Imagine You Are a Smart Phone

Think of yourself as a smartphone—i-Phone, Android, doesn’t matter which. Push that thought to
its limit and see where it takes you. It might alter the way you experience the feeling of being
alive. And it might open up new paths in therapy.

Properly speaking, a smartphone is not strictly a phone. Rather, it is a device containing numerous
apps, a tool with multi-variant potentiality. Tap on the Facebook icon and the device becomes a
social-media tool; tap on the Gmail icon and it serves as an email-exchange tool; tap on Google
and it’s a search engine; tap on the phone icon and only then does it become what its name
suggests—a phone.

Consider now the human organism—you as a biological being, you in your pre-conscious state,
you before you think your thoughts about who you are, you before you occupy a role. You are in
that pre-somebody state, a bundle of potentiality, a device with uploaded apps. Tap on your
“therapist icon” and you inhabit the role of therapist. You become a certain kind of person, one
who engages with others and the world in a certain confined way. You operate in therapist-mode.
You take on an identity in the same way that a smartphone takes on an identity when an icon is
activated. Tap on your “spouse icon,” your “parent icon,” your “let’s-go-drinking icon” and you
inhabit the role of . . . . well, you get the point. You, the human organism, like the device we call
“a smartphone,” has no unitary identity.

To put it in grandiose terms, the Self is an illusion. There exist only ephemeral, highly contingent
selves within the human organism. Your identity is a function of whatever “app” has been
activated. Indeed, even your reductionist thoughts about yourself—I am this or that—is itself a
function of a certain app icon that has been activated. The implications of this are far-reaching
and profound.

A person highly prone to anger, you might say, is a human organism with a very large “anger-app
icon” on the home page, easily and frequently activated. One who is rarely aroused to anger has a
“small anger-app icon”—all human beings come equipped with an “anger app”—that is situated
far from the home page. You could say that your identifiable personality features—your
somebody-ness—are the readily accessible app icons on your home page.

Here’s the upshot for you to consider, so far as therapy is concerned. In many ways, therapy is an
enterprise of reconfiguring the app icons on a home page. Certain large icons on a home page
may not be the kind of apps a person wants to be easily activated (anger app, jealousy app,
addiction app, etc.). Therapy facilitates the shrinkage of those icons and the removal of them from
the home page. Therapy can also facilitate the placement of sought-after icons onto the home
page. This form of therapy engages with a client as a person without a unifying essence.

Therapy becomes an exploration of apps occupying space on a person’s homepage and a discovery of
long-neglected, even forgotten, apps lying dormant several swipes away from that home page.
Therapy under this paradigm diminishes the impulse to diagnose. To tag a person with a
diagnosis—say, as bipolar or borderline—is to risk engaging with that person as having a
unifying, definable identity. It is akin to treating a smartphone as strictly a phone, or a social-
media tool or an email-retrieval tool or so on.

Are there therapy paradigms that suit this I-am-a-smartphone mindset? In my next two blog posts,
I will investigate two paradigms as possible instantiations of this mindset: Internal Family
Systems and Buddhist-inspired therapies (e.g., mindfulness-based therapies).

Why Therapists Choose Online Therapy for Themselves

More and more fellow therapists contact me to seek online therapy (through video-conferencing) for themselves. They come from various places – rural areas or large cities, and from different continents.

What are the reasons explaining this choice?

In a survey that I ran this year with online therapy users about their rationale for choosing this setting, several practitioners happened to be among the responders. One of the reasons they named was that they already knew socially all the good local therapists. This is particularly true for smaller towns and rural areas, but it also often becomes the case after a few years of practice in larger cities.

Another reason is the broadened choice of practitioners. Therapists make sophisticated clients: they usually know what they are looking for, and want a particular approach that may not be available locally. With online therapy, the options are almost endless.

For trainees, having access to a long list of online therapists makes things more affordable, especially for those training in places like New York, California, or London, where the rates of therapists are higher.

Additionally, more and more therapists move frequently to another state, city, or even country. Mobility naturally brings people to online therapy, because when they move they don’t necessarily want to discontinue treatment and start over with a new therapist

My own experience actually combined both – mobility and training needs. When I reached out to an online therapist I was in training, with personal therapy hours to accumulate for my professional accreditation. Simultaneously, I was facing an international move, and it was causing me a great deal of emotional turmoil. It was not my first expatriation, but this time it was hitting me hard – I was feeling uprooted against my will, immensely angry at the circumstances and literally sick with anxiety. I was relocating to a country where I did not speak the language well enough to reach out to a local therapist. A therapist online, with face-to-face sessions via videoconferencing, seemed like a reasonably good option. It turned out to be a bold choice that worked for me.

Beyond these practicalities there is a subtler psychological reason: the feeling of shame.

Marie Adams discusses therapists’ mental health in The Myth Of The Untroubled Therapist: there is a tacit expectation for us, as therapists, to be “all sorted.” But ironically enough, we are not immune to the shame associated with mental health struggles.

Reaching out to a therapist who comes from a different cultural background and lives thousands of miles away can help us overcome the “shame barrier.” Many of my clients acknowledge that online therapy allowed them to jump into it, overcoming the very natural feeling of shame associated with the exposure that any therapy requires.

Among my online clients, therapists make a very inspiring bunch. Negotiating this particular type of peer therapeutic relationship presents its own fascinating challenges. The enhanced face-to-face experience offered by the screen enables intimacy for therapists who often find it uncomfortable to be in the client’s chair or, in this case, on the other side of the screen.

The online option may also foster cross-cultural exchanges beyond borders: there is no better way of satisfying our curiosity about how colleagues work in a different culture. I remember my own excitement as I first reached out to a therapist across the Atlantic.

As with everything new, the very idea of a therapy that is not in one single room but rather through video-conferencing can be associated with some risk-taking. I hear cautious or even suspicious remarks, mainly from therapists who have not yet tried this new way of making therapy happen. This being said, are we not expecting our clients to take risks daily, venturing into new territories? Therapy, by its very nature, is about risk taking, and as our world changes we have to adapt, and possibly take on the role of explorers ourselves. 

How To Help Your Clients Undo What They Haven’t Yet Done

Once, a man who was recently released from prison told his counselor how enraged he was that he just had his wallet stolen from him. This man was visibly angry as he described having $450 dollars in that stolen wallet; and to make things worse, he had a strong suspicion who stole it. He told the counselor that he was going to seek out the thief, get his money back, and kill him. The counselor did not flinch, judge, or panic when the man told him he would seek out and kill the thief. Instead, he asked the former prisoner how long he’d been incarcerated. “I was down for 8 years, and I just got out,” the man replied.

The counselor asked, “Did you like your time in prison?”

“What?” replied the man angrily.

"Did you like spending time in prison?" the counselor repeated in honestly inquisitive voice.

The man then stared angrily and directly into the counselor's eyes and asked, “Did you ever spend time in prison?”

“No,” said the counselor.

“I didn’t think so,” said the man angrily, and he looked away shaking his head in disgust.

The counselor prodded further, again, genuinely inquisitively, “Let me ask you: In all that time in prison, were there ever moments when you wanted to get out?”

The former inmate seemed to get even angrier at this question, “What’s wrong with you?” he asked. “Of course I wanted to get out! I wanted to get out every single day!”

