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

Online Therapy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kyle and the Shame Spiral (Joseph Burgo)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Up Close and Personal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birthplace

There are places I’ll remember all my life.

I was born in a small Russian town, a very cold and dirty place.

This was one of the first things Anna shared about herself in a long introductory email reaching out to me for online psychotherapy.

In this description of her native town, I could sense her sad childhood: a lack of emotional warmth and possibly some neglect.

The way people describe their early surroundings usually tells something significant about their life story.

We developed early bonds with our caretakers, but also with a place. We end up internalizing the qualities of the landscape or family house where we grew up.

Can we ever detach ourselves from our original place? Does it not persist inside us, long after the physical building has been knocked down?

Anna had left her native town early, to study and work in Moscow, and then she had moved abroad. Her departure had been more of an escape: eager to leave, she had barely said her goodbyes. Since then she had changed countries several times, and finally landed in London. But the original “coldness” and “dirtiness” had followed her, as a malevolent shadow from her past.

It was only our second session, and I was experiencing Anna as frozen and difficult to reach out to. She complained that no town ever felt good enough to her: “too cold” or “too dirty.” Through the videoconferencing, I could have a glimpse of her current London interior, which looked unsurprisingly impersonal and rather messy.

Anna’s restlessness was partly due to her conscious desire to find a more nourishing environment, but this was conflicting with a deeper sense of hopelessness and despair: she believed that such a place did not exist for her.

Even in a warmer and more welcoming country, she would always feel alienated by a feeling of guilt—as if betraying her birthplace, her motherland. That felt deeply wrong.

But at the same time, she could not feel belonging to this new and “better” place, she felt painfully “different.”

Deep inside she kept being “a girl from a dirty and cold place,” her life stained by it forever.

As often happens with expatriates, something shifted when Anna went back home for a holiday. We had an online session whilst she was there. As her face appeared on my screen, I was struck by how different she now looked: instead of her usual impeccable jacket, she was wearing a loose t-shirt; her hair was messy; and without make-up she looked younger.

This was a unique opportunity to accelerate the process.

She was staying at her parents’ flat—the very one where she had grown up, and was certainly getting in touch with some early emotional experiences of her childhood.

Internet connection is always bad here, so maybe we will need to switch-off the video at some point. She warned me, preparing a retreat in case the session triggered too much shame. She was also reminding me how “imperfect” her childhood place was.

Shame was indeed around for the whole hour, but Anna was brave enough to stay with it, and we managed to navigate through this experience together.

Using her laptop’s webcam, Anna finally showed me around. This was a real risk-taking, and I could appreciate how exposed and vulnerable she felt. The place was indeed muddled, and was a testimony of an un-nourishing childhood environment.

Anna’s mother, born just after the war, had been stockpiling all sorts of things, an aversion to discarding possessions which qualified her as a “hoarder.” Understanding her mother’s struggle helped Anna make sense of the level of messiness she grew up with, and the shame she was feeling about it.

That “back home” session actually was a turning point in my work with Anna.

She realized how much she was actually attached to her birthplace, with a painful loyalty that did not let her leave it completely behind.

Making a better sense of her mother’s mental condition, Anna was now able to re-evaluate her own relationship with her family home and her native town. This place was not her. It did not define her; it was rather a sum of her experiences, which had started in that town, but did not have to end there. And the latter was her choice—such an empowering realization.

Maybe a warmer place existed somewhere for her after all…?

What Remains: The Aftermath of Patient Suicide

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

Silent Mourners

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

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

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

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

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

“Jill killed herself by handgun . . . “

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

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

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

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

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

Our Privileged Intimacy, Our Private Mourning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being with Groundlessness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ritual as Scaffolding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relational Home for One Another

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Losing the Couch: Finding the “Sacred Place” in Online Therapy

I clearly remember my very first visit to my British psychotherapist. She used to receive her patients in her conservatory. Her dogs sometimes got impatient and produced considerable clatter, which I could clearly hear from inside the house. The front door would be unlocked. Clients just had to push the gate to get through an unkempt garden into the peculiar therapy room. She would be already comfortably sitting there in the same old chair, and a flowery cup of tea would be ready; weak for her, and strong for me. When I was late, my tea was cold. Maybe it was her subtle way of punishing me…

I actually loved this place. Years later I can still recall its particular smell of wet dogs and a damp garden. That therapy room had become an anchor for me, which safely attached me to the Island that was then my temporary home; I was in the midst of yet another international move.

Now that I use the online setting for my psychotherapy practice, I sometimes wonder what my clients will remember of our encounters. No particular smell of madeleines will ever be attached to a virtual space.

Any therapist, myself included, hopes that his therapy room can become some sort of “sacred place” to his clients, a place for individual growth. We all work towards this goal, creating small rituals and paying careful attention to the boundaries of the therapeutic relationship.

With the current expansion of online counseling, therapists and their clients are seeing this sacred element of therapy being taken away. Our cherished therapy rooms are disappearing, replaced by a simple desk and a computer.

I have kept a traditional face-to-face practice in Madrid, on top of my online work, so when I connect with a client on Skype, he can always spot behind me the background of a traditional therapy room decorum: two large armchairs, a box of Kleenex, a smiling Buddha statue… a pale reminder of the physical space where our encounter would have had to take place just a few years ago.

A couch, a bookshelf, and a coffee table… we have been familiar with these traditional attributes of a therapy room for ages. Anybody coming to a therapist for the first time knew what to expect, and rarely got surprised. In a space, tightly bound by walls, boundaries tended to be clear: the therapist had his own chair, the client might have a choice between two chairs and a couch. In this place both the therapist and the client felt safe. This space seemed eternal… until the online option emerged, bringing confusion.

Now online therapy is practiced within a no-place space. The couch is gone. And each of us therapists responds to this loss in different ways, which vary as in any grief—from denial and anger to acceptance.

During an online session, two people stare at their respective computer screens, without sharing a common place. This becomes an opportunity to build their own space together. It is very much like coming to a new empty area, and building from a green field a house here or there, then eventually a village.

In my experience, this lack of a physical place actually fosters creativity.

Many people I meet in my practice live very mobile lives, geographically unsettled; so the perceived neutrality of the no-place becomes a real asset in addressing the displacement-related issues.

Amélie’s story is one such case. She was back to Paris after 10 years in Korea for her husband’s career. There, Amélie had felt isolated and disoriented in her vast house, while her husband was travelling extensively. She had had to leave behind her music teacher job, and after several years of this expatriate life, she was feeling lost. Now back to her native Paris, she was feeling depressed. Her first panic attack happened in a shopping mall. She did not know where she was and was not able to get out of this unfamiliar place crowded with strangers. She was struck by an acute sense of derealisation. She reached out to me, in addition to her local psychiatrist.

“How is it for you to tell me your story here, online?” I asked.

Actually, Amélie felt safe, her anxiety was stepping back. She was relieved, as she could meet with me from the only place that still felt familiar—her parents’ Parisian flat. Driving to a therapist’s office would have been too much for her at that point. The online space we shared became in this case a way of dealing with her confusion without re-introduction of another different place.

Every time I connect with a client, especially for the first time, I am ready to get surprised. Those who seek therapy online generally use and abuse the flexibility allowed by the technology, so I “meet” them (virtually) in their holiday house, hotel room, office, kitchen, or lounge.

Without moving from my desk, I am then able to spot small samples of their physical realm. I always feel touched by the trust involved in this “letting me in.”

The whole situation has now been reversed: it is not the therapist who lets his client in, but the client who is choosing which of his sceneries to share with his therapist.
These “unexpected gifts” somehow make up for the lost couch.

In any successful therapy there is a time when the client ends up internalising the reparative relationship with his therapist, creating the “safe place” within, that anchoring gift I received from my first therapist. When this happens, the concrete place does not matter as much as the “virtual” place discovered. And the person is able to go anywhere, feeling safe enough to further explore the world.

As in the case of Amélie, the placeless reality of the online setting accelerates this natural shift from place towards relationship.

I enjoy both my online and my face-to-face practices. When connecting with a client, I always attempt to recreate the ever-important “sacred place” of a therapy room, together with my client, in this ethereal space offered to us by technology.

