1st November 2021.

He - "How are you"?

Me - "I'm fine..."

And I would say " Fine! Hey how are you"? 

But I don't. 

I've been told that I'm tangential, and if I talk it will be labyrinthine; long, coiling, discursive. 

Tangential. 

His silence, is wide open waiting. 

Even though I do this silence thing myself too, I feel obliged to fill it.

I go full tangential - I'm talking about episodic and autobiographical memory, and the work of Tulvig and I know that anything like this is considered cold, and CBT, and he will see it as tangential to the relational work of therapy. 

But I have assignments to write, and I'm chasing Evan George's statement that 'our' work is to help people create future memories. I love that idea, future memories! That we step through past, future, present - to find the better in the past, to place instances of good memories into a functional sequence, coherent and believable and possible. Using memory is such rich work! This is fundamental to how we construct 'I' 'Me', 'Us, relationship, belief and meaning. 

He doesn't join in. 

I change tack.

I'm talking about seeing the film version of Frank Herbert's Dune.

He - "So who was the character that you were likened to by your teacher"?

Me - "Jessica..."

He - "And who is she..."

Now, I'd got the impression from his initial response that he had read the book? In which case, how would you not know who Jessica is! I'm assuming that this is some kind of Kohut tomfoolery and head into comedy mode - again - as I say that I hoped my son would be the Kwisatz Haderach! 

He doesn't join in.

We join together on Marx, via the phenomenon of how people suffer exploitation via mythologies that mediate and control who has power. And then he brings it back to memory, and we are talking about how stories fill in the gaps, often creating what seems to be a cover story. And the moral dilemma when a person's cover story doesn't correspond with anything the therapist considers ethical. 

My answer is to work with the story - always! 

But I'm curious what his version will be. 

So I ask.

He - "The difficulty comes if you recognise that the framework in which somebody puts their experience is in itself problematic"

Me - "Could you say some more about that please, could you give me an example of a problematic framework"?

He - "Well if a client's way of life involves visiting certain websites and identifying scapegoats, and they are going to tell you that that is really helpful because now they know who to blame - then what do you do therapeutically?"

I'd just ask them what difference it makes for them to know who is to blame, and how it helps them, and then ask how else they can get those moments in more positive ways. But I'm only going to be talking about this if they say that there is really is a problem here...otherwise, I would be making a value judgement about their life. 

I don't say that.

Me - "Thank you for clarifying. Yes...what do you do therapeutically?"

He - "In my experience it doesn't come up that often, but it does come up. Then it is a dilemma when they are absolutely hell-bent on convincing you. And they don't think that the therapeutic space will work unless you are convinced - then we are into very tricky territory."

Me - "There are two things here. Their explanation of the cause of their discomfort, which you can hear in their diagnosis and their cure for the problem. And then secondly their need for someone else to confirm it. That for me is the curious part."

He - "It is what Heinz Kohut would call a twinship transference need, in other words the client needs to think that the therapist is a person like me. A person who 'gets' me because he or she is like me. Now some people don't have that belief and some people do. And if you do then if I know that its all the Xs fault, then I know its all the Xs fault as well. The reason Kohut called it a transference need is because it is about developmental deficits. So somebody as a child felt as if no one understands me, no one gets me, no one knows what it is like to be me, and nobody really made the effort to have the child feel as if they belonged, then that's going to become a chronological need for the person. And a person like that is likely to think that their therapeutic needs are going to be met by having a therapist on the same side as them - which of course we want to be anyway - but that will mean very particular things for that sort of person. 'I know what's wrong with the world and you do as well don't you - it's all the Xs fault isn't it' and then you are in very, very difficult territory".

Me - "Yes, it is very difficult...what do you do?"

Oh! I'm doing twinship...

I don't say that!

Instead we both dissolve into laughter!