Unfazed by this man’s anger, the counselor asked, “How badly did you want to get out?”

The man, now visibly more agitated and enraged, stared down the counselor intensely and said, “I wanted to get out every second of every day!”

And the counselor asked, “What would you have done to get out?”

And the man, still staring through the counselor, replied sharply, “Anything.”

“Anything?” asked the counselor, matching the man’s eye contact and in a firm voice of his own.

“I would have done anything!” said the former inmate, stepping aggressively toward the counselor.

The counselor looked piercingly but compassionately back into the eyes of the angry man without flinching and finally asked, “Would you have paid $450?”

The man stopped. He got it. He understood. The counselor's words moved through him. He realized that if he would have killed the man who stole his $450, he would have ended up in prison (this time probably for life), and while he was in prison, he would have “done anything to get out,” certainly including paying $450 – and his anger left. He thanked the counselor and walked away.

Now, this is a true story, and the client was mine, and because it’s a true story, you probably want to know the rest of what happened, so I’ll tell you. The man, the former inmate, he was calm enough after talking to me that he went home and went to sleep instead of seeking out the man he believed to be the thief who stole his money. In the morning when he awoke, he said a thankful prayer that he didn’t go after that man and end up in prison. In fact, he even imagined that he paid the amount that was stolen from him and was now free. He felt so good knowing that he resisted acting on impulse for the first time in such a long time, that he decided to make another good decision and clean his room as soon as he got out of bed. To his grateful surprise, not long into his picking up the pile of clothes off the floor of his room, he found his wallet – and the $450.

The question you can ask your clients is this: How much would you pay to undo impulsive decisions you've not yet made? Would you be willing to pay the price of self-control? In the safety of your counseling office, it's often helpful to play out your clients' most impulsive thoughts without the slightest bit of judgment. The more you can play out future scenarios, impulsive decisions, realistic consequences, and what your clients would be willing to do to go back and "undo" something that they haven't even technically done yet, the more you can expand their consciousness and move them from the impulsive, emotional center of their brain to the higher-level thinking center that will help them make more effective decisions.

It's never too late to undo what hasn't yet been done.  

Countertransference in the Rearview Mirror May Be Closer Than it Appears

My wife and I had reason to be on the “other side” of town last week, that part of the city where I lived my previous life with my previous wife. While my wife listened patiently to a story I had surely recounted many times, I do believe I caught the slightest hint of glaze slowly creeping its way over her eyes.

As we drove by an otherwise innocuous restaurant, I slowed down and replayed a scene in my mind’s eye that unfolded dramatically and indelibly over 30 years before in that very same spot. I wasn’t simply a novice therapist at the time, green around the gills, but one who was quickly and easily stymied into therapeutic paralysis during family sessions, particularly those that were contentious and loud, too closely paralleling the not-so-just-below-the-surface drama that pervaded my childhood.

The particular family I was working with at the time consisted of a mother, stepfather, father, stepmother and two children from the original marriage.The mother and father had divorced several years before they got to me, and if they had attempted therapeutic intervention at the time, it was surely not evident and the wounds from that original bond had not even remotely begun to heal.

I often felt sad, powerless and wordless in those sessions, which my supervisor suggested I expand to include all members of the family. Had I been more experienced, I could have more adeptly navigated that brutal emotional terrain. And had my supervisor even the slightest sense of how to move beyond simple structural realignment of parental hierarchies, I could have more effectively guided these desperate people in their re-integrative work. And perhaps, had I been more forthcoming with my supervisor about the immense internal struggle I experienced with that family and how it triggered my own childhood insecurities and rage, I may have been more effective in helping them move forward in their lives. And maybe, just maybe, a traumatic and traumatizing event would have been avoided.

The long and painful short of the story is that I received a call from the father from his hospital bed and listened in horror as he told me how he had been shot that morning by the stepfather… in front of the children.

***

Flash forward to the present and that very same restaurant parking lot in which I now sat with my wife, once again retelling the story of how years before, on that side of town, in that very spot, the drama of what would eventuate in my own divorce played out.

I had just discovered that my first wife was having an affair with the law partner of my best friend. Drugs were involved, as were all-night binges, secrets, lies and betrayal; you know, the usual. I had followed my wife one night to that very parking lot and soon found myself in a made for-television imbroglio, fitting for the reality show “Cheaters.” At the height of that blazing row, a car pulled up, the drive slowly rolled down his window, and said “how you doing Dr. Rubin… need any help with your marriage?” It was, you guessed it, the father from the warring family who had been shot the week before by his connubial replacement.

The rock singer, Meatloaf has a song “Objects in the Rearview Mirror May Appear Closer Than They Are” in which he recounts painful memories of childhood abuse, stinging him still and dragging him back. In that moment in the parking lot I was transported back to the state of emotional pain and therapeutic impotence that working with that family had triggered in me at the time. And that feeling lingers still, although not as painfully and poignantly, thanks to subsequent (good) supervision, personal psychotherapy and the wisdom to know and feel the difference between past and present when working with couples and families, particularly when countertransference comes a knocking. 

The Not-So-Great Gatsby: An Illustrative Look at the Use of Literature in a Therapy Session

 The intake form says “the fifteen-year old Caucasian female ingested 100+ Tylenol tablets,” an apparent suicide attempt. The referral for outpatient family therapy was from MacLean Hospital, a premiere mental-health facility in the Boston area. ” The intake form says nothing about the circumstances of this suicidal gesture, no storyline specifying cause and effect”, no reference to “triggers” or family dysfunctions, really nothing at all useful. And so it most certainly says nothing to warn me that when Dana Cantrell smiles a certain smile, a smile dripping with supercilious insincerity, it stings. Even with her perfect teeth.

I have the intake form in one hand when I step across the threshold, the other hand holding the door open, and call out her name. She doesn’t bother to look up. I know it is her on the sofa, as she is the only adolescent in the waiting room. And I know she heard me. I decide to watch her silently, marveling at how hypnotic a cell phone can be. An elderly man sitting at the other end of the couch notices me looking and smiles. “Young lady,” he says to Dana, “you’re being summoned.”

She looks up at the man but doesn’t acknowledge him. She grips the cell phone like it is a sword handle before pushing herself off the chair. She walks towards me, head bent forward, airy, bouncy hair, like a patch of glowing wheat yielding to a gentle wind, covering her face. She jets through the doorway without a word and strides down the hallway as if she knows where she is going and then abruptly twists her head around and says, “So, you going to tell me what room?”

“How you doing?” I ask, soon after I situate myself in a chair, a few feet from Dana, who is on the couch. She is wearing an immaculate white fleece pullover sweater and lavender sweatpants. Her thighs are hiked up against her chest and her chin rests on her knees.

“Fine.” Her response is sharp, like a thrown dart. “My mom will be up in a minute.”

She is studying her phone. I let her be. Her mother enters, dressed in business attire, bluish-black pinstripe, and wearing tan sneakers, stylish Vans, the kind my daughter loves. She sits in a chair to the left of mine, leaving Dana alone on the couch. She sits primly, like a Downton Abbey character, with both feet planted and her hands clasped and resting on her thighs. She is trim, attractive, with deep blue eyes and boyish short hair parted on the side.