Ronald Siegel on Integrating Mindfulness into Psychotherapy

Mindfulness is an Attitude Toward Experience

Deb Kory: Ronald Siegel, you’re an assistant professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School, a longtime student and teacher of mindfulness meditation, on the faculty of the Institute for Psychotherapy and Meditation and in private practice as a psychotherapist. You’ve done a great deal of work in bringing mindfulness to chronic pain patients and co-wrote a book called Back Sense: A Revolutionary Approach to Halting the Cycle of Chronic Back Pain as well as one for therapists, Sitting Together: Essential Skills for Mindfulness-based Psychotherapy. Most exciting of all—for us at least—you are the star of a new video we produced and are releasing this month called Integrating Mindfulness into Counseling and Psychotherapy, which features you doing mindfulness-based psychotherapy with real clients. In it, you go into great detail about the theory and practice of mindfulness-based psychotherapy, and also do four different therapy sessions with clients each presenting different issues. For our readers who haven’t yet had a chance to watch it, let’s start with the basics: What is mindfulness?
Ronald D. Siegel:
Mindfulness is an attitude toward experience—approaching any moment of our lives with both awareness and acceptance.
Mindfulness is an attitude toward experience—approaching any moment of our lives with both awareness and acceptance. Many people mistake mindfulness for mindfulness meditation, which is actually an umbrella term for many different practices that are designed to cultivate mindfulness, some of which involve following an object of awareness, like the breath, others of which involve things like loving kindness practice or equanimity practices. Those are practices designed to cultivate mindfulness, but mindfulness itself is an attitude toward moment-to-moment experience.
DK: Is it possible to practice mindfulness without having some experience with meditation?
RS: Absolutely. We all have moments in which we’re mindful, in which our minds and bodies show up for an experience. In fact, you might take a minute just now, while reading this, to think of a meaningful moment you’ve had. People will often say, the birth of a child or a graduation or getting married or a particular sunset or a conversation with a friend—all of those moments are essentially moments in which our attention is in the present. We’re accepting of what’s happening and we’re not lost in fantasies of the past that we call memories, nor fantasies of the future. We’re actually present.

We have many moments of this kind of mindful presence in the course of our lives, it’s just that once we start to be attentive to various states of consciousness, we notice that they’re the exception, rather than the rule. They’re relatively rare. So we do mindfulness practices to cultivate more of these moments in our lives.
DK: A sunset or being with a loved one—those are positive experiences. Do we tend to be more mindful in positive moments?
RS: I think instinctually we are, because when we’re experiencing painful moments, we recoil from them. We try to change them or get them to stop, and it takes some practice to open to unpleasant experiences as well. That is a central part of mindfulness practices, particularly in the therapeutic arena, where we understand one aspect of psychopathology as a tendency to resist experience, to try to make it stop.
DK: You are considered a mindfulness expert of sorts and you’re also a psychologist. Have you always brought mindfulness into your psychotherapy practice?
RS: Well, I’d like to challenge that designation first. I’m certainly not a poster child for the practice, given my experience with my own unruly mind. However, I first started practicing mindfulness back in high school, so I have been at it for some time and the principles associated with mindfulness have always infused my psychotherapy practice. In fact, when I learned more conventional psychotherapeutic techniques like cognitive behavior therapy, psychodynamic techniques, systems techniques, humanistic psychological techniques, it was always against the backdrop of Buddhist psychology, which is really the ground out of which mindfulness practices grew.

Our Relentless Tendency Toward "Selfing"

DK: How do therapists actually bring mindfulness into therapy?
RS:
Experienced psychotherapists are perfectly capable of having a full session, making reflective comments, insightful interpretations, all while planning a 12-course meal and having our attention quite divided.
Mindfulness can infuse psychotherapy on many different levels. It can infuse psychotherapy simply on the level of the practicing psychotherapist—what happens to us as the tool or instrument of treatment when we start practicing ourselves. For example, we start to actually show up in the room more fully. Experienced psychotherapists are perfectly capable of having a full session, making reflective comments, insightful interpretations, all while planning a 12-course meal and having our attention quite divided.
DK: Shhhh, that’s supposed to be a secret!
RS: Yeah, don’t tell people outside of the field! But the more we practice mindfulness, the more we’re able to be present. The other thing that happens is our capacity to be with and bear difficult emotions increases a great deal as we take up these practices. As therapists, we tend to hear about painful matters all day long, and sometimes it feels like too much, so we start to shut down our feelings; that can get in the way of being present. Mindfulness practices can help us to remain open in a fresh way to those painful feelings.

At the next level, there’s what we might call mindfulness-informed psychotherapy, which involves gaining insights into how the mind creates suffering for itself—through our own mindfulness practice and through the experience of longtime practitioners. As we gain some of those insights, we start to see certain patterns of mind that begin to inform our models of psychotherapy. For example, our relentless tendency toward “selfing”— creating narratives in our minds, starring me. These narratives are often quite distorted and create a tremendous amount of tension and suffering as we try to hold on to one self image and abort another.

As we see this through our own mindfulness practice, we start to notice that our clients or patients seem to be struggling with the same thing and we can help them with that by drawing upon our own insights and practices. Similarly, noticing the tendency to resist experience and how that multiplies difficulty. In psychotherapy, regardless of what sort of treatment we’re doing, we try to help people move toward, rather than away from, painful experience. To be more present, rather than to be lost in the thought stream involving narratives about the past and the future. That’s a mindfulness-informed psychotherapy.

Finally, there’s the option that comes out of our own experience of doing meditation and realizing that it helps us be more present, clear, have greater affect tolerance, more perspective, and more wisdom in on our lives, as well as more compassion for others. We think, “Hmm, maybe this could help my clients or patients to do this same. Perhaps I’ll teach it to some of them.” I should underscore that it’s about teaching it to some of them and having a map or an understanding of what sort of people might respond well to which sorts of mindfulness practices, at what stages in treatment or stages in life development. It’s not a one-size-fits-all practice.

When Mindfulness is Contraindicated

DK: Isn’t it actually contraindicated for some people?
RS: It’s absolutely contraindicated for many people. For example, for folks who have a lot of unresolved trauma, meaning they’ve experienced painful events in their lives that were too difficult to fully let into awareness at the time, so some aspect of them has been blocked. Maybe it’s the narrative historical memory of the event that’s blocked, maybe it’s the affect associated with the experience that’s blocked, but in some way, the experience has been disavowed. Folks like that, if they start doing certain mindfulness practices, such as spending time following the breath, tend to become quite overwhelmed with the rush of previously blocked material that comes into awareness.

The most problematic adverse effect is due to “derepression,” or the rushing into awareness of things which defensively have been held out of awareness.
A colleague of mine at Brown University named Willoughby Britain is doing a large study on the adverse effects of mindfulness practices, and the most problematic adverse effect is due to what she calls “derepression,” which is this rushing into awareness of things which defensively have been held out of awareness up until the start of mindfulness practices. So, much as we wouldn’t in psychotherapy start talking about material in a vivid way that someone’s not ready to talk about, we don’t want to start doing mindfulness practices that might be premature for various people.
DK: Is Britton against using mindfulness at all in psychotherapy?
RS: No, she’s a mindfulness practitioner herself, a research psychologist who is very enthusiastic about these things and is trying to map this territory. What many meditation teachers know from observation is that these adverse effects are much more likely when somebody attends an intensive silent retreat over the course of many days. But I’ve lead countless groups of psychotherapists through mindfulness practices that are as short as 20-30 minutes and it’s not unusual for one or two members of the group to become overwhelmed by the experience, either by the emotions that comes up or by bodily sensations that they tend to keep out of awareness with constant activity and entertainment. Many, many people are vulnerable to reconnecting with split-off contents.
DK: Let’s say someone comes in to see you for psychotherapy and they haven’t done much psychotherapy and they seem somewhat fragile in this way. How might you work with them?
RS: What’s interesting is there are many mindfulness practices that actually help to create a sense of safety, that create a sense of holding, as Winnicott would say. There are mindfulness practices that are akin to guided imagery or have aspects that feel like hypnosis, and if they’re done in the context of a trusting therapeutic relationship, bring the safety of the therapeutic alliance into the experience of the mindfulness practice.

There are also practices that ground us in the safe aspects of moment-to-moment experience. Walking meditation, where we’re feeling the sensations of the feet touching the ground, or listening meditation, where we’re listening to the sounds of nature or the ambient sounds in the city. Or nature meditation, where we’re looking at clouds and trees and sky. Those objects, since they tend to be safe for most people and bring our awareness away from the core of the body—away from where we tend to identify emotion as happening and toward a safe outer environment—can be very stabilizing. In fact, many of those practices are conventionally in trauma treatment called “grounding” practices because they create safety.

A Transtheoretical Mechanism

DK: It seems to me like everybody in our profession is talking about mindfulness these days. And approaches that I would assume are kind of strange bedfellows—CBT and mindfulness, psychoanalysis and mindfulness—are being paired together. If you go to Psychology Today and look at the profiles of psychotherapists, mindfulness is now a little bullet-point you can select as an orientation. I often wonder if most practitioners actually know what they’re talking about when they claim to work within a mindfulness framework. Like, are they saying that because they’ve been to a one-day meditation retreat or are they actually genuinely skilled in this approach?
RS: Well, I think it’s the same as with any psychotherapeutic model, theory or treatment system—people have very variable levels of understanding of what they’re doing. There are some people who have a great deal of wisdom, compassion and knowledge, who are saying that they’re doing mindfulness-oriented treatments, and there are other people who have a much more cursory exposure to it and may not have much depth of personal experience, but are intrigued by the idea or see it as a useful concept to identify with because other people may be interested in it and looking for a therapist who has some expertise.