He - "Well I mean there is a book in this isn't there! A very tortured book I think that ends with - well, here's a few good ideas in here but there's no good answer to it! - I mean when somebody wants to tell you that they know who is secretly running the world and they want you to agree, well it's a matter of integrity isn't it"...

Me - "Ultimately though...it is a person's explanation for what is happening to them"

He - "But I think that there is something very important emotionally going on, which is 'I feel isolated in the world and I don't want to feel isolated. I'm one of the very few people who know the secrets of how the world really works, and most people don't know. And I don't want to feel isolated. So agree with me...' I think that is what is really going on....it's a symbolised re-enactment of their childhood experience. 'I am in this family, and people are against me, and no one even notices me the way I want to be noticed'. Becomes, 'I am in the world and the world is malevolent and I'm not even noticed in the way I want to be noticed' it just transfers across, so they look for the therapist to be an ally - so that they are noticed by somebody who knows X is 'controlling everything' " 

Or do they simply feel that now they know the true state of affairs it is abhorrent for them to watch 'innocent' others suffer? And my task is to hear and reflect what they can do that will do good and not cause harm,

Me - "But in terms of interaction - I'm assuming from what you have said it would mean that you couldn't work with them"?

He - "I have worked with clients like that. It's really hard going....The work, as far as I'm concerned is exactly as I understood that you were saying before therapeutically. That is, helping the client come to the understanding that how they are symbolizing their experience is a core experience, and how that is being re-enacted in the world. I mean these are beliefs, of course. Which are reinforced by the people they choose to associate with. And you are coming in and challenging that potentially, by saying 'Well I don't think it is X' or actually you don't need to say that, just not agree with them - if that's what they are looking for. And in my experience it is possible to go as far as getting someone to recognise that was my core experience, and what I'm experiencing in the world now is replicating that"

Unless of course their perception of reality was correct and your assumptions about their assumptions were incorrect? The only question that matters is, do they intend to do something that will harm others as a consequence.

No, I don't say that.

Me - "So it would be a focus on emotional tone, texture."

He - "Absolutely, you can do that much. Taking the next step to say ' and therefore there is a question mark over whether all this conspiracy stuff is actually true'...that's the hard bit. Because that's getting them to recognise that they are replicating, but going the next step to say 'does it feel true because I'm replicating  something that was true, or is the replicating replicating something that was real, but now isn't real'? - that's the hard work"

Unfortunately new and fearful realities in the present that are too different to anything a person has previously experienced can only be understood by them in terms of what has come before - this is something Aby Warburg called cause projection -  until a new understanding is created the present inevitably feels like replication! And there may have been much more going on in the original scene too...

No, I certainly did not say any of that!

The impossibility of truth. 25th October. 2021.

As if I've stepped into in a spider's web.

I dare not move...

That which creates dizzying flights, 

Desiring the moon...

Will bring instead my

Destruction.

As a fox.

I run!

The hounds see movement.

A flash of red.

On fallen leaves,

Darkens their teeth and matted fur 

The awfulness of the last session.

Frozen, and torn.

Gives

The death-blow to 

Truth.

He -"So, two weeks ago, what happened?" 

Me -"My first thought is - is this a good idea going back to what happened?

He - "Why wouldn't it be a good idea?

Me -"Why wouldn't it be a good idea - so the aim of this is what?"

He -"To find out what happened"

Me -"So from my point of view, you had a list of possible things to do, you said 'symbolization' and I said yes! And you said emails and contracting, but was that really one of my questions? I know we had talked about it before in a previous session - so I replied that I didn't have any questions about that -  it was your concern, not my concern. So we were talking about your concern being put over by you as if it was my concern. Basically you needed to say that you have a problem! And not go around the houses, I remember saying this to you before that I prefer things to be straight and direct."

He - "Well that's what I thought I was doing"

My misperception?

Regardless...

Me - "This is my memory of it that we are talking about. And this is my perception of it. This was the beginning of it - do you see now why I said it's not a good idea to talk about this? Better to accept that problems resolve when you go in the direction that makes most sense..." 