The three of us fumble through the usual therapy dance. Typically, I ask questions to elicit the client’s point of view about why we’re here together and the client explains how life hurts. Sometimes a client will even say why it hurts. But Dana stonewalls. She mumbles something.

“What did you say, sweetie?” Mom asks.

“I’m saying this, this whatever you call it, therapy, this therapy isn’t important.” She lifts herself from a slouch and spreads out her hands, palms down, and waves them, a kind of magician-like maneuver, the kind that serves as a prelude to astonishing the audience by making something either appear or disappear.

“My understanding is that you tried to kill yourself,” I say.

“Who cares.”

“You mean, no one cares?”

“No, I don’t mean that. I mean it isn’t important.”

“Trying to kill yourself isn’t something important to discuss?” I say.

“Not anymore.”

“Not anymore because, what?”

“Because it just isn’t,” she says. “It’s wasting my time. I’ve got homework. I’m busy. I already told you, I’m fine.”

“She’s been hospitalized, I guess you know that,” Mom says. “She took some Tylenol.” She reaches for the tissue box on the table in front of her.

“Get over it, Mom,” Dana says.

“I don’t know why in the world she’d do that,” Mom says. “Really, I don’t.”

I believe that to be the truth.

A Session at Dana’s Dad’s House

I notice The Great Gatsby on a table next to the front door of her father’s house, a small Cape-Cod style structure near an ocean bay, an apparent haven for seagulls. Dana’s parents had undergone a bitter divorce—an experience familiar to me—and it would have been folly to bring them both into a session together. But I wanted to round out the family picture so I arranged to meet with Dana at her father’s home, where she spends about a third of her time.

Her father, a mildly affable man with a reddish, leathery face, thinning brown hair, and solid build, ushers me in and asks if I’d like something to drink. He’s wearing pale-blue wrinkled shorts that go down to the knee caps and a faded light-purple t-shirt that says “Life is Good”. I see Dana lying on the couch, one bare leg hiked up so the ankle is hooked onto the couch back. She’s studying her phone. She doesn’t acknowledge my entry into the home. I signal to her father to go into the kitchen. I pick up the book without a clear idea why and follow him. He pours me iced tea.

“Thanks for letting me meet the two of you here,” I say.

Her father resumes slicing zucchini and some leafy green vegetable. “Well, I’m glad you could come,” he says. Then he says, “I’m sorry.”

“About what?”

He slices and without looking up he says, “It’s just that I forgot about the session. I had the impression it was tomorrow. I spent the day working on my boat.” He stops slicing and retrieves something from the refrigerator, a vegetable I don’t recognize. “So I’m quite disheveled, as you can see. You caught me in the middle of preparing dinner.”

“Probably should have texted or called, I guess.”

“Not at all. My bad.” He chuckles. “Jesus, did I just say that? I’m sounding like my son. But seriously—glad you’re here.”

“Is she?” I say.

He looks up, as if he could see Dana through the wall. “Dana? What kid enjoys therapy?”

He’s right. Therapy is for people who find themselves sufficiently unsatisfied with how it feels to be alive that they’ll bracket time to seek out a stranger to talk to. Not many teens find that appealing.

“How is she managing?” I say.

“Should I be worried that I’m not worried?”

“Depends on your level of attentiveness, I suppose.”

“Meaning?” he asks.

“I mean, if you’re not worried but you haven’t been paying attention to what’s happening with Dana, then maybe you should be worried that you’re not worried.”

“I’m observing. I’m asking questions. So I don’t think that’s an issue. The kid’s doing great, from the looks of it.”

“That’s good,” I say. “We want our kids to do great.”

“Yeah, but I thought she was doing great a few months ago. And look what happened."

True to form, Dana is still outstretched on the couch looking at her phone. She’s wearing gym shorts and what is clearly her Dad’s shirt, a light blue sweatshirt with “Martha’s Vineyard” written on it. It makes her head look small, her features more childlike. I place The Great Gatsby on the glass coffee table and retrieve a dining-room chair. This time, unlike at our previous session, I position it some distance away. I intend for there to be a chasm between us. I intend for the communication today to require vocal effort. She pretends to ignore me; she seems determined to stare at her phone. I reach for the book and examine the cover, making a show of it, hoping to get a reaction from her; it is a promotional issue, with “Now a Major Motion Picture” written across the top and Leonardo DiCaprio looking directly at the reader. Serendipity, I think to myself, has delivered this book, at this moment, with this girl outstretched on a couch, throw-blanket covering one leg, the other bare leg still stretched upward at a forty-five degree angle, this girl pretending she’s on the other end of the planet.

” I often use movies and literature as a gateway into therapeutic matters, and sometimes the results are profound” (results hinging on the client’s capacity and willingness to go deep), so I rarely bypass an opportunity that presents itself. But I never know how things will go.I don’t wait for eye contact. I ask Dana if she’s already read the book. She nods, still absorbed in her phone. “And?” I ask. She tells me it was boring, pointless, and the movie version “sucked.” She still hasn’t looked at me. I’m undaunted by her negative review and ask her what she thinks of Gatsby himself. She says he was rich, filthy rich. “And?” I ask again. She mumbles something about the fact that he still couldn’t get what he wanted.

“Meaning Daisy?” I say.

Finally, she looks my way. “Obviously.”

I tell her it isn’t so obvious. “Daisy might be a stand-in for something else.”

“Like what?” she asks. I’m surprised. I detect a tone of genuine sincerity.

“That’s what I’d like to know. Something more vital than Daisy—maybe that’s what he’s after.”

“He was rich,” she repeats.

“So?” I say.

“What else does he need? Makes no sense, that book. He died because he couldn’t get what he wanted. Makes no sense.”

“How so?” I ask.

“What do you mean, how so?”

“I mean, how did that happen, you know, Gatsby dying because he couldn’t get what he wanted. I mean, I know the plot really well, so I’m not asking about that. I was wondering about your view of how the two things—death and wanting-and-not-getting—are connected.”

“I don’t know,” she answers swiftly. “Who cares anyway? I thought this was therapy, not a literature class.”

I tell her that I like talking about books, that great novels are the best way to understand human psychology, definitely better than psychology textbooks. She is unmoved.

“Why was Gatsby so persistent? Why did he obsess over winning Daisy back?”

“Boys are like that,” Dana says.

“But he’s filthy rich, like you say. He’s handsome.”

Dana mulls that over and mutters that guys get obsessed over girls and the whole thing is stupid. “Guys are stupid.”

“But I’m wondering what you think about this: Do you think something was missing in Gatsby’s life? Did he think Daisy could fulfill him in some way?”

“Look, Gatsby’s a rich guy. Rich guys are used to getting what they want. End of story.”

“No, Dana. Not the end of the story. Not by a long shot.”

“Yeah. End of story.”

Dana’s Marvelous Plan

Dana likes to say she’s “back on track.” I had asked her what that means and she looked at me in astonishment. Then she said, “Well, you do this for a living, so I suppose you wouldn’t understand.” She presumes to know me, so she thinks I don’t get it.