But I do think that the field is still in its infancy in terms of really understanding the psychological, as well as the neurobiological, effects of these practices.
The field is still in its infancy in terms of really understanding the psychological, as well as the neurobiological, effects of these practices.
It’s quite a complex field, with many different practices, each one affecting the mind, the brain and the body in different ways and in different ways for different individuals. So while we can make some generalizations and have some guidelines, I think clinicians are best served to see it as very complex.

To the other point that you made about various forms of treatment being incongruent with mindfulness, I actually don’t think most are. I think of mindfulness as a transtheoretical mechanism that is operating in virtually any effective psychotherapy, because virtually any effective psychotherapy is going to help people step out of irrational, unhelpful cognitive patterns. Virtually any effective psychotherapy is going to help people connect with, feel and embrace an increasingly wide range of emotions. Virtually any psychotherapy is going to try to help people to engage more fully moment-to-moment in their lives. Since these are cardinal features of mindfulness practice, you can see them as being helpful in virtually any form of treatment.
DK: So you don’t see it as its own model or approach, but more an attitude and set of practices that are brought into all approaches.
RS: Very much so. While we might choose to actually teach a mindfulness practice to a given client or a patient in a given psychotherapy, that could be done within the context of a cognitive behavioral treatment, a systemic treatment, a humanistic treatment, a psychodynamic treatment and many others as well.

When graduate students come to me and say, “I want to get trained as a mindfulness therapist. Where should I go to school? What kind of training should I have?” I tend to implore them, “Please don’t get trained as a mindfulness therapist. Please get trained as a therapist, first and foremost. Have some understanding of the complexities of the human mind and body, some understanding of the myriad forms of psychopathology that we can get stuck in, a good introspective understanding of your own issues and conflicts and how they get in the way of relating to other people, and get supervision from people who’ve been working with troubled folks for a long time; once you develop that foundation, then integrate mindfulness practices into psychotherapy.”
When graduate students come to me and say, “I want to get trained as a mindfulness therapist. Where should I go to school? What kind of training should I have?” I tend to implore them, “Please don’t get trained as a mindfulness therapist.”


Of course it’s very valuable all along in your training to be doing your own mindfulness practice, to maybe even have a meditation teacher that you turn to for advice. Extremely useful. But if I had a friend who was struggling psychologically and I had the choice of either sending them to a brilliant mindfulness practitioner with very limited clinical training or a reasonably good clinician with reasonably good training as a clinician, but who’d never heard of mindfulness, I would send that person to the clinician in a heartbeat.

We Are Hardwired for Misery

DK: That’s an interesting point. I live in the Bay Area, and there are a lot of people who are really into Buddhism and mindfulness practices, who kind of eschew psychotherapy for more spiritual practices of meditation and yoga. But at the same time, I know that the Buddhist teachers around here are often imploring people to get therapy, to not do the “spiritual bypass” thing and avoid the work of getting into the muck of our psyches and how they impact our relationships and lives.
RS: Yes, absolutely. Jack Kornfield, who teaches at Spirit Rock in the Bay Area and has written many books on the subject of integrating psychology and Buddhism, recently wrote an article about highly experienced mindfulness meditation teachers, Buddhist teachers, who needed to go into psychotherapy. Ultimately, it’s not that one is better than the other—they are both pathways toward sanity. There are so many pathways to insanity that we actually need a variety of tools to work toward sanity.

I would argue that our natural evolutionarily determined predilection is to be quite nuts and quite miserable.
I would argue that our natural evolutionarily determined predilection is to be quite nuts and quite miserable. As Rick Hanson, who wrote Buddha’s Brain: The Practical Neuroscience of Happiness, Love & Wisdom, puts it, “Our brains are like velcro for bad experiences and teflon for good ones.” It’s a total setup for human misery, not to mention the hardwired tendency toward self-preservation that makes us concerned with how we rank compared to the other primates in our troop, which results in endless self-esteem concerns.

We are hardwired for misery. It is a good thing that we have both Western psychotherapeutic techniques that can help us untangle our narratives and get in touch with our feelings and do that in a healing, interpersonal context, and also have access to mindfulness and compassion practices that can help us transcend our personal story to see existential reality, to face the reality of change and death, to face the reality of sickness and old age, and develop sanity through those practices as well.
DK: As mindfulness practices are becoming more mainstream in the psychotherapy community and the medical community, it’s also becoming more secularized. People might go to their primary care physician and be prescribed a mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) class for high blood pressure, and never even hear the word “Buddhism.” Is there a downside to that?
RS: Let me talk about the upside first and then the downside. The Dalai Lama was talking to a group of clinicians and researchers at Emory University about depression, and toward the end of the conference, I remember being quite moved when he said, “If you folks discover that some elements of Buddhist meditation practices are useful for alleviating depression, I really have only one request for you: please, please don’t tell people that it comes from Buddhism. My tradition is about alleviating suffering, and if you tell people that these are Buddhist practices, you’re going to miss huge numbers of people whose suffering could be alleviated. Don’t get hung up on that. Express this in whatever form is going to be useful in alleviating suffering.”

So my inclination is to tailor our psychotherapy practices to the cultural background, needs, and proclivities of whoever we’re working with. There’s no need to present mindfulness in a way that is going to be alienating. Not only do you not need to mention Buddhism, you don’t need to mention meditation. These practices can be presented simply as attentional control training. When we train our attention differently, we have very different psychological experiences and it helps us both gain insight and cut through all sorts of forms of suffering.

The first rule of psychotherapy is to meet the client or patient where he or she is, and this should not be forced upon people as some alien cultural system, and nor should people be forced to consider the implications of these practices for developing wisdom and compassion if all they’re hoping for at the moment is a little bit less anxiety. That may come later down the road, but we can help them with that anxiety first.

That being said, there are potentials to these practices that are very deep, very wide, and very rich. If a clinician learns mindfulness-based stress reduction and sees these practices primarily as a tool for helping people to relax, they will miss some of the depth and some of the breadth of what these practices can offer. I think it’s useful for clinicians to practice with some intensity themselves, so they can see personally how transformative these practices can be, in a way that goes far, far beyond any benefits that come from relaxation training. It can be very useful for clinicians to learn about Buddhist psychology. It is a very profound and helpful way to understand the mind and how we get caught in suffering.
DK: I think that there’s a lot of mystery and mystification around what mindfulness is, and one of the great things about this new video with you we’re releasing is that we get to see you doing meditation with clients, and modulating it to the specific needs of each client. In real life you don’t do meditation with everyone, but this gives psychotherapists a chance to see what it looks like to bring it into a session.

I think a lot of people are kind of scared to do it and I know that when I first started doing it in my therapy sessions—and I only do it occasionally—I was actually surprised at how profound an experience it was for people and that it had the capacity to stir up some really intense memories. It’s a powerful tool that we have to learn how to use. Can you say a little bit about how you modulate and decide to use meditation in therapy sessions?
RS: First I’d like to pick up on one thing you said.
Many people in our society are involved in states of distraction all day long. Google says we check our cell phone on average 125 times a day.
Many people in our society are involved in states of distraction all day long. Google says we check our cell phone on average 125 times a day. We spend hours watching television. We spend a lot of time chatting with friends. There’s nothing with that—all of these things can have wholesome aspects to them and can make for a rich and interesting life, but for many of us, they keep us from really noticing what’s happening in our minds and in our hearts in each moment. They help to insulate us from the hundreds of micro-traumas that most of us experience just going through the day. The little disappointments, the “I wonder what she meant by that,” the “I didn’t do that as skillfully as I would have,” or “I haven’t quite achieved what I wanted in my life.” Endless, endless reflections, each of which has a bit of pain in it and each of which we want to distract ourselves from with various forms of entertainment and engagement. When people start taking up these practices, all of the pain of those micro-traumas start to come into awareness, and they can indeed be unsettling. Of course they also offer the opportunity to integrate all of that, which is a wonderful potential. So I think we have to be very judicious about it.

My main criteria for whether to actually teach mindfulness practice in a session are twofold; one is, what’s the person’s cultural background and how weird are they going to think it is to choose an object of attention and bring attention to that and return to that object when the mind wanders? Because for some people, it’s like, “forget it, man, that’s not me.”
DK: Yeah, on of the clients in the video, Julia, is a bit like that.
RS: For folks like that, I’m going to be very judicious about it, but one can bring mindfulness into psychotherapy in many, many ways that don’t involve teaching meditation. I already spoke about the shift in our attitude and our capacity for presence as psychotherapists that occurs, as well as the shifts in our models for psychopathology and for what might help people out of psychopathology that might come from our own practice.