He - "It struck me during the session particularly when I thought about it afterwards that it was important not least because some things became very clear to me, and an example of why things seem to be problematic because you were talking of...

Me -"I need to stop you there. Things were not problematic for me, they were problematic for you. This is a problem for you."

He - "They were really problematic for you during that session"

Me - "Because I was in a situation that didn't make any sense to me. Suddenly I was in a situation that was just...I was asking myself, where has this come from? I am being told that I'm X and Y...OK, what can I say about that? You can tell me I'm X and Y, but it's not going to sit easily with me".

He -"What was I trying to tell you - you were? 

Has he really forgotten?

Telling me I'm 'wearing a mask'?

That I'm not really affable and friendly!

That I have 'a need to be contrary'.

His interpretation of my wish to get to clarity, rather than accept dogma! 

That 'I'm tangential'.

Clearly I don't wish to talk about my assignments.

And I had explained why!

And the worst one, that 'I seem very angry' as I am fighting back tears! I was feeling bereft, lost, rejected. I was in distress, I was trying not to cry - how does that appear to be angry?

I mean the whole implied -perhaps you don't know anything about the therapeutic contract - seemed more than a little disparaging of my education (I'd been training for four years at least, by then). I was annoyed by that, but once I'd realised how awful this conversation was going to be, I felt myself losing any capacity to be OK...This was all the worse because I had thought that I'd got us into a more ethical position (in the light of my feelings for him). Because a mentor-mentee 'contract' felt less hierarchical, more flexible, to me anyway!

So I pause -  because I remember very clearly what he said! - "...erm...."

He - "Because I don't remember trying to do that you see"

So what was he was trying to do? I'm assuming that in his mind each label - contrary, tangential, angry, is a rational and objective identification of my process. And specifically, this knowledge is useful for us in the here and now in some way?

Whilst in my view, I'm hearing an intellectualisation of his emotional reaction to me not agreeing with everything he says, and his confusion as he suffers a subliminal perception of my feelings for him!

And instead of accessing emotions, using imminence, he distilled into a pointless philosophical diatribe simply because of his inability to just name his own feelings. If he is aware, clearly he does not have a good way to deal with Eros in the therapy room! 

Perhaps I should be grateful?

It could be worse?

Me - "OK, so you must be assuming that you are pointing out an undeniable, absolutely true reality - that I am contrary; that if you say something I have to contradict it because this is something I have to do without any thought or concept behind it, as if it is just as a reaction? That's what I thought you were saying to me. You did say it several times".

He - "That that is what keeps happening, yes."

No contradiction to my statement that I think he sees me as acting 'without any thought or concept behind it, as if I'm unconscious and unaware.

Me -"And this is a problem from your point of view"

He -"A problem in communication, surely.

Me - "Not normally - I mean I know that sounds like it is contrary, but is contradicting people a problem in my life? No, it's not."

I don't usually play the gender card, but quite a few men have told me - that men don't like being contradicted by women. They tell me this as if it is a revelation. But, having been a woman all my life I have seen how women are taught to keep any thoughts and opinions, that may bring conflict,  to themselves. 

So never speak up, or else. 

We have to teach ourselves how to break the rule. 

I learnt it in the NHS, consultants may be loud or quiet, and they may also be plain wrong sometimes. Speaking up really is difficult to do, but when a mistake, a prejudice or a disregard for the warning signs will impact the wellbeing of someone, it really matters! So I'm not inclined to sit by and let things go, and this includes arguing my own case.

He - "Well this is what I was trying to get at with what was happening with our session, because you were talking with great passion about two previous therapists"

There is a standard view therapists have about clients who say, ' my previous therapy wasn't helpful'.  that such clients exist to vex therapists. And he seems vexed by me - or am I misreading him as badly as he misreads me?