Her Marvelous Plan—I understand it well: Ivy League college as a segue to a fancy grad school, medical research, professional recognition, big money, big home, big trips to exotic places with lodging in big fancy hotels. Life lived on a big canvas with a reliable, high-achieving husband with unbounded aspirations and gorgeous, high-vocabulary children inheriting more of the same unbounded aspirations. The world always bending to your will. The world, this life, under your control.

If only she knew of the poster on my dorm-room wall, the one with big italicized print, saying “Living Well is the Best Revenge.” The picture on which this line was superimposed put a particular materialistic gloss on the notion of “living well.” A vivid photograph of a juiced-up, vibrantly-colored sports car, with a scantily clad blonde woman contorting her sculpted body over the hood, as if to say, “I’m your reward.” “Success” as a kind of retaliation. You’ll get what’s coming to you—thrills, pleasure—if you just bear down with grim determination. The poster was a kind of beckoning—get to that point in my life where I can say, ”I prevailed, I fucking prevailed.”

“What about the Tylenol?” I had asked her.

I’m thinking: “What about your Marvelous Plan?”

“What about it?”

“What led up to it?”

“Who cares? Typical shit—ooh, sorry. I’m not supposed to curse, am I?”

“What sort of shit?”

“Typical shit,” she said. “You know, my BFF broke up with her boyfriend and he starts hitting on me and . . . . Why am I telling you this? Who cares, come on, really—who cares?”

“Typical teenage shit, you got this future all planned out, because you’re going to be Ms. Hotshot someday, and you down a hundred Tylenol pills.”

“While my mom was watching Netflix in her room. Yup.”

Lessons from Literature

I know what I’d like to do, in terms of where to take the discussion, but I don’t know how. I want to discuss the relationship between life and the way we experience this ineffable thing, this illusion we call the self.

“There are things we can say about who Gatsby is on the inside by looking at the externals of his life. Do you agree with that?”

“He’s a rich guy,” Dana says. “I guess that means he’s driven. Motivated.”

“And that’s a good thing, as you see it.”

“I’m not into losers,” she says.

Her phone dings. A text alert. She pulls it out from the couch cushion, taps out a response.” She looks at me. “Sorry.”

“Back to Gatsby,” I say.

“Seriously?” she says. She leans her head back, exposing her white throat. “Dad!” she yells out. “I thought this was supposed to be therapy!” Dad steps into the doorframe of the kitchen and tells her to focus.

I wonder if he’s going to join us. “I’m curious, Dana. Actually I’m a little confused.”

“About what?” she says.

“You say Gatsby’s rich—and he does have a lot of money . . . .”

“Which makes him rich, so don’t play games with me, okay?”

“No doubt. He’s rich, and that makes him a winner.”

“Right,” she says.

“So it’s easy to tell the difference between winners and losers?”

“Not always,” she says. “He dies at the end, right? So that complicates things.”

“Are you saying he’s a loser because he allowed himself to be destroyed by his demons?”

“A person could be both. I’m right, right?”

“You tell me,” I say.

“He got caught up in bullshit. Drama, as you like to say.”

“Yeah, definitely drama. But at least at the outset, Gatsby’s outer situation—his wealthy lifestyle—reflected who he was on the inside. You believe that.”

Dana becomes more tentative, warier, if not defensive. And yet, most importantly, I sense from her wrinkled brow she is intrigued by the colloquy. “I guess so,” she says. “Being rich does say something positive about you. Come on. I’m right, right?”

“But that’s incomplete, isn’t it? I mean, that’s the point when it comes to Jay Gatsby, right? That’s why you can’t tag him definitively as a winner or a loser.”

“What I remember is that he lies about his past. He’s ashamed of it. I’m right, right?” I nod to validate her memory. “So he’s living a lie. People in my class talked about how he was living a lie.”

“You mean he’s lost his grip on reality? He lives in an illusion?”

Dana thinks for a minute. “I’d say he had false hopes. Are false hopes illusions?”

I tell her they are. I don’t tell her that maybe the whole enterprise of hoping rests on illusions. Maybe, as Buddhist teacher Pema Chodron says, “we’re addicted to hope.” I take her to mean that, in this culture, we have lost the ability to find contentment in the present, and thus we have become dependent on, grasp at, some hoped-for future outcome to fulfill us.

Dana says, “Then that’s what did him in.”

“I agree. Illusions end up leading to harm.” As does grasping, clinging, the relentless pursuit of something “better” within one’s advantage-seeking scheme. I’m hoping she will say something about Gatsby’s pursuit of riches as a stratagem to get what he thinks he really wants, which is Daisy’s love, but that his actual quest is for something beyond Daisy. ” I’m hoping that I can use that literary analysis as leverage to get Dana to consider what her achievement-oriented mindset is really about.”

The simplest lesson to draw from The Great Gatsby—simplest in terms of most obvious, as it superficially relates to Dana’s psychological profile—is Gatsby’s foolish mental model that things of value in this life can be purchased. If I was inclined to moralize with Dana, I might well push the point that American consumerism corrodes the soul, breeds psychological dysfunction, and generates emotional discontent. But I’m interested in something a bit more recondite. Fundamentally, Gatsby feels inadequate and his pursuit of extraordinary wealth is a palliative for, as well as a defense against, that feeling. I suspect something like that is true for Dana. The fact that Dana is like the vast majority of Americans, equating purchasing power with value, commodifying all of life, is no doubt important to address, if she is to achieve meaningful growth.

“So then you think he’s a loser in the end,” Dana says.

“Do we have to lump people into categories like that?”

“Why not? Makes things easier.” She lowers her raised leg, slides it under the throw-blanket. She scoots down the couch slightly so as to be in a fully reclining position. She’s indicating that she’s losing interest.

“Are you open to the possibility, Dana, that often it isn’t helpful to lump and divide people and experiences into simple categories because it often gets in our way of seeing things clearly.”
Dana shrugs. She pulls out her phone from the couch cushion, peeks at it, and puts it on her stomach. “Are we done yet?” she asks.

I ignore the question. I had her plugged in for a while, but no longer. If I keep going, which I so much want to do, I fear I will be satisfying my needs and not attending to hers. Which is why, when she pulls out her phone, I say nothing. I rise, as if in defeat, and walk over to a side window, long and narrow, to see if I can see the bay. A fence blocks the view. I stand by the window, nonetheless. I look over my shoulder and see that the phone has thoroughly arrested Dana’s attention. I’m not so much seeing Dana with a phone in her hand as I’m perceiving what life has turned into. It’s a sad sight. Very sad.

I return to the chair, heavy-hearted, near tears, thinking I’ll give the session one more push. “I’m wondering,” I plead to Dana, “if we can forget about evaluating Gatsby and just explore whether his struggles might speak to your struggles.” I can’t rid myself of the feeling that I need this girl to talk to me. As if I see the sorrow up ahead for her and I’m the only one to warn her.
She lowers the phone and glares at me, as if I’ve just insulted her. “I don’t have struggles,” she declaims in a low register. She lifts the device to her face once again, obliterating me from her world. “Not anymore. Things are fine now.”