Let’s say we’re sitting with somebody and it’s clear that some feeling got triggered. The conventional way to respond to that in therapy is, “What are you feeling now?” A slightly different way to ask the question might be, “what did you notice happening in the body and the mind right now?” That little shift in phrasing starts to shift the conversation from the normal narrative about “my life starring me,” to an observational stance—to what the CBT folks would call “metacognitive awareness,” or what the analysts would call “observing ego.”

To begin to watch and to identify a little bit with awareness itself, rather than the contents of the process. Of course it might be skillful or it might be unskillful in any given moment. For one person at one moment, what they need is to feel your empathic connection to them and saying, “What were you feeling at that moment?” might feel more empathically connected. But for somebody else, they might need to develop some of this observing ego or metacognitive awareness, and if we’re phrasing it in a slightly more objective way, it might serve that purpose. That begins to develop a little bit of mindfulness, even though we’re not doing anything that looks like meditation.

The second criterion I use is, “What’s their capacity to be with their experience?” If they have very little capacity to be with their experience, I want to start with very small doses and very non-threatening contents. If they have more capacity to be with their experience, we can dive into larger doses and get at whatever arises in consciousness right now. It really depends on the person.

Lighten Up

DK: You mentioned CBT and metacognition and it seems like a lot of what’s happening in mindfulness interventions is “noticing.” In CBT, I tend to think of it more as not just noticing, but blocking or counteracting thoughts. Is there also a methodology within mindfulness training where you’re being more directive with the material that comes up in the brain, or is that off limits?
RS: That’s a very interesting question. Let me correct one thing. There’s noticing, and there’s also feeling in a wholehearted way. I think one mistake people make is they assume that this is a very cognitive kind of endeavor and that’s only one part of it. The other part is really opening to what’s happening on a heart level, in terms of really feeling feelings, as well as noticing what’s happening in the interpersonal field and our relationships and connecting in an alive and juicy way to experience. So I just want to mention that first.

Secondly, CBT folks have described it as the third wave of behavior therapy. The first wave was Skinner on one hand and Pavlov and Watson on the other hand. Operant and classical conditioning and working with modifying behavior. Then came the very important insight that human beings, unlike other laboratory animals, think a lot and our thoughts have tremendous impact on both our emotions and on our behavior. So maybe what we should be doing is using behavioral principles, learning theory, to modify thoughts.

The third wave is coming from a different direction:
What if we start to see all thought as essentially fluid, suspect, unreliable, and based on emotion?
What if we start to see all thought as essentially fluid, suspect, unreliable, and based on emotion? These acceptance and mindfulness-based approaches are all about lightening up in relation to thought, rather than trying to get rid of the bad and hold onto the good.

In my experience, that can be quite powerful, but it takes a while. It’s a much more subtle and in some ways sophisticated way to work with the mind than just replacing maladaptive irrational thoughts with adaptive rational ones. After all, one person’s adaptive, rational thought, is another person’s insanity. We all may agree about our zip code and whether it’s raining at the moment, but as soon as we get into more complex matters, humans differ a great deal and I think we’d do better to have a more relativistic approach toward different thoughts.
DK: So the third wave basically posits that we are all insane.
RS: Yes, we’re all insane. This is a little bit of a bold summary, but my impression of the last 15 or 20 years of advances in cognitive science is basically the realization that all the processes that we’ve thought of as rational are irrational, that bias, desire, cultural proclivity, those kinds of factors are really what determine how and what we think. The idea that we are rational organisms analyzing data for positive goals—yeah, occasionally, but that’s not mostly how we tick. So if we can lighten up generally in our approach to thinking, I think that’s quite helpful.
DK: That is a perfect place to end. Thank you so much for sharing the insights of your otherwise unruly mind.
RS: It’s been a pleasure.

Psychotherapy in the Year 2045

According to Ray Kurzweil, futurist extraordinaire, the singularity is approaching at the speed of Jimmy John's delivery. The technological notion of the singularity asserts that computers, robots, and related super-intelligent machines will reach a stage when they match and then exceed the capabilities of human beings.

When will the singularity occur? Ray has his calendar marked for 2045, so I should have the majority of my credit card bills polished off by then. Now, of course, we could dismiss Kurzweil's predictions as ludicrous, except for the fact that he possess 20 honorary doctorate degrees, has received honors from three U.S. presidents, and enough inventions to make Benjamin Franklin green with envy.

Make no mistake about it: If the singularity casts its shadow it will be a major game-changer for the field of psychotherapy, and I am not the only pundit sounding the alarm. University of Missouri at St. Louis graduate professor and book author R. Rocco Cottone recently penned an article in the 2015 April issue of Counseling Today titled, "The End of Counseling as we Know it."

So let's get a tad self-centered here and see where we as helpers fit into this movement.

At first the future looks bright, as therapists will be needed to program these electronic psychotherapists. Those therapists who obtain double degrees such as psychology or counseling and computer science, or perhaps social work and computer programming, will likely have their pick of jobs. (By the way, that wouldn't be yours truly. I'm still struggling to learn the features on my semi-prehistoric flip phone and I am dreading the day—which will surely arrive prior to the singularity—when I can no longer secure a battery for this dinosaur.)

The next phase. Well, that's where the proverbial bottom drops out. First these techno-wonders will surely be able to surpass our human scores on exams like the EPPP, the NCE, or the CPCE. "And the job goes to the bright silver nanobot in the corner with the terrahertz processor." Of course that will end therapists' interview anxiety when it comes to those "tell me about your weaknesses" questions.

For those who are skeptical, please recall that on February 10, 1996, an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov, the world chess champion, in a match.

On the positive side, Kurzweil makes it clear that we will indeed have the technology to load all the world's information to our brains. Hence, I would imagine that after that any red-blooded therapist could ace their licensing or certification exam with a perfect score. But what's a therapist to do if insurance refuses to pay for the procedure? Good question, isn't it?

The final phase will take place when every cell phone, flat screen television, tablet, Google Glasses, and only God knows what, will sport an app with an Albert Ellis clone right down to the New York vocal inflections. And if you don't like Ellis, no problem. Just tell the app you would like a humanist, and a virtual Carl Rogers appears. But is that what we really want for our clients? Wouldn't it be better to learn to have a relationship with another human being rather than a computer program with artificial intelligence (AI), governed by Moore's Law, that has passed the Turing test? Just asking. I don't know about you, but a computerized Rogers doesn't sound very humanistic to me.

And say the client develops a positive transference toward a virtual Freud. Do we applaud that sort of behavior or shall we advocate for a new DSM category?

It is only fair to mention that not everybody is buying the Kurzweil version of the future. Dr. John Grohol of the PsychCentral website is adamant that since we actually don't know how the human brain functions, it is futile to worry about us creating artificial intelligence systems which will occupy our seats in the therapy room.

As for me. I just want some assurance that the techno-human counseling my client isn't hacked or isn't a hacker. But then again, I would imagine that would be a user support issue.

Brooklyn Zoo: The Education of a Psychotherapist

Editor's Note: Following is an excerpt from Brooklyn Zoo: The Education of a Psychotherapist, by Darcy Lockman. © 2012 by Darcy Lockman.

I woke a woman named Ophelia for morning group, and she was not pleased. “You woke me from my sunder,” she kept repeating in an angry voice. She followed me into the dayroom anyway. A man named Juan was dancing in the hallways, and I corralled him, too. There was a third patient, a woman, she looked a little slow. And Mr. Rumbert again. I asked them to speak about why they were in CPEP [Comprehensive Psychiatric Emergency Program].

“I came for a bed, but I was double-crossed,” said Ophelia.

“My fiancée called 911 after Shabbos dinner,” Juan said, which sounded funny because he was clearly Mexican.

“Why did she call?” I inquired.

“You’d have to ask her,” he replied.

The woman who looked slow said she’d done crack for the first time and was full of regret.

She began to cry.

Rhoda [a nurse] walked in to get Ophelia. She needed her help with some paperwork.

“You can come back when you’re finished,” I told the patient as she left. She turned and gave me the finger. Juan told those of us who remained that he wanted to read to us from a book called Recreating Your Self. As we listened, Ophelia returned, and she was worked up. She marched up right close to me.

“You double-crossed me,” she yelled. Her body looked tense, poised for a fight. For the first time in the ER, my fear of being physically threatened was being realized. I made my way toward the door, encouraging Ophelia to come with me, not wanting to leave her alone with the other patients. She was taller than I was, and wiry. I imagined her rage would give her fists great force. I had never learned how to protect myself from a punch, and cowering seemed like my best defense. I remembered what T. [a supervisor] had told me weeks earlier about being soothing.

