Retrospective.

Revisiting...15th November 2021.

This discussion between kit and myself crystallised my unease about attachment theory, and the reparative relationship. It made me question the shape, limits and function of psychotherapy. Specifically it made me feel uneasy about Kit.

In the dialogue on that day, kit tells me about a client as an example of Richard Erskine's juxtaposition. Kit describes juxtaposition as resisting that which we most want and need.

I listened to our dialogue again as he spoke about this, last night. I was struck by his tone of voice, the pauses in the transmission. I felt as if he wanted me to feel the impact through his narrative, so I would feel as he had felt. He wanted me to believe? Well there is a bit more to it, what I heard and saw was that as he spoke he embodied the respectful awe that his chosen process evokes in him. 

And that he understood his experience as compelling evidence, for his beliefs.

Ha, don't we all!

What stands out to me though, is absence. The other side; the client's feelings, the other person's thoughts, their rationale, their reasons for three years on his sofa.

Hmm, the real story was missing. 

Her erasure felt significant.

Kit continued...describing juxtaposition in terms of Attachment theory.

Attachment theory 'diagnoses', or rather it categorises types of problems. If a person says 'when I get close to someone and begin to need them I have to sabotage the relationship' the diagnosis is 'insecure attachment leading to anxious and avoidant behaviour ' because the behaviour seems the same as that of an 'insecurely attached ' child. There are assumptions being made here...but let's leave them be for now. The cause of the 'child-like' behaviour is linked to a deficit of love, the effect of never feeling safe when growing up; of never having a secure enough relationship with an adult that provides security and protection. 

Ergo, the cure is a relationship with the therapist providing the atmosphere of being with a 'safe parent'.

Another massive assumption.

But it is easy to see how it is that Attachment theory, can become the compelling explanation used to justify unconditional, non-erotic love, reparative/reparenting as the cure. 

Of course I'm suspicious. 

More accurately I am curious about Kit's motive actually, because just maybe offering 'non attached' love feels, is, or leads to, the same physiological non-self state as created by submission (energy exchange in BDSM), or breast feeding...bet you didn't expect me to say breastfeeding! The 'let down' feeling of wanting to give and nurture state, is an oxytocin moment, literally. 

A feeling of open, total love. 

Some, perhaps all psychological theories can be used to provide a cover story, a way to feel ok about something that isn't ok. This is a problem. And I'm not criticising 'safe, nurturing love'. I am criticising the probability that Kit's client might have told a very different story to the one Kit told me. The absence of her voice, her reason for being there is too loud in his account for me to ignore.

The part of this that hurts is the question; was Kit telling me about his relationships; that he couldn't accept love?

Well I offered, freely, openly, honestly...

Basically I think questions need to be asked about the ethics of diagnosis or more correctly ontological problem construction. I'd go so far as to say that diagnosis is unethical when describing the cause of the client's beliefs, feelings, thoughts, behaviour in a way that reinforces the explanatory and predictive, deterministic power of the past event. The purpose of describing the nature and power of those events is only ethical when done in the service of validating the skills, insight and courage of the client in their survival and overcoming of the events. I'm also going to say that it is unethical for a therapist to prioritise 'non-attached, safe love' and believe that this is enough. Read Bozarth, Brian Thorne, go back to Rogers; radical self awareness is key to the person centred approach. Empathy only occurs with attunement.. and this requires dialogue. Radiating good will -warm feelings - talking as if to the Child, isn't enough;