Me - "I was talking about how useless developmental theory is when someone is facing nightmare levels of stress and violence - And you are doing it again, you are telling me what I was doing"

He - "That is not what I'm doing at all - is that not what happened last session? You were talking with great passion about two previous therapists."

Me -"I was not talking about them with great passion, I was talking about the process - about what happens in therapy, which is their assumption that they know the pathway to go, and my experience of that is that they have missed the point. And of course that makes me annoyed, but I am not angry at them, they did the best they could do"   

He - "But you see what's happening now ..."

Me -"Is that you are missing me out."

The pain of this is unbearable.

He - "That I begin to say something and I'm never allowed to finish, I'm continually interrupted."

Me - "But can you not see that this is actually taking me to pieces at the moment. This isn't a good thing to do, it isn't fair."

He - "What isn't a good thing to do, what isn't fair?

I have just said -  this is actually taking me to pieces at the moment. This isn't a good thing to do, it isn't fair - and he wants me to explain why?

No!

He doesn't speak emotion.

I thought that in around the third session!

I dismissed it, emotional literacy is integral to therapy as I understand it, but perhaps not in TA?

I was talking about therapists missing out the reality of my situation and focusing instead on a theoretical 'cause of distress'. This is what he is doing. The present wears the clothes of the past! I've noticed before that he deletes any tone or texture of emotion from my language, translating metaphor, image, sensation into a language of process. 

Interesting - isn't this is how diagnosis (reification) operates? Words with the power to transmit via image and sensation such as; crushing, sinking, evil, burning, ceaseless terror, and horror - are safely packaged into one word: 'psychosis'? 

This completely misses out the human being!

OK...

So, he is talking process-language, all righty then - me too.

Me - "You are commenting on my behaviour, and playing back to me your view of it"

 He - "I'm trying to come to a resolution"

That statement may well be why I am now a 'qualified' mediator. And in my professional opinion (!) mediation requires the emotions to be invited in and included -  a Gestalt process. To stop the adrenaline overdose we need to talk about them using a 'safe' language (SFBT).

And if I wasn't flooded with panic at this point, but I really am! 

I can't think....

Me - "OK, so what is there to be resolved. What is the problem on your side? Because there isn't a problem on my side. Have I come saying 'I don't know what's happening in my life, I don't get on with anybody and I can't do anything, I'm X,Y and Z. No, strangely enough my experience seems to be the opposite. So despite being a really contradictory person I seem to get on quite well with people! So this doesn't seem to be my problem, it seems to be your problem - with me...so."

 

He - "Well again, I'm starting to express something and I haven't got there yet"

Me - "Because I fundamentally disagree with your view of me"!

He - "You don't know what my view is, because I'm not allowed to say it"

Tangential, contrary and wearing a mask!

Stepping out of that for a minute - gosh that is so interesting! I'd have given my eye teeth to know what his view really is! But he has told me very clearly that I am 'tangential,' and 'contrary,' and he has mistaken my body language when I'm on the verge of breaking down in total abject misery. 

I don't feel heard, safe, or that I'm with someone who is congruent.

Me - Because you have told me 'who I am' and what you've seen, and it is overstepping the mark. I haven't asked for that. It's as if you don't have permission for that".

He -"Is that why last session everything I said is wrong? Because that was what was happening. At one point I reinforced, because I thought it was important to do, something you said..

Me -"Ah ha, was that when you used the word question three times - I thought it was a question..."!

Considering my state of mind at the time, I did well to understand that much!

But that ah ha! from me was too much for him. 

At the time I felt that he'd purposefully trapped me  and my ah ha! Was my triumphant, 'oh yes, I certainly remember!' My ah ha! was to stop him telling me that I'd imagined the word question! Gaslighting, inadvertent, accidental even - but oh yes, this is a process I'm familiar with.

He -"I think we need to make a decision as to whether this is a good thing, because we are getting to the point where everything I say is jumped upon, and that's how it steamrollered last time" 

Things got considerably worse from here on! 