“It’s okay. Come with me. We’ll find you some juice, something to eat,” I said. She followed me as I walked backward into the hallway, which for once was deserted, the guard having abandoned her post. Ophelia remained too close, still menacing, insisting on my alleged crime, taunting me. I continued walking slowly, my body facing toward her as I backed away sideways. “Hello, hello,” I said loudly, turning my head toward the adjacent halls, trying to get the staff ’s attention without alarming anyone, but someone was always yelling, if not screaming, in the ER, and no one was likely to heed my cautious cries. Calling for help seemed overly dramatic, and I thought it might set Ophelia off besides. Shit.

But Rhoda came out of her office and saw us. She rushed over, inserting her solid body between Ophelia’s and mine. She managed to calm her down while also explaining to me that Ophelia had slammed out of her office two minutes before. “I’ll take care of you,” Rhoda said firmly to Ophelia, shepherding her off to another hallway. I went back to the group room, concerned that the patients might have gotten spooked. Juan and the other woman were now seated side by side. She was choosing passages from his book, and he was reading these aloud. Mr. Rumbert sat across the room, silent but calm. I entered and closed the door and sat to listen and get myself back together. Ophelia was back soon, standing outside the windows of the group room looking in. I saw the guard was back at her post, and I opened the door. “Would you like to rejoin us?” I asked Ophelia, because wasn’t that my job?

““Don’t talk to me,” she said. “You look like a canker sore.””

Afterward, I did not have much left in me, but still I brought Juan into T.’s office for an interview. His chart said he had a long history of bipolar disorder. He told me he was an attorney and a converted Jew and there was no reason for him to be in a psychiatric emergency room.

“Have you been hearing voices?” I asked.

“Yes,” pause, “Guided by Voices,” pause. “Get it? The band?” Guffaw.

“Are you worried that someone is watching you?”

“Yes,” pause, “the Police,” pause. “Every breath I take, every step I make.”

He kept insisting there was no reason for him to be there, and when T. came in, she’d quickly had enough and told him we were done. He got up and walked out, turning off the light as he made his exit.

“That’s so symbolic,” T. said. “Lights out.” I told her about what happened with Ophelia because I thought the staff might want to assign her an assault level. T. asked if I was okay. I was still shaken, but I said yes. Then it was time to go, and as I left, I saw Juan the converted Jew lying on his stomach on one of the reclining chairs. I waved, and he thrust his hands back to catch his ankles in a resplendent yoga bow pose.

All the way to work the next morning I debated whether to bring Ophelia to group. I hadn’t thought to ask T. about that. With a higher-functioning patient—someone who was not psychotic—I thought it would have been important to bring her in, to demonstrate implicitly that her aggressive impulses were not as destructive as she likely feared. I was not sure that the same thinking applied to a psychotic patient, especially a paranoid one, since paranoia reflects a projection of aggression—that is, Ophelia experienced the hostility not as her own but as directed toward her by those around her (in this case, me). I decided I would invite her if she was up but that I would not wake her from her “sunder” if she was still asleep. It turned out not to matter, because when I got the census she was no longer on it—moved to the list of people waiting for a bed upstairs. I was relieved. I found Juan and Mr. Rumbert—who was continuing to speak—and a new woman who was attractive and looked with-it. But then she told me she did “sortation” for a living, which made me suspect she had a thought disorder because I knew, thanks to my month in the psych ER, that use of neologisms was often a symptom of schizophrenia or mania. T. called in sick, and Dr. Brink was my official supervisor for the day.

I spoke to the sortater, who had a long history of psychiatric hospitalizations, for some time and then went to report to Dr. Brink. She seemed distracted, and I felt as if I was bothering her; EOB patients were not her problem, after all, and I didn’t imagine her relationship with T. made her inclined to fill in with her caseload. The hospital police were called to the ER while I sat in Brink’s office, but I paid that little mind. When I got up to go back across the hall, she put her hand out to stop me. ““Didn’t you hear that page? You never leave after hearing the hospital police called. You need to pay attention.”” It had been a month, and there were many things I had learned there, but others that I had not. I sat to wait while the police broke up a fight in the hallway.

The next day was a Friday, and my last in the psychiatric emergency room; on Monday, I would report to inpatient unit G-51. I gathered the EOB patients for my final group with ease. A moment of interpersonal conflict between two group members got me engaged. The drug addict told another patient he didn’t like being asked about his methadone in the hallway in front of everyone the previous day. The offender replied he’d noticed the drug addict had not eaten breakfast and was testing a theory that methadone users in general didn’t like to eat. I tried to facilitate further discussion, which would have been the meat of an outpatient group, but neither man was as interested as I was.

After group Rhoda told me there was an EOB patient pending. A psychiatrist I recognized by face but not by name told me I should see him to try to make something of his story. Darren looked like a handful of the others I’d seen that month: early twenties and handsome and robust, nicely dressed in jeans and a sweater. His presence in the G-ER didn’t bode well, but I was still maintaining my manic hope that somehow nothing was seriously wrong this time. T. came in as I was beginning my interview with Darren and quietly sat down to observe. I felt my usual self-consciousness and also a determination to do better this time, to prove to us both that my four weeks of immersion in her EOB had taught me something. Darren made eye contact and answered my questions in the right amount of detail, without hesitation or mistrust. To make matters murkier, his reason for admission puzzled me, and I didn’t know where to go with it. “A week of really bad headaches,” he said. If there was one thing I’d learned, it was that you didn’t get brought to a psychiatric emergency room for a headache.

“Did the headaches start because you’d been drinking too much or using drugs?” I asked.

“No, I’m not into any of that,” he said.

“Did your headache come from voices you were hearing that no one else could hear?”

He shook his head.

“Was it because someone was stealing your thoughts or trying to put ideas into your head?”

He gave me a wry smile. Still no.

“Did the headache make you agitated? Did you get very angry at anyone, maybe yell at them on the street or shove them?”

Negative. We sat there together, equally perplexed.

“Where was the pain?” I asked, grasping at straws. If he told me it was in his face, maybe I could diagnose him with a sinus infection. He said that it was in his entire head. I turned to T., defeated. “Do you have any questions?” I half mumbled.

She took over with her usual omniscience. It was not grandiosity, she just really was all knowing. I tried to calculate the difference between my four weeks and her twenty years. Even allowing for fifteen vacation days annually, it was considerable. “Your thoughts were all jumbled up last week, and it really made your head hurt,” she said to Darren. He nodded, and it was as if a light had turned on in his brain.

“They were mad bundled!” he said.

“And that happened in school, too, right? It got hard to pay attention, hard not to get confused?” Darren had told us that he’d flunked out of college four months earlier.

He nodded, starting to look upset. T. had his chart open in front of her and was looking at the doctor’s orders. “Has the medicine we’ve been giving you helped with the headache?” she asked.

“Yes,” he replied. “It’s gone now.”

“You’re lucky,” she told him. “Years ago we didn’t have these pills, and people who got headaches and confusion like yours had much more trouble going about their lives.”

After Darren had left us for the hallway, T. said, “Most likely schizophreniform, though it could be a psychotic depression.” She explained that schizophreniform disorder was diagnosed in patients with less than six months of symptoms of schizophrenia; only some of them would go on to exhibit the full-blown disorder. “His prognosis is good. He relates pretty normally, and his affect isn’t flat. If he stays on the medication, he can probably go back to school, next semester even. He should see a therapist, too, of course, to monitor how he’s doing over time, to help him understand his preoccupations better. He’s far from a hopeless case.”

“How about me?” I asked, aware that my minutes there were dwindling, wanting to remind T. that today it was me who was timing out.

“Not hopeless,” she said. “Frankly, I was surprised by how little you knew when you got here. But you’ve been doing a good job trying to take everything in. It’s a lot of information, and it’s a difficult environment. I wasn’t sure you’d come back after what happened the other day with Ophelia.”

This floored me. It never crossed my mind not to return. What kind of wimp did she take me for? “No. I mean, I was shaken, but this is my internship. I signed up for this,” I reminded her. She pulled out the same evaluation sheet that Dr. Young had filled out the month before. T. had not given me high marks, but at least they were scores that actually reflected her own ideas about my work. As she reviewed them with me, I thought again about what Dr. Wolfe had said the month before, and how after so long in the carpeted classrooms of my graduate school it was actually quite hard to pull off, this task of becoming a better psychologist. But also I felt on my way.

Heather Clague on Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Working with Society’s Most Marginalized Populations

Deb Kory: One of the reasons that I wanted to interview you for Psychotherapy.net is that you’re one of the only psychiatrists I know who both works in a hospital setting and also sees private clients as a psychotherapist. You are the medication-dispensing therapist that so many of my clients wish I were—though I’m so grateful not to have prescribing privileges. It would freak me out.

