we can learn from those. And especially from the people who handle things well, what can we learn from them? So if somebody recovers well from a loss, instead of saying they're in denial, why aren't we studying how they did that? When somebody bounces back from an adversity, why are we saying that's a defense mechanism instead of an asset? I firmly believe that what you notice and what you focus on, you amplify. And if you focus on pathology, you'll find it. And if you focus on strengths, you'll find them. So I would simply encourage therapists to look for what's right. I think they'll be better clinicians for it.
RM: You’ve raised some mind-opening questions at the end of our conversation. Thank you very much. It was a huge pleasure.
MY: Thank you. It was my pleasure.