Reflections on Literature in Therapy

Gratifying therapy, as I experience it, is like reading high-brow modernist literature, books by writers like Joyce, Faulkner, Woolf, books that demand the reader’s collaboration, books where the first read is only preparation for the second read, which allows for you to then read the book for the first time. Things unseen, hidden within ambiguities that once seemed so transparent, become visible, sometimes even shocking, with that third-first read. As with therapist and client, the reader must work collaboratively with the writer to construct a version of truth, in contrast to the run-of-the-mill novelist who spoon-feeds plot to the passive entertainment-seeking reader. The former experience, the more arduous one, is truer to life because life itself does not deliver us experiences with ready-made interpretations; our life experiences come to us in fragments, their connections to other fragments opaque, hidden, ambiguous. ” Our lives, and especially our falls and failings, our sorrows and frustrations, are like literary texts, awaiting second- and third-read interpretations.” Much therapy and counseling, however, is of the latter variety, all plot and quick judgments. With the most gratifying therapy experiences, the first swipe through the “presenting problem” is only preparatory for the second swipe. And then finally, deep into the process, the client and I can finally look at the whole life-drama as if for the first time, a thick and rich drama that resists synopsis and boiled-down diagnoses, a drama that, absurdly, was once distilled as a “presenting problem” in insurance paperwork.

It’s in that spirit that I use quality literature and film in a therapy session. It’s a device for collaborating with the client to “read” their own life-story multiple times, with each read penetrating deeper into the “text,” because one’s life experiences are exactly that—texts to be read. It’s a high-wire act because, as can be seen in my experience with Dana, you just don’t know if the whole thing is going to go kaput. I guess I’m saying it takes a bit of moxie to do it. Easier, for sure, to stick to a CBT script. But the chances of professional burnout diminish, because sometimes magic can happen, because this kind of therapy can be fun, adventurous. I intentionally provided this vignette, where nothing momentous happened, where the effort to engage with Dana was met with resistance, to provide something realistic. I dislike the usual emphasis on heroic success stories that make the rest of us feel inadequate.

Dana graduated high school with honors, scored high on the SAT exam, and got into an elite college, which means she’s off and running in pursuit of her Marvelous Plan to be rich and envied. She sent me an invitation to her graduation. I sent her a card, thanking her but declining the invitation. She is doing what we all endeavor to do in those tender years: construct ourselves into a Somebody. But what happens when our Somebody-ness project goes awry? What happens when things fall apart (when, not if)? Maybe in that moment of trying to cope with whatever shock and tribulation hits her, Dana will have a flashing recollection of her adolescent self and this odd man talking in her father’s living room about The Great Gatsby.

Janina Fisher on Innovations in Treating Trauma

Enduring Conditions and Animal Defenses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Body Memories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Triggers

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

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

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

The Role of Empathy

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

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

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

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

The Contagion of Confidence and Calm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PhDs in Therapy

Academics and Mental Health

My online psychotherapy practice attracts PhD candidates from around the world. Young academics are passionate people—articulate, often self-aware, intelligent, and eager to learn. But one would not guess how much this population suffers from poor mental health, how exposed and fragile they can actually be.

Research on occupational stress amongst academics indicates that it is widespread, with younger academics experiencing more mental health issues than their older counterparts. A recent Belgian study suggests that PhD students are 2.4 times more likely to develop a psychiatric disorder than the highly educated general population.

Other studies show that as much as 50 percent of doctoral students leave graduate school without finishing; it is reasonable to imagine that mental health issues play a major role in such an attrition rate.

“Young academics are often reluctant to disclose mental health problems to their universities out of fear of stigmatization and punishment in the highly competitive academic world.” PhD candidates who do their fieldwork abroad are particularly vulnerable. Not only do they feel a high pressure to achieve their fieldwork, but they also lose their social support system and have to adapt to a different culture.

Opening Doors with Online Therapy

Online therapy can be a unique opportunity for postgraduates to get support and resolve some developmental issues.

This vignette illustrates such a case.

When Jane engaged in online therapy with me, she was in the third year of her PhD program from a top American University. She was studying literary theory, and her fieldwork had just brought her to St. Petersburg, on the trail of the Russian thinker Michail Bakhtin and his main object of fascination—Dostoevsky. This city, affectionately called “Piter” by the locals, happens to be the one where I grew up before leaving Russia in my late teens. A bit of nostalgia was triggered inside me.

Jane had arrived in St. Petersburg in November. It had greeted her with gale-force winds and freezing weather, even worse than what she had imagined after reading the novels of Pushkin, Gogol, and Dostoevsky. At first she had been excited to discover its canals and lightless courtyards (kolodzi or “well-yards” in Russian) hidden in the middle of buildings, but after the first months, her fascination with the place was replaced by a lingering anxiety that she was not yet able to understand.

For our first session, Jane connected from the room that she was subletting in a big kommunalka, or shared apartment. The room was dark except for a surprisingly green wall gleaming behind her back, where she sat barely illuminated by the Russian winter’s scant natural light. Jane was slowly plunging into depression, which was draining all joy out of her research and her life. The faculty members she had met at the local university had first seemed friendly enough, but now she was avoiding any contact with anybody who could ask her questions about her research progress or about anything else for that matter.

The only window in her room was facing the plain yellowish wall of another building. If at first this grim view on the bare well-yard had reminded her of Dostoyevsky, it now felt like a metaphor for her current life prospects—long, dark Russian winter, loneliness in this foreign place, and a very uncertain outlook for a career in academia.

The day before she reached out for therapy, Jane had found herself sitting on the windowsill, looking down upon the dirty snow, and imagining her body lying in the middle of the well-yard, covered with her quickly freezing blood.

Now we were starting our first session, and she greeted me in Russian:

“Zdravstvuite.”

After a few minutes, I could sense that she was struggling, looking for words to describe the way she felt. As is often the case with bilingual individuals, we spent some time in this first session exploring Jane’s relationship with her two languages. Her Russian had developed through academic work, becoming her language of organized thought; when she wanted to describe her feelings, we had to switch to English. This going back and forth between the two languages allowed us to make better sense of her experience.

Soon we settled into our linguistic routine, using either language according to the subject. As with many emigrants, this arrangement suited us both, letting our multiple selves into the encounter.

Jane spoke Russian the way linguists often do—with unnatural care and respect for its intricate grammar. Strictly speaking, Russian was her mother tongue, but her mother had always been emotionally disconnected from her, and preferred to speak to her daughter in a limited English, without nuances but enough to give orders or rebukes. In high school, Jane then learned proper Russian, a language that she had until then perceived as unsophisticated.

Her father was a Texan estate developer. He had met his wife during one of his visits to Kazakhstan, where he had high-risk-high-reward investments. Jane’s mother was at that time young and beautiful; her secretary job was just a step towards her glorious future, where she knew she would have a shiny red car and a penthouse with views on skyscrapers gleaming in the night.

When Jane was born, her mother had already experienced deep disillusionment with life in general and her husband in particular. Texas was nothing like she had imagined, except for the consolation of owning her shiny red car; she used to drive on the endless dusty roads with fury.

As Jane grew up, she only added to her mother’s disappointments: she was neither beautiful nor particularly gifted for any girlish activities. Her academic achievements did little to change her mother’s opinion that she had been thwarted by fate in her motherly aspirations.

By the time Jane turned twelve, her father had lost most of his estate investments. She could remember him drinking whisky and grumbling about taxes and politics, only to rouse when his wife would come back home and scold him, provoking a fight. They both seemed to enjoy fighting, often loudly and in front of their daughter or other unwilling witnesses.