Since we’re releasing a video this month about working in hospitals and treatment centers, I thought you would be a great person to shed some light on that world. You are in private practice in Oakland, California, and you also you work at John George psychiatric hospital. What is your job there?
Heather Clague: John George is a public psychiatric hospital in San Leandro, California, and I’m an attending psychiatrist in the psychiatric emergency room (PES). It’s the 5150 [California law allowing involuntary psychiatric hold] receiving facility for Alameda County, so anyone who is put on a psychiatric hold in our county will come to us to be assessed for that 5150.

Our model is known as the “Alameda Model,” and it’s a way to reduce the length of stay for psychiatric patients in emergency rooms. In other counties that don’t have psychiatric emergency services like we do, people with psychiatric emergencies are taken to medical emergency rooms and then await an inpatient bed somewhere.
Methamphetamine accounts for a shocking amount of our services. Meth makes you really, really crazy.
And since there are so few psychiatric inpatient beds, they can wait days and days, often strapped to a gurney, ignored in a corner. Medical ER boarding times are significantly shorter in our county than those without a PES like ours, because as soon as the patient is medically cleared they can send the patient to us.

“We have just allowed ourselves not to see them”

DK: Dr. Heather Clague, thanks so much for taking the time to speak to me and our Psychotherapy.net readers today. Truth in advertising: you were my supervisor at Berkeley Primary Care, a community health clinic, where I did a practicum my third year of graduate school at the Wright Institute. These days we sometimes share clients and we also did improvisational theater together for a while. We’re both believers in the therapeutic value of improv
HC: Indeed.
DK: Let’s say someone is having a psychotic break and they go to a regular medical hospital and they get discharged to John George—what then happens to them?
HC: Then they come into our facility and they get an evaluation.
DK: Would you do that evaluation?
HC: I would, yes. We have a doctor-centered model where each patient will get seen by a physician once or twice, or sometimes even three times, and an assessment is made. The idea being that it should be a rapid assessment, that patients are not supposed to be held there more than 24 hours, at which point they will either be admitted to the hospital or released to the community.

But the reality is that our service can become overrun. There can be long delays and patients often still have to wait days and days to get an inpatient bed—although they are at least waiting in a psychiatric emergency room as opposed to a medical emergency room.
DK: Feeling hope and joy in this work really matters.
HC: It matters to me and I think it matters to the people that I work with. I also think there’s something about midlife where one has to reconcile reality with ideals.
DK: It’s humbling, isn’t it? Finding peace in our little slice of the pie, much smaller than we might have once hoped.
HC: But without becoming cynical.
DK: Is that why you only work there one day a week?
HC: For me it’s the threshold. Below a certain amount, I have a very good sense of gallows humor about it. The people I see who work there full time struggle a lot more with the despair and a very grim feeling that comes from working in a dysfunctional system.

The other way the system is broken is that there is a population of maybe 100, maybe up to 500 high users, people who are chronically calling 911. If they were given apartments, free taxi vouchers—just find out what they want and give it to them—it would cost vastly less than the impact that they have on the medical system. And I’m not just talking about the financial cost, but the burnout and wear-and-tear on the people who work in the system. I think there’s pretty good data on this.

If you need to go to an emergency room and you wait a long time, that is a direct result of this problem.

“The overwhelming burden of the radical not-enough-ness”

DK: You would have to retain some sense of hope to do this work. Both of us, really, but I’m quite comfortable in my cozy, private psychotherapy office, whereas you are much more in the trenches of human suffering, where I think hope is often in short supply.
HC: Or, less charitably, I think I’ve got strong internal boundaries. When I was working at Berkeley Primary Care, where you and I met, I had a population of patients that I saw as part of my ongoing caseload, and I ultimately left that environment because it was too dispiriting for me. I followed those patients long term and I think I felt too responsible for them, just this overwhelming burden of the radical not enough-ness. At least in emergency room settings what I’m supposed to do is so tiny, I can do that tiny piece really well and cheerfully and with compassion and humanity so that I don’t have solve everyone’s problems. If I can give them a moment of feeling seen as a human being, that works for me. I think it would be grandiose to suggest it really has a radically long-term effect on the patients that I see, but it allows me to sustain and feel hopeful and to enjoy what I do.
DK: That must be awfully dispiriting.
HC: Well, I can handle it when I work there one day a week.
DK: Wait, so you’re basically also a homeless shelter?
HC: We’re basically also a homeless shelter. And we are emblematic of societal dysfunction. If Alameda county would invest some money in opening up some shelters, the number of patients coming to us and medical emergency rooms would drop. There is no drop-in women’s shelter in Alameda County. There is one drop-in men’s shelter in Alameda County and it costs $5 a night, which is $150 a month, which most people can panhandle if they’ve got the wherewithal to panhandle $5 a night, but that’s a giant chunk of what General Assistance [Alameda county aid program for indigent adults and emancipated minors] gives you.
DK: Because our culture has become immune to it?
HC: Yeah, happy to ignore psychotic people. We have just allowed ourselves to not see them.

We have a large population of homeless people who use us a shelter. And almost all of them are also using drugs, but some of them will just come in and know that if they say the magic words—that they’re suicidal and hearing voices—they’ll get to spend the night. Some of them first present to the nearest medical emergency room, which amps up the expense because there are ambulances involved and there is a medical ER evaluation involved.
DK: So part of your role then is educating them about the dangers of meth?
HC: We do a little scaring them straight. “There are dangerous consequences to continued use, you could lose your teeth”—that type of thing.
DK: Is it?
HC: It’s like Altoid’s, strangely addictive.
DK: Otherwise you’re kind of on automatic pilot?
HC: Well the productivity expectations have gone up and up and up. When I started in 2001, if we had 20 people it was off the hook. Now, if we come in and there’s fewer than 50 we’re like, “easy day!” At the peak this weekend we had 86. I’m just waiting for us to hit 100. It just keeps escalating, and the population of Alameda County has not grown that much.
I think what we’re witnessing is the degradation of the mental health system—the ongoing defunding of the community mental health system and the social system.
I think what we’re witnessing is the degradation of the mental health system—the ongoing defunding of the community mental health system and the social system.

They just keep slashing money from community mental health, caseloads go up, there are fewer case managers and fewer psychiatrists. Services are getting cut or just not growing proportionate to the need.
DK: Wow. I had no idea there were so few shelters around.
HC: There are some other shelters around, but none that you can access on a drop-in basis. It’s an appalling lack of care that our county pays for through the nose, but those who pay for it are not necessarily in charge of fixing it, and so the problem doesn’t get fixed.
DK: Say more about that.
HC: It’s a high-energy place—there’s always a lot of work to get done. It’s very satisfying. There’s all these people that need to get seen and you make a lot of people happy because you send them home.
DK: Do you feel a special affinity with your colleagues there?
HC: Absolutely. The nurses and social workers who work there are fantastic. The people who survive in that environment develop certain social skills and have a certain philosophy of life—
DK: A sense of humor would be paramount.
HC: It’s so important. If we aren’t overwhelmed with patients one day, one of our social workers will say, “Well, we had a mental health outbreak today!”

Also, there’s no calls, there’s no voicemail.
DK: You get to leave it behind when you go home?
HC: Exactly. I have a very intense experience when I’m there and then when I’m done I can let it go.
DK: And do you?
HC: Yeah. I would say I do. Actually, I find it important not to let it go too quickly. Part of the problem of working there is it’s so fast-paced, it’s easy to do it a little mindlessly. So when I’m working in the hospital, it’s actually good for me to tell my husband some of the stories of the day so that I can actually take in that, “Wow, I just had a brush with someone who is having a much deeper, more complicated experience, and I got to bear witness to a small piece of a much bigger story.” It’s important to be able to sit back and reflect on what that story likely looked like.

It’s easy to let my impressions of people fall into stereotypical typologies, so it’s important to pull back from that and realize that there’s a very interesting three-dimensional person behind what looks like “just another meth addict.” This person had a mother, this person came from somewhere, they have a very specific story that brought them to this point.
DK: There’s obviously a deep level of dehumanization that has brought them to this point, and I think you’re saying that it’s difficult to yourself not become dehumanized in that environment.
HC: Exactly.
DK: So you have to find creative ways to stay present and to rehumanize these people.
HC: And oneself.

“People don’t have beds to sleep in”

DK: One thing that’s very noticeable about the Bay Area when you move here are the number of mentally ill people living on the streets. Do these folks make their way to you?
HC:
In our culture, you have to be pretty smelly or lying in the middle of the street or obviously bothering people with your lack of self-care before anyone will really take action.

There are people with chronic psychotic illnesses who become agitated or have such radically poor self-care that they come to attention of the people around them. In our culture, that has to be pretty radical—you have to be pretty smelly or lying in the middle of the street or obviously bothering people with your lack of self-care before anyone will really take action.
DK: Do you see a lot of addicts at the psych ER?
HC: Substance abuse is huge. My impressions aren’t necessarily accurate, but it feels like at least 20% of the people we see are having paranoid delusions because of methamphetamine use. Methamphetamine accounts for a shocking amount of our services; methamphetamine makes you really, really crazy.
DK: It sure does.
HC: And very aggressive.
DK: So what would you do with a meth addict who came in?
HC: Give some Ativan. Let them sleep. Feed them.
DK: Detox?
HC: We can refer to a detox facility that’s right near us, though there are shockingly few detox facilities available.