He told me several times that I shouldn't attend any more sessions because they are not good for either of us. 

So how did I stop him flying this plane into a mountain? It requires practice and self-discipline to use words as they are. I ignore the sensation or intimation or feeling that there is more that must be understood. Curiously it is the opposite process to being either tangential or contrary. 

And I think the turning point in our conversation occurred only because of my refusal to go below the surface.

He has told me to go. 

I'm not going to appear to him to be as fragile, or as close to absolute despair as I am. So he doesn't know that I'm fighting for my life, or that what he is saying could lead to me following my son's friend onto the tracks. 

People don't say that they are suicidal - when it is real.

The shell I hide behind at this point is protecting a tiny flame, my love for him is so important for me. He is my soul, I can't live for myself yet because of the battle I've been through - no one had faith in me when I fought for my youngest son. Certainly the mental health home visit team would have agreed with Kit that I am contrary, as I told them that my son had a right not to take medication. They would certainly have noticed how tangential I can be, when I intervened, to stop the bullying dialogue (the psychiatrist didn't mean to be, but he sure was a bully. Especially when threatening my son with sectioning for 'non-compliance') and oh, I certainly wore a mask when I realised that dialogue was impossible with them, and so I would have to lie...that didn't come easily to me. Perhaps if I am contrary, this is the very thing in me that meant I didn't lose faith in my son? I don't know. But I can't risk the damage that occurs when Kit misreads my feelings and emotions, and he has done this before.

I will not let myself fall into detachment or dissociation - unless I use them strategically. 

But my flame is very close to going out. 

He is saying - "...in any communication surely it's about bringing out what ever that is, with greater clarity and greater understanding. Otherwise I don't understand what it's about <pause> what's your understanding of what it's about"?

His communication is devoid of his emotions, there have been too many mixed messages. I can't communicate without emotions as a legitimate part of communication. We are trapped in a 'therapy' relationship, and I'm being broken under the constraints of the rules. I'm made nauseous by the deception. I'm in survival mode. Lights are fading, flickering out, one by one. 

Me - "That in this moment of time, to do the best that can be done with it. The best thing to do is to use this time in the best way possible. Examining what's gone wrong, it feels like this is you maintaining a view that there is a process of contradiction, as opposed to looking for some other way around this, and some other version we can do"

He -"I wonder if this is connected to something you said a while ago about SFBT versus integrative, that interaction can be solution based or problem based, and I wonder if that's what's happening here? You see there is something about understanding what goes on that is problematic, which in the way I work is fundamental or we keep repeating the same thing over and over again, you can't get to where you want to get to if the thing that's tripping you up isn't removed. You need to examine it. It wasn't me doing the contradictions last session, I was constantly trying to get back on track, that's what I was doing in the whole session and everything I said was the  wrong thing <pause> now I have an idea about why that might be. But my sense is, if I say it I may be accused of the very thing you just talked of".

"...now I have an idea about why that might be....'I'm not allowed to say it' 

I say, 'please say it' 

And?

And he doesn't.

This has nothing to do with modes of therapy, everything to do with how he takes emotions and confines them in neat, labelled boxes.

We then take another dispiriting trawl through the wasteland which make me feel that I'm wasting his time simply by breathing. Time in which I explain once more that no one can help any of us with those assignments! I end lamely, expressing yet again that therapy is mandatory on my course - so, using this time wisely is a sensible thing to do.

He - "And what would that be - what would be a sensible and good way look like?"

I don't say 'when we are talking about things we both find interesting! 

Me - "Well that's a problem for me, I can't answer that"

I can't answer. I'm beaten. I don't know what he thinks or feels, to tell him how much I love talking with him - when I'm not being told what my process is -  how much I value feeling close - when we both talk about ideas, and it is fun - would be to spread the cloth of heaven under his feet and watch him trample mud into my dreams... 