When Jane was accepted into a top university, her parents seemed relieved at the idea that she would finally be “out of the way.”

The First Session

In our first session Jane seemed withdrawn and extremely vulnerable. I wondered whether it was best for her to meet a therapist online. It probably was not, but she felt unable to get out of her flat and make it through the snow to the practice of one of the few English-speaking therapists available locally.

Looking through the dark window in front of her, Jane told me that she felt lonely and homesick. The homesickness felt even worse because she did not have a proper home back in the States any more. “This feeling of homesickness paradoxically associated with the experience of homelessness resonated with me.”

Her college friends were spread all around the country, busy with their own research or jobs. During her first months in Russia, she had managed to maintain the illusion of contact with some of them through Skype or WhatsApp, but now the calls were becoming rare. Maybe they had lost interest in her; maybe they never had any genuine interest at all. She had started doubting everybody and everything. Her parents had not paid her a visit.

And for several months, her academic advisor had not even been responding to her emails. Jane felt hurt and humiliated by this lack of interest from someone who had initially seemed so supportive and enthusiastic about her research. Her advisor was a middle-aged woman known for her feminist views and a difficult character.

Jane complained that her advisor’s silent ghost seemed settled at the end of her desk, at the other end of the room. Jane had been unable to sit there for days, and preferred to connect for our sessions from her sofa bed, crumbling under books and printed papers that she was unable to read or remove, even though sleeping in the middle of this improvised library—“the den,” as she called it—was becoming tricky.

As Jane was lying low in her den, the ghost was comfortably occupying her desk—an ever disapproving and punitive presence. Each time she tried to formulate a thought and write it down, she could sense, almost physically, the imaginary advisor winking in distaste at her poor efforts; simply knowing that the results would never be good enough. This room that Jane seemed to share with her imaginary advisor was suffocating, but the anxiety she felt at the thought of getting out was even worse.

As Jane described her advisor’s malefic ghost, I asked how its presence made her feel.

Alienated, confused… little.

As we explored these feelings, Jane’s usually calm face changed. She looked like a young and very upset child.

Have you ever felt like this before?

She had; it was a strangely familiar feeling when she curled up in her den, sucking her thumb at times she confessed. This is how she used to sooth herself, alone in her childhood room, when her mother was annoyed with her for some reason, or busy exercising.

As a child Jane often secretly thought that she had been born to these particular parents by mistake: she had little or no affinity with either of them. Roald Dahl’s character Matilda resonated deeply with her.

Jane had had as little choice when an academic advisor had been allocated to her, as she had had in choosing her own mother. She actually resented both of them. “The awareness of her dependence on her advisor was producing a deep anxiety—the same she used to feel when she was dependent on her mother.” This time the advisor seemed to be failing her in the same way her mother had done before, and this resonance made Jane’s anger even more overwhelming.

I knew first hand how the supervisory relationship, not unlike the therapeutic one, has the potential to repeat earlier traumatic experiences.

Shame in Academia

This incident opened a door into what would become the most important part of Jane’s therapy: working with and through her shame, towards a better sense of self and higher self-esteem.

During her first steps in academia, Jane had quickly learnt that she had to justify her every word or thought. Entry into the academic environment can trigger a feeling of shame in newcomers. It is easy to feel small and under-developed when entering a community of seasoned academics that you look up to: a dwarf in the presence of giants.

Jane would spend hours imagining how her advisor and other committee members would “laugh in her face” as she presented before them. At night, she would stay awake picturing the most humiliating scenes of her academic fall made public.

As Jane was describing how little, insignificant and defective she often felt, despite her obvious academic success, it became clear that this was a familiar emotional experience for her. She had felt this way many times before. As a little girl, she idealized her mother—a beautiful, tall, elegant, and snobbish woman. She remembered how proud she had felt of her mother as her primary school mates were admiring her beauty and expensive clothes. But as she grew up, her mother lost interest in her; Jane’s awe was replaced by disappointment. Why didn’t her adored mom like her? Did it mean that something was wrong with her? A feeling of not being good enough, not likable, had put roots in her very nature. This shame was later exacerbated by the tough rules of the academic world.

A few months into our work, Jane’s mother announced that she would be visiting her in Russia. Jane felt disorientated and anxious. She thought that her mother must have been bored with her Texan life. But I could also sense how the little girl in her craved her mom’s attention; Jane was still hoping that her mother might end up appreciating her.

She went to pick her up at the airport. The first comment her mother made brought back the past: the airport hall looked provincial and rather under-equipped for a city praised by all touristic guides for its “emperor glory.” When they reached the luxurious hotel her mother had booked and sat together in the bar, facing the straight line of the Nevsky Prospect, Jane was already dreading the days to come. Looking at the middle-aged heavily made up woman, Jane realized that, however familiar she appeared, she did not really know her. In her bright yellow jacket, her mother looked strangely foreign. When Jane tentatively switched to Russian, she did not seem to notice, and carried on talking in her consistently poor English: Jane’s hope for acknowledgement of her efforts and progress in her mother’s tongue were vanishing. A young waiter came to take their order and smiled at Jane; she could not avoid noticing how her mother’s face froze.

When Jane finally heard her mother talking in Russian to people in shops and restaurants, she was shocked by the poverty of her vocabulary and the unpleasant notes of a foreign accent—maybe consciously produced by her Americanized mother.

Later on, reflecting on our use of Russian in therapy, Jane acknowledged that communicating in her mother tongue within a warm and genuine relationship was a meaningful experience to her. For a long time she had been reading about literary characters’ feelings in Russian; to speak about her own feelings in Russian to somebody genuinely interested was new to her. “Putting her childhood experiences of loneliness and hurt into words in Russian moved something deeper inside her: she was now able to express anger towards her academic supervisor, but also acknowledge the anger she felt towards her mother.”

The Work Continues

We eventually survived the winter together. As the days got longer and the first rays of a shy April sun illuminated Jane’s room, her shame seemed to lift. She washed her sole window for the first time since she had moved in, and realized that she did not feel any desire to fall. The snow underneath was starting to melt, and she noticed a neighbor looking at her from a window on the opposite side of the yard. She had never noticed any signs of life in that window before. As their eyes briefly met, she felt strangely alive.

Spring brought its own anxieties. Jane’s academic clock was ticking, and she had only a few months left to complete her fieldwork. Even if she now saw her adviser in a much less grim light, the support she was getting from her was scarce and inconsistent. The White Nights kicked in, and Jane lost sleep again over her work. Researching contemporary Bakhtinian thought, she was trying to contact the academics who saw themselves as his followers. The risk she was taking in reaching out to this closed circle triggered familiar shame: Jane was convinced that these seasoned academics would never take her seriously, and her Russian was certainly not good enough.

We had a session just before she was due to present her research project to this group, hoping to convince them to participate. Jane kept picturing how they would look bored or even leave the room before she could finish. She was particularly intimidated by one of them. This older professor looked like Bakhtin himself—the same high forehead and the white beard. Jane was not sure whether this resemblance was a cultivated forgery or unconscious mimicry. When they first met, he had spoken so quickly and pretentiously that he made little sense to her.