I think there should be a public health announcement in the Latino community because I see these higher functioning men working two jobs to support their families, who start using methamphetamines to increase their productivity, and then they get psychotic. I don’t think they know how dangerous it is.
DK: That people don’t have beds to sleep in and aren’t being properly treated for their addictions and poverty-related problems?
HC: People don’t have beds to sleep in, which is an easily solvable problem that would not cost that much money. It also would not cost that much money to give some intensive case management to this particular high-using group. Perhaps they are a fairly cynical, seemingly undeserving group, but it’s a funny kind of justice that would create a system like ours to punish them in the way we do. There’s this feeling that if we give those people taxi vouchers, then other people are going to learn that if they spend all their time in emergency rooms pretending to be suicidal, they’ll get taxi vouchers too. But I don’t think the population of people willing to spend all their time at the hospital pretending to be suicidal is that high.

“Well, it is fun”

DK: That’s a really good point. So if you’ve had to keep your workload down to one day to stay sane, why do you work in the psychiatric ER at all?
HC: Well, it is fun.
DK: How long is a typical stay for a patient there?
HC: I’m not sure what the average is, but it’s probably too long. It can range anywhere from a half hour—we get a quick evaluation and realize you don’t need to be there—to 18 to 36 hours. So, a night or two.

If we’re backed up on beds, or there is a placement issue, patients can stay for a number of days. That’s not ideal and everybody in the system tries to keep that from happening.
DK: Why?
HC: Because it’s a rough experience for the patients. It’s a hard place to have to hang out, especially if you’re in psychiatric distress. We have nurses and doctors rotating every shift. We are able to make some limited interventions—start medications, family meetings, have patients participate in some group therapy, but it’s primarily a facility designed to collect observations, make a decision, and move on. It’s clearly a giant step above waiting for days in a medical emergency room, but it is not equal to a good inpatient experience.
DK: Say more about the types of people you see.
HC: The 5150 is applied for danger to self—someone who is acutely suicidal; danger to others—so someone may be homicidal; and grave disability—someone who is unable to provide food, clothing, and shelter for themselves. We see people with chronic psychotic illnesses having a decompensation, people with bipolar disorder who have become manic, people who have a depressive illness and have become acutely suicidal. We’ll see people who aren’t necessarily mentally ill but they just had a breakup and have became suicidal and texted someone they were going to kill themselves.
DK: Are you only involved in the initial assessment, or are you involved in ongoing care?
HC: My general schedule is to work one day a week, so normally I would just do a one-time assessment and would see them over the course of the day if they have needs during that day. Sometimes I’ll work two days in a row and if a patient is still there then I see them again. I can do small interventions, but we’re not an inpatient service.

Bringing Grit to the Comfortable Place

DK: Without becoming cynical, right. Do you feel like your ER psychiatrist role is a separate identity from your role as a psychotherapist in your private practice Oakland?
HC: Yeah, I do.
DK: In a never-the-twain-shall-meet kind of way?
HC: Well, not entirely. I’m me. I’m the same person. But, my role is quite different. They are two ends of a spectrum: Long-term/short-term, higher-functioning/lower-functioning. But obviously the two inform each other. I think it’s good to bring some grit into the comfortable space and compassion into the gritty space. And I definitely feel like using my empathic skills in the emergency room is effective and incredibly rewarding.
DK: Speaking of which, psychiatrists are not often thought of as empathic. It’s all anecdotal, but I’ve not had many people come into my office reporting positive experiences with psychiatrists. Why do you think that is? And why don’t more psychiatrists do therapy?
HC: Well, it’s not as lucrative. If you see three medication patients per hour, you can make a lot more money than seeing one therapy patient per hour.
DK: So it’s purely financial?
HC: Well, also, in order to do learn to do therapy well, you have to feel safe and have time to empathize and mentalize, and I don’t think the medical model facilitates mentalizing.
DK: Because doctors are trying to squeeze in as many patients as possible?
HC: You’re not trying to form a model of the patient’s inner experience, you’re trying to make a diagnostic categorization and then select a medication.
If I can give them a moment of feeling seen as a human being, that works for me.
I think skillful pharmacologists obviously do need to understand the target symptoms, what the side effects are, what a particular person’s concerns about taking medication are. Obviously having empathic skills helps with prescribing medication, but I think it’s treated as icing on the cake. I think that’s true in most medical settings.
DK: When you went through UCSF Medical School, were you given any proper therapy training?
HC: UCSF did a reasonable job of training people how to communicate effectively with patients. I also went to UCSF for residency and that program was very strong in training. But I think that’s not typical for psychiatric residencies. They tend to be more biologically oriented, and I personally feel a bit skeptical about the biological approach of psychiatry. There are obviously illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and severe depression that look like medical illnesses. They look very biological. But the human condition does not want to easily fit itself into DSM V diagnostic categories, and there’s a lot of politics behind why we shoehorn them in there.
DK: Our last interview was with Gary Greenberg, who recently wrote The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry, and in it he talks a lot about how inappropriate the medical model is for maladies of the mind. How do you use the DSM? How do you view diagnosis?
HC: I hold it lightly. I have to put some code down there, and I choose from a handful of codes.
DK: Do you have a favorite?
HC: Well at the hospital, we’re allowed to use more of the bullshitty codes, the “NOS” codes. Of course, we can’t put substance abuse as a primary diagnosis because we don’t get paid.
DK: Why not?
HC: I don’t know, actually. The stigmatization of substance abuse? Insurance companies don’t want to pay for addicts who end up in the ER? Perhaps it’s viewed as an issue of volition rather than biology?
DK: Though there’s plenty of evidence for a genetic predisposition toward addiction.
HC: Well, the reason we call it volition is that we don’t have great treatments for it, so it’s blamed on the patient.

But the DSM doesn’t turn me on. I do what I have to do. Probably the biggest diagnostic question that I face is, “is this unipolar depression or bipolar depression?” I don’t want to give a bipolar patient an antidepressant and cause a manic episode, so that is an important practical diagnostic question.

Or “does this person have OCD as opposed to other forms of anxiety?” because that has treatment implications. With OCD, we’ll want to use higher doses of SSRIs and encourage therapies such as exposure and response prevention.

There is No Truth

DK: Well, if I were struggling with the Bipolar 1 or Bipolar 2 question, I’d just send them over to you to figure out.
HC: And I would tell you that there is no truth.
DK: And that would be annoying.
HC: Do you want to hear my rant about bipolar disorder?
DK: Yes, please.
HC: Bipolar got really trendy right around the time that Lamotrigine was being marketed.
DK: Which is Lamictal.
HC: Right. And the evidence for its efficacy is actually pretty weak.
Bipolar got really trendy right around the time that Lamotrigine was being marketed.
People who responded to Lamotrigine who went off of it were more likely to have a depressive relapse than people who stayed on it, but there is no control trial of people having acute depressive episodes on Lamotrigine doing better than people who took placebo. And there are all sorts of methodological issues around discontinuation studies. Even the data on lithium and Depakote is actually quite thin. And if you really want to get paranoid about it, the reproducibility of psychiatric trials is also quite weak.
DK: Because it’s too hard to control for variables? Or is it just that the nature of the mind is still so mysterious? It’s not like measuring the size of a tumor or drawing blood to see if a disease is still present.
HC: Well, we take a cluster of symptoms and we describe them and we put a label on them. Some people are probably very obsessively good at asking really detailed questions—“How many days did that last?” But I can tell you in practice I don’t have the time or the interest to go through it with that fine grain a comb. I screen for things that sound like classical bipolar symptoms, but what is ultra-rapid cycling bipolar disorder and how does it differ from the psychiatric effects of trauma? I mean, does pediatric bipolar actually exist? Kids who are beaten and raped and emotionally abused are going to have rage outbursts and sleep problems.

I saw this young man last week who was put in foster care at age 4, so who knows what kind of horror show was happening in his life before age 4. He’s been in and out of foster care. He’s been in juvenile justice since age 12, and he’s been shooting methamphetamine, and he’s telling me he has bipolar disorder. You grow up that way you’re going to be traumatized. Maybe there are people who have resiliency factors who don’t become mentally ill, but he didn’t look like he had bipolar disorder to me. He looked like someone very, very traumatized, but I’m going to giving him Zyprexa?! That just did not feel like the right solution.

The next guy who comes in, I ask, “Have you ever made a suicide attempt?”

“Oh, yeah, a bunch of times.”

“Oh, what have you done?”

“Well, I swallowed glass and I swallowed razor blades. I drank bleach.”