He - "So it's no wonder that we are stuck!"

Me - "So I'm asking you directly please, to suggest something"

He doesn't, so I offer one of my latest insights about therapy, and it becomes a dialogue between us, and he agrees with me on the point I'm making. 

And we are back. 

Back to normal.

What happened?

I felt utterly defeated when I said 'I can't answer that'. 

And it is my feeling that that reply was significant. 

Capitulation...

And I'm talking about therapy as ceremony, and then talking about myself in third person, wary always of being tangential. I access all my faith and trust in myself, to restore his trust and confidence in me. 

I tell him again, everything is useful. And finally he asks me, what have I got from him. And this moment is the key.

He examines and understands his process.

Through my words...

He - "There are some things I say sometimes, it's only occurring to me now - if sometimes I think I see you bristle, it's occurring to me why that might be. That sometimes you will say something about being with a client, and I'll say something and you will say 'yeah but that's integrative and I'm much more solution focused and I think this is better' and I find myself essentially saying, this will work in these circumstances, it wont work in those circumstances. And I think I remember you saying something when you suggested the move over from therapist-client to mentor-mentee, that I have things you don't have, and there's me trying to give you those experiences. But then I think, maybe that's the sort of thing that somebody needs to find out for themselves. Telling somebody that something is the case, that they haven't yet experienced, can't give them that experience. There are sometimes with some clients when no theory works, even the lightest of stuff like you have described - solution focused... "

And I ask him questions, I give him the Tibetan terms, Nyntik and Menga - heart essence and wisdom key, which show that I've understood exactly what he has been telling me. 

Heart essence is direct understanding, and wisdom key is an experience - an empowerment - that allows meaning to be unlocked. 

Both these terms relate to the prime importance of devotion and trust in one's precious teacher. He doesn't know that, so again he doesn't hear love.

He says - "I don't know what happened - about half way through the session, but you really shifted gear and the second half of the session felt lovely"

I didn't 'shift gear - I 'stayed on the surface'. This is how I work with extremely emotional clients, where their trauma is a whirlpool of chaos and loss. He was speaking to me in a way that would not end well. I describe the process.

Me - "Yes, because most of our sessions have always felt lovely. So it felt un-sensible, or crazy  to focus on the eddy currents and whirlpools that will drag things down. They don't mean that this is reality, they are just a potential. Concentration on what is underneath is a dodgy process -  calling back those feelings - and so I didn't wish to go there or stay..."

I'm not going to put into words for him, what has happened. Which is that I refused to panic. I refused to give in to despair - whilst being in despair. 

He - "Just to be absolutely clear - it wasn't we can't work together, it was can we work together and I think the answer is yes"

Truth is, during this session I felt as I was on a plane with a madman who was trying to force open the door with the aim of pushing me out! I felt battered and bruised, as I left the room.

And so I go - off to Waitrose for a bottle of Perry and a Charlie Bingham's curry for one.  

This is my 'self care' - I need time to decompress and recover. More than this, I go to the Waitrose where my son's friend worked before his death; I return to remember my resolve, my promise to never give up, I absolutely have to hold tight to that vow. 

No matter how hard this path, I will walk it to the 100th placement hour and beyond.

--

Had I the heavens’ embroidered cloths,

Enwrought with golden and silver light,

The blue and the dim and the dark cloths

Of night and light and the half-light,

I would spread the cloths under your feet:

But I, being poor, have only my dreams;

I have spread my dreams under your feet;

Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

W B Yeats:

"It's becoming a theme." 29th September 2021.

It starts well, I feel that I'm talking to the person, not the role. He tells me his news, I join in. I am interested and sympathetic and ordinary. And I am aware that I'm in another one of the therapy forbidden zones; the place of 'chit chat'. 

But it seems OK?

And he instigated it?

So what goes wrong?

He is saying - not dramatically, but directly and uncompromisingly - 'a theme, it's becoming a theme...'