Her mother’s constant absence, combined with the little interest she had shown in her daughter, had never allowed Jane to confront her.

It took us a while to reach a point where Jane felt ready to have a direct and honest conversation with her advisor. She learned that she had been grieving her husband’s recent death and was being treated for depression. After this conversation, her advisor’s ghost dwindled and eventually left her desk, making space for her own thoughts. Her research journal came back to life and Jane’s eyes sparkled again when she spoke about her work.

One day Jane did not switch her camera on as we began our session. She wanted audio-only. When I asked her why, she said she did not feel well enough to shower or brush her hair. Or in essence, she felt too ugly and too unfit to be looked at. As she shared this with me, she cried. What Jane was painfully experiencing at that moment was a deep sense of inadequacy resulting in feelings of shame. To let me witness her shame felt unbearable to her; she was terrified to recognize in my eyes the same disgust that she used to see in her mother’s gaze.

Eventually we agreed that she had to take this risk to dispel her shame. After a few minutes, she was able to switch the camera on: her face looked puffy from crying and very young.

My natural response was to give Jane a hug, but the limitations of the online therapy added to the natural ethical concerns around touching a client. This time I was painfully aware about the physical distance between us.

Jane was close to cancelling but she did not.

The meetings of their little group were informal and usually held in the apartment of one member or another. She was kindly asked to bring a cake to go along with the tea. As she rang the doorbell, she was close to fainting. Once inside, she was greeted by a giant St. Bernard dog, which managed to lick her on the nose. The laughter reaching her from the sitting room and the familiar smell of the books lining the walls of the corridor reassured her. Bakhtin’s twin brother’s wife—a tiny woman with sparkly blue eyes (also a former ballerina as she would learn later)—accepted the expensive cake with an evident pleasure and led her into the sitting room. The place was warm and the academics looked like old friends enjoying a tea together.

After an hour, she felt an almost painful sense of belonging; for the first time she was part of a welcoming family. They listened to her presentation with genuine interest, asked questions, and ended up having a heated and mostly inspiring argument in which Jane was able to take part. She forgot about the imperfections of her Russian and was able to enjoy this simple warm connection with her senior colleagues.

The inclusion and warmth Jane experienced at that meeting gave her a new boost. On her way home, Jane bumped into the blond neighbour. He was walking his scruffy dog beneath her windows. She spontaneously invited him in for tea. In bewilderment, she found out that he was a PhD candidate too, but in physics. It was a long night; his dog turned out to be a real cuddler and accepted her as a new friend.

I continued meeting with Jane for another year or so. She moved back to the US and started writing up her dissertation. Bakhtin’s twin brother died suddenly a few months after their encounter, and she returned to St. Petersburg to attend his funeral. His ballerina widow gave Jane some of her late husband’s books, insisting that such had been his wish. Jane cried and felt like an orphan. Grieving for the friend and mentor she had found in this old Russian philosopher made her question her relationship with her father.

In the meantime, his drinking had got worse. Jane went to visit. She needed only one dinner in his company to realize that he did not seem able to listen to anything she attempted to say and was clearly craving another drink. Once she returned from this disappointing trip back home, we had to mourn her hope of having at least one “good enough” parent.

In the process she finished her thesis and started teaching. This activity brought back the familiar feelings of shame, but her genuine interest in her students and her revived passion for Russian literature helped Jane to eventually enjoy her work.

The therapeutic relationship we developed helped Jane survive the definitive separation from her parents; their absence in her life was not plunging her in despair any more. She has finally been able to thrive in other close relationships—with her friends, colleagues and, finally, with her first supervisees. In our ending session she talked a lot about how much our relationship meant to her, but also about her desire to be there for her students. This filled me with warmth and gratitude—towards her, but also towards my own supervisors who were genuinely and consistently there for me. Their presence has been a real game changer for my own academic journey.

The path towards a PhD is never easy. It takes a lot of work but also a lot of daring. As any transitional stage of life, it abounds with demons that we must tame.

Jane is actually a fictional character inspired from many stories of PhD candidates whom I work with in my online psychotherapy practice, or during the course of my own PhD. I admire their courage, hard work, and passion for knowledge. These qualities are a great asset in therapy, which is a natural and inspiring companion for such a journey.

Reaching out for therapy online can help young academics to get the much-needed support, even when they are far away from home.

References

Bozeman, B. and Gaughan, M. (2011) "Job Satisfaction among University Faculty: Individual, Work, and Institutional Determinants," The Journal of Higher Education, 82(2), pp. 154-186.

Kinman, G. (2001) "Pressure Points: A review of research on stressors and strains in UK academics," Educational Psychology, 21(4), pp. 473-492.

Kinman, G. and Jones, F. (2003) ''Running Up the Down Escalator: Stressors and strains in UK academics," Quality in Higher Education, 9(1), pp. 21-38.

Levecque, K., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., Van der Heyden, J. and Gisle, L. (2017) 'Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students," Research Policy, 46(4), pp. 868.

Lovitts, B.E. (2001) Leaving the Ivory Tower. The causes and Consequences of Departure From Doctoral Study. Rowman & Littlefield.

Shaw, C. (2015) http: //www.th eguardian.com/education /2015/ feb/13/un iversitystaff-scared- to-disclose-mental-health-problems (Accessed on 23/9/2017).

Walsh, J.P. and Lee, Y. (2015) "The bureaucratization of science," Research Policy, 44(8), pp. 1584-1600.

The Death of Privacy

Nowhere is privacy more important than in the mental health field. We psychotherapists have always insisted on the highest standard of confidentiality for our patients. We want to be more protective than HIPPA and outdo the CIA in insisting on need-to-know. Even without the absolute protection the law gives attorney-client relationships, we resist whenever possible any intrusions from courts and from government investigators.

This effort has become even more important as privacy has disappeared from our society. People seem increasingly willing, even eager, to open their lives to public scrutiny through social media and other manifestations of the digital revolution. Texting, sexting, tweeting, personal blogging, online forums, and other displays of private, personal information are all too common, even when the consequences are employment problems, public shaming and legal jeopardy. Whether it’s loss of a job or a promotion, or revenge porn, or evidence in a criminal trial, the lesson never seems to be learned. If people want to be foolish in their personal lives, however, it’s their right to do so.

But nowadays many of us lose our privacy even when we want to protect it. Involuntary loss of privacy is increasingly prevalent as massive examples of hacking and the theft of personal information and identities destroys the attempt to keep private data private. Already, tens of millions of online medical records have fallen prey to malicious hackings. In our field, patients are routinely forced by third party payers to surrender their personal health data or lose their insurance coverage.

And now, a new and growing threat to the privacy of mental health information is the Electronic Health Record (EHR). With the government making the EHR a legal requirement, imposing fines for non-compliance and threatening to withhold reimbursement, the EHR is no longer a choice for many and soon might be universal. Even apparently benign uses of this data can lead to unauthorized disclosure when the EHR is shared with other providers, whether they be for medical, legal or justifiable mental health purposes. Once the information is out of our hands, we can no longer apply our standards to its release. The EHR represents a clear and present danger, but, unfortunately, it is also a legal document and cannot be entirely avoided.