“When was the last time?”

“Five or six months ago.”

He’s got scars all up and down his arm and all up and down his neck. This patient did not want to talk to me about what happened to him when he was young, but in my mind, his diagnosis is trauma until proven otherwise. But this guy is not carrying a trauma diagnosis, even as a rule-out. He’s only carrying a psychotic disorder diagnosis. That just feels very wrong to me.

I’m partly on a kick because I saw Bessel van der Kolk at a conference, and what he says makes so much sense to me. He put together a diagnosis called “developmental trauma disorder,” which is obviously a trauma-based diagnosis, and one of the major cons of including developmental trauma disorder into the DSM is that it would wipe out a bunch of other diagnoses. It wipes out a lot of ADHD. It wipes out oppositional defiant disorder, borderline personality disorder, a lot of bipolar disorder.
DK: So it wipes out a lot of money?
HC: It wipes out a lot of things that people want to treat with medication. There’s compelling epigenetic research about the way that experience and trauma gets incorporated into your biology and passed on to your offspring, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that the primary solution should be to take a pill.

I’m not anti-medication. I think there’s definitely a role for pills, but the fact that psychiatry has put all of its eggs in that basket is appalling to me, especially when there’s a lot of exciting research about non-pharmacological treatments, such as EMDR, neurofeedback, hypnosis, and paradoxical motivational techiques.

How is it that we help our patients? How do we train ourselves as therapists to be highly effective on a kind of session-by-session basis? What did I do in session today that was actually effective? I think we should be collecting a lot more data, both as a profession and also individually. Our impressions are so misleading.
DK: Scott Miller has done a lot of research on what works in psychotherapy and what doesn’t. I think he reported that something like 75% of therapists think they’re better than average, which is, of course, statistically impossible.
HC: That is healthy narcissism. I would want to know what is up with the 25% that thinks they’re below average. I wouldn’t want to see them. I think it’s okay to think you’re somewhat more effective than you are.

Does pediatric bipolar actually exist? Kids who are beaten and raped and emotionally abused are going to have rage outbursts and sleep problems.
But we also need to be willing to take that confidence in ourselves to the next level, so that we can look at ourselves critically and separate out what we do that is effective from what isn’t. I was really intrigued when van der Kolk talked about doing EMDR with a patient who was very hostile toward him. He was asking the patient to be with this traumatic memory and he says, “So tell me what’s going on.” And the patient says, “It’s none of your fucking business.” And van der Kolk says, “OK, go with that,” and he completes the session and the guy tells him nothing about what he was thinking about, but at the end says, “Thank you, that was very helpful.”

So it’s not always clear how the patient liking or attaching to us predicts the kinds of changes they want or that we think they should want. I’m not saying we should encourage our patients to hate us, but I think a lot of us think we’re more effective than we are.
DK: We just recently interviewed Bessel van der Kolk as well as Francine Shapiro, the originator of EMDR, so you are in good company here. They are both big researchers and into collecting data on the efficacy of their work. Do you collect data from your clients?
HC: I’ve started to. I’m training in the David Burns TEAM model of cognitive therapy, and it asks the patient to complete a symptom rating scare before and after every session. So after every session they fill out a feedback form and they evaluate you based on how well you empathized with them, how well they felt that they were able to talk about what was important to them, whether they learned new skills and whether they’re going to do their homework, and then it lets them give a little narrative write up.

It’s very, very humbling. And it has transformed my therapy practice. You have a session you thought was great and then learn that patient didn’t think so! You’re able to come back to the person and say, “You know, it sounds like I wasn’t really getting this. Can you fill me in? How was I off track?” It’s an incredibly therapeutic moment. We’re inviting patients to criticize us and then taking that non-defensively. How many people have that in their lives where they get to actually say to someone, “that kind of sucked,” and to have that received that lovingly and non-defensively?
DK: And with curiosity.
HC: It’s incredibly hard to do. And we’re only human. But I think that having the right kind of training can make it possible.
There is a lot of narcissistic support built into our field for embracing failure.
Allowing ourselves as therapists to really take pride in our failures is what allows us to be non-defensive and to receive critical feedback from patients in an open-hearted way. For example, it turns out my grandparents were right, I really do talk too fast. I’ve heard that on enough feedback forms. That’s humbling, but at least I know I have that tendency, and when it comes up I can validate the patient’s experience. And actually, now that I think about it, I haven’t gotten that feedback as much lately, so maybe I’m actually doing better at slowing down!

To Prescribe or Not to Prescribe?

DK: Do you generally try to do psychotherapy first for a while before prescribing?
HC: So much depends on what the patient comes in expecting and wanting. It’s really interesting, because some people are very clear: “I don’t have the time and energy for CBT. I want a relatively straightforward, easy solution to my chronic anxiety, and I’m willing to take the risks that come from medication. And I only have to see you every six months if I’m stable.” And that works for me. CBT is hard work. Actually, most psychotherapy is hard work and that doesn’t fit for everybody.

And then other people feel like, “I don’t want to take a pill. I don’t want to take medication. I don’t want to be labeled and stigmatized and reduced to that. I want to explore and understand.” It’s a tremendous privilege as a clinician to be able to work with people in such a broad way. The danger is that I’m a little jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none. I’m not the most hotshot psychopharmacologist. I’m not up to date on all the latest meds. But I’m really good at SSRIs.
DK: Speaking of SSRIs, given that they work slightly better than placebo, do you tend to psychoeducate people about that, about all the risk, the fact that we don’t even really know why they work?
HC: No. I don’t. Because I want to maximize the placebo response. I give them every testimonial I can. Because they’re not just getting the pill, they’re getting me prescribing the pill. They’re getting the experience of having a relationship with me and so to whatever extent taking that pill is internalizing me, I want that to be a positive experience.

Now, I’m not going to shine them on and say that SSRIs always work or are completely benign, but as drugs go—certainly compared to the mood stabilizers or heavens, antipsychotic medications—I think they’re relatively benign. They’re not so benign for people who might be bipolar, since they can bring on severe agitation or even manic episodes, so I have to be careful there, but otherwise they are relatively benign.
DK: If somebody is clearly suffering with chronic depression, they are in therapy, and they’re open to getting pharmacological help, how many SSRIs are you willing to try on a person before you give up?
HC: The data shows that the chance of it working goes down with every trial. But, again, they’re not getting a pill, they’re getting the experience of paying a fair amount of money to come sit in my nice office, to sit across from me, and have me listen to their story, and then to have a conversation with me about what it means to take medication. And then to have customized dosing.
DK: So it may be that they’re getting the therapeutic effect of seeing you rather than from the pill.
HC: Right. I had a client some time ago with a lot of trauma who had bad experiences with antidepressants, and we shifted him to Prozac and it was going well and I remember him saying to me in session that he was feeling much better, but also sometimes feeling really sad and that it was scary for him.
The expectations of psychiatrists are so low….I get a lot of credit for having kind of average social skills.
I was able to tell him that the fact that the sadness came up right when he was feeling better made me think that maybe his body was realizing it was safe to feel his feelings. I pointed out that he’d had a lot of trauma in his life and lives in a high-pressure culture with a high-pressure career as a high functioning person and that it’s easy to become phobic about feeling sad. And I said, “What do you think about the idea of just allowing the sadness?” And he was so visibly relieved by that.

I think there’s something very powerful about having your prescriber license your sadness instead of pathologizing it. Of course your therapist can do the same thing, but some of what I do is help support therapists whose clients I share. They want to know that they’ve done everything they can in the therapy setting and I can validate that and help them feel less alone in their treatments.
DK: It makes everybody feel more confident, including the clients who feel like, “I have a team working with me.”
HC: Which is why the current model of overburdened, non-psychologically-oriented psychiatrists handing out pills and not calling back therapists probably isn’t the most effective. The expectations of psychiatrists are so low.
DK: No kidding.
HC: I can walk on water because I return phone calls. I get a lot of credit for having kind of average social skills. Very privileged place for me to be in. I will not complain.
DK: Because you’re not a complete weirdo.
HC: There are a lot of very weird therapists out there, too, though.
DK: We are a strange subculture. Or maybe everyone is strange but the standards are higher for us because we’re supposed to be helping people with problems in living?
HC: Well, when you’re vulnerable and need help, you’re really sensitive to the weirdness.
DK: Well, on that note, I want to thank your only modestly weird self for participating in this interview.
HC: It’s been a pleasure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. The symptoms do not represent Bereavement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“No.”

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

“I got paid.”

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

Gary Greenberg on the DSM and Its Woes

The Book of Constructs

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

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

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

The Problem of Piety

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

The Rhetoric of Disease

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

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

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

The Serotonin Myth

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

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

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

Does Depression Exist?

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

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

A Foot in Each World

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

The Writer as Therapist or the Therapist as Writer?

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

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