He says - "There is one narrative going on with you and quite a different narrative going on in me. Mine is being asked to do things which I'm then not allowed to do. For example last week you asked me to talk about the stuff that's here (my assignment?) but we are always side-tracked"

Did I?

I didn't ask him?

I seriously doubt it...

And now I'm panicking! 

Because the real problem must be my feelings for him! 

They have leaked out? 

Is it obvious?

IT IS OBVIOUS!

He knows...

OK, breathe!

But under the surface...

No! Do not try to imagine what is under the surface!

STAY ON THE SURFACE!

To answer his observation with the truth is impossible! 

I feel talked at. I am being talked at.

I'm never going to accept 'it's all about development'. 

Why didn't he talk with me about my research proposal - why is he talking about another assignment, actually why?

And now he's telling me that for clients 'sometimes there isn't even a better'. 

What have I said or not said? 

He says - "But if a client feels that their life is utterly worthless, and the only way they get through each day is knowing that they could kill themselves..."

Oh, this is why he wont talk about my research?

Because I'm focusing on post traumatic growth?

Who is he talking about...

A cold hand squeezes my heart, is it him who feels this way?

I can't let him know what I'm thinking...

I can't let him know how much I care...

So, I defend my position.

I interrupt - "Yes, that is their way - but it isn't about solutions, there is no 'solution' only the ways the person comes up with that work for them, or finding different ways to understand and feel - but they've come to therapy so they have hope that life isn't worthless!"

He says - "It sounds like CBT to me"

When 'Person centered therapists' say 'it sounds like CBT' this is not good. It implies right now that I, Xerpa believe people can think their way out of feelings, or worse, that I Xerpa, will ignore their feelings...and this is about as insulting as it gets in a therapist to therapist dialogue!

I reply - "I'm not looking at what is triggering or going wrong (a process used in CBT), Instead I'm asking 'what are you doing, feeling, noticing when things are better'? It's a very physical, embodied exploration of instances of when the problem isn't a problem - and using the client's language and ideas. And when I've been really fragile, that mode of thought has been the only thing that could get me through. There is no point directing people to look at the shattered mess, or question why did this happen... "

I feel quite strongly about this! 

He reacts against my strong feeling...

Why?

He then says - "I would very strongly advise you to wonder about other people's experiences that are different to yours - some people, let's say when they have been sexually abused in childhood, the last thing they ever want to do is talk about it because that will retraumatize them, and other people the thing they must do to move on, is to talk about it"

I feel dismissed...and not heard. I have no idea what he thinks I'm like in a session with a client, so again I talk from my own feelings - and a safer domain.

I say - "I know that feeling very well - because there were all the things I couldn't talk about when our conversations were on Zoom"

Now a new possibility arises, a new thought. Perhaps it was a good thing that I didn't speak openly? Perhaps he would have moved my words around into something referencing developmental theory, and he would not have heard and reflected my feelings and thoughts, and missed entirely the power, terror, anger, sadness and the glory of our family's tragedy? 

He continues - "But in this conversation I see the same process happening again, there is slippage which is moving, rather than keeping focus which I think is why you asked me last week to talk about this or perhaps there is resistance about talking about it because you described yourself as being more person-centered, and a resistance to talking about theory like this"

We are not talking!

One of us lectures, the other subverts and diverts towards something leftfield to avoid being spoken at, trying to shift things into dialogue.

But what's happening is - I  am talking from my own experience - my college tutor is Gestalt trained, and so we are taught to take a subjective, phenomenological approach. Which is a very Gestalt way of working. I have come to value and respect it. What I'm not doing here is agreeing that therapy is all about the therapist meeting the child in the client. I don't disagree with him, meeting the child in the client is part of it, but there is much more.