The only remedy to this growing menace is to limit what we put into the EHR to the absolute necessary minimum. Examples are legally required data, such as the date of service, the next scheduled meeting, and any specific advice or prescribed treatment. We should also include any perceived risks, such as suicidal intent, and, most important, what steps we plan to take to mitigate them. Add perhaps any communications from other providers or significant sources of external information. In short, we are legally required to preserve any data that forms the basis for patient care.

We may also need to include the diagnosis, although that piece of data is the most problematic. Psychiatric diagnoses are simply observations that have been codified to facilitate communication and allow research comparisons. Nothing, however, embodies the stigma attached to mental illness more than a diagnostic label. In the EHR, available to all providers within the system and, through third party records, to anyone who ever provides care to that individual, it is likely to prejudice others against our patients and clients. Because it can bias the attitude of other caretakers, it may result in skewed, limited or even injurious treatment in the future. Where possible, we might use a brief description rather than a formal diagnosis. If that’s not feasible, then at least we can choose the least negative label available.

All the rest of what we’d like to memorialize—process notes, observations, plans, speculations and other insights—should be kept in a separate, non-digital record. Here is where paper is the best option. Paper can’t be hacked, won’t leave our control unless we want it to, and can be thoroughly and completely destroyed. No computer technician can retrieve the data from paper the way deleted material can be retrieved from a digital source. Paper can’t be squirreled away forever in a “cloud” server.

In our paper-based patient file—that only we ourselves will ever see—we can record anything that does not directly relate to patient care and that we would never want to release. After treatment ends, we can shred (or burn) the patient’s paper file and be confident we have protected both the patient’s privacy and our own standard of care.

Grief is a Strange Land

My mom died recently after struggling with dementia and severe rheumatoid arthritis for many, many years. I moved to the Bay Area from the East Coast in the year 2000 to be closer to her, as I thought she might not have much time left, and 17 years later, on a sunny spring morning shortly after my 43rd birthday, she died as I lay in a liminal half-sleep between the 3rd and 4th round of my snooze alarm. I woke to a series of texts from her very dear Armenian-American caretaker at her assisted living facility:

9:19am
Hi Deb,
Mrs Linda’s blood pressure dropped
significantly this morning, called
hospice to monitor her

9:34am
I’m sorry to let you know, Mrs Linda
Passed away 🙁

What?! While I slept? Over text?! I wandered frantically around my apartment for a minute, or ten, searching for my mother’s gone-ness, eyes open wide, unblinking.

I had waited and prepared for this moment, had even started praying, tentatively and awkwardly, that she be released from her incontinent, bed-bound, arthritic limbs and atrophied mind, and yet: How could she just die like that? I was going to go visit her in two weeks for her 78th birthday. I should have gone sooner. I should have gone sooner.

Much of that day was spent a few inches outside of my body as I negotiated with the mortuary, made calls to friends and family, and repeated the phrase “My mom died,” each time a dissociated succession of syllables. My friends knew of her long struggle, my long struggle, and said things like, “You must have mixed feelings.” I did not have mixed feelings. I was devastated.

This was Friday. I went back to seeing clients Monday, and didn’t tell anyone that my mother had died. Eleven years earlier, when my father died after a struggle with Alzheimer’s, I had also gone right back to seeing clients at my practicum in graduate school, but because I had canceled sessions for two weeks while he was dying, I told them why I had been away. This time there was no dying—just death—and not many details to attend to after. My mom’s sickness had been long, her personality alienating, her plight sad; by the time she died there were no friends left, no one with whom to gather for a funeral.

Not having skipped a day of work, I decided I would only share my loss if it arose organically with a client. It didn’t. I felt protective of them. How hard would it be to talk about themselves, whatever they were working on at the moment, once they found out my mom had just died? Plus, I was still kind of numb—would I come across like a zombie with no remorse? Would I be able to reassure them that I was in fact OK and that I was just where I wanted to be? I imagined what a drag it would be to go to my therapist, prepped to talk about the week’s pathos, only to find out her mom had died. I would feel like a self-involved jerk diving into my own preoccupations in the face of her loss, and would feel like a jerk talking about how I felt like a jerk talking about my own preoccupations. No, I didn’t want anyone to bear my burden. That’s not why they come to therapy, after all.

The opaque sense of unreality that arose in the weeks after she died—my palette of sensations muted like a blue twilight after the sun disappears—was almost comforting. “Perhaps this won’t be that hard,” I thought. After all, she’d been deteriorating, and then dying, almost forever. Losing her had been a slow and steady stream of small infirmities and indignities rather than a flash flood, the erosion of her essential being an accumulation of griefs I hoped would inoculate me against the crushing pain I had suffered after my father died.

But I didn’t know how to both bear my burden and not burden clients. I wanted to be doing therapy—I felt present and alive with my clients—but after a few weeks it felt like the vessel in my heart where I hold people’s pain, their stories, had no more room in it. I hadn’t entirely understood that place in my body until it stopped working, and it was alarming. Because I wasn’t experiencing paroxysms of grief, weeping uncontrollably at random intervals, I mistook myself for “not really grieving.” This was compounded by the fact that my mom was in many ways a “not-good-enough” mom—her mental and physical illnesses had compromised her ability to mother long ago, but I thought I had “dealt” with that grief already, damnit. So what was this parched-solar-plexus feeling?

Ah…It was my grief.

You see, I loved her madly. Still do.

I took the week off from work in an effort to bring some space and consciousness to my grieving. I slept, read, wrote in my journal, saw beloved friends, exercised, booked an extra therapy session, got a massage. It was awful. Anxious, listless, unmoored from my routines, I spent the week berating myself for not doing a better job at grieving. I felt it was up to me to figure out an appropriate ritual to mark her death, but the idea overwhelmed me. What would I say? Who would I want to bear witness? Inside or outside? What spiritual tradition to draw from? My dad was Jewish. She was a blend of everything and nothing, but a spiritual person. Where would I release her ashes? It was too much to figure out; I was tired. I stuck her ashes in the closet near, but not directly next to, my father. They hated each other. Was it OK for them to be in the same closet? I watched a video about cremation and decided it was.

The capacity to be wise and spacious around others’ pain, the sense of tenderhearted compassion that comes so readily through me in my role as a therapist, often tricks me into thinking I don’t need help with my own struggles. But I don’t have me the way that my clients do. I have my own therapist and she, in turn, doesn’t have herself the way that I have her. We cannot be our own therapists. Therapist-Me is also an orphan right now, struggling to make sense of death, of having no parents, of the freeing and terrifying reality of being on my own—generationally-speaking—for the rest of my time here on earth. No amount of “self-care,” parenting of my inner child, and guided meditations makes Therapist-Me available to myself.

Despite years of training in the mental health field and working with people as they struggle with death, I’m struck by what a strange land grief is for me. I’ve heard many therapists say that their own grief has brought a richness and depth to their work with clients, and I think that is true for me too, but not in a particularly tangible way. What I am most aware of is how nurturing working with clients is to me right now. It is the only place where I am fully present, and being present is a tender relief as I navigate the complexity of loss in my own life.

How have your experiences of grief impacted your work as a therapist? What has helped you? What has not? I would love to know. Feel free to send me an email at: Deborah@psychotherapy.net.