I say - "No, the problem is...there is a gap - a problem in therapy about talking about the real, and external. Looking at  Rogers 19 propositions, there is an emphasis on a person being able to integrate the totality of an experience and psychologically something that can't be looked at can eventually be looked at. But very much in therapy the focus is on the negative, and a person also brings the positive"

He says - "But that's a different issue surely? Talking about theory in order to get an assignment done"

I obviously don't want to talk about theory to get my assignment done! And in truth what I've said is what I believe, that the work of therapy is to enable someone to integrate the totality of an experience, which means finding a way that something that can't be looked at can eventually be looked at! I wonder what that could be in the context of our discussions! And as I have so much Gestalt in my education, I have come to see all interaction - especially with someone else who is committed to increasing their self awareness and emotional intelligence - all interactions as opportunities for knowledge and growth! We have the perfect opportunity - both of us - to learn so much here. But hey, it's OK I don't even know where to start with the 'a different issue entirely' .I'm feeling too shaken and trying to swim through a rising tide of panic. 

I say - "I don't need to be told theory to get my assignment done. I can do theory to the nth degree!"

And this is true, I keep forgetting that I'm good at theory, I keep forgetting that I'm OK. A part of me is still in the living room, headphones on, listening to the band who cancelled - and hoping my son isn't going to start smashing things. I keep forgetting that despite my son smashing things, I passed my assignments in year one. So the probability is - without the omnipresent fear of random acts of violence happening around or to me - I will be able to write pretty well!

He says - "Yes but we didn't do it last week"

I have said in effect 'I don't need this', yet he's continuing. So I take a different path. I try to attribute the pointlessness of his endeavor (as he has clearly gasped the truth that to educate me is impossible) to the esoteric nature of our assignments.

I say - "Also it is quite difficult to work out what is meant by the criteria (given as part of the assignment)"

Our assignments had to be explained by the tutor who marked them, only then would we know what that tutor wanted us to include and cover!

He says - "The same thing happened when we talked about games. I think I started out by saying what do you understand about games theory and you weren't really quite there, and I never got to say because we kept getting side tracked. This is something that keeps happening. Why does that keep happening. Why do we have a focus that you decide on but then we never get there?"

Right then, let's talk about how phantasy is a concept relating to soul and body, or all the other far more interesting things humanity has woven from dream and memory! He has after all interrupted those tangential explorations of ours! But I'm still trying to pass on to him the strangeness and unique quality of my college's Diploma course! 

Me - "But I know a lot more about the assignment because of what I heard in class last week - the wording is ambiguous - so I asked my tutor"

He says - "But I think what they are getting at and I think this is really important is - and let's take a step back - it is impossible to do therapy without a theory"

I say truthfully -"I don't have a problem about theory" 

He replies -"And you said solution focus doesn't have a theory - well it does. If you go on the basis that an open welcoming environment and a person is free to explore, to use the really brutal Rogers shorthand - to actualize - then the theory is..."

The gauntlet has been thrown down!

I say -  "Of course there is theory! The no theory means that the client isn't given a model, we don't offer theories. But if someone came with a self-help book, or believed that they knew why they were experiencing things, I use their theory "

From a postmodern perspective (and there is 'our theory') context is all. Our theory is that we create reality through words, how we talk about reality really matters...

He replies - "There will be times when the client is utterly lost, and if you offer them a framework it really, really helps. So for example one of the two frameworks I use, the TA framework the most habitually of all again and again, and I'll see a client is lost and I'll say 'here's a framework, what do you think of it?' and they can always say no. But, there's 'true self and false self' that's one, in terms of having needs met / not having needs met - going through the world saying 'this is me, I'm OK with this or actually, 'me - this is not acceptable'. There's the false self front (Winnicott).  Parent / Adult/ Child model, and Drama Triangle. They come up again and again, and I see a client in front of me, I can almost visibly see the light bulb go on above their heads -'Oh! That's why I keep doing that! That's why I keep going back, he comes back pissed at 3 in the morning. I undress him, put him to bed and  he wakes up 2 hours latter and he starts pummelling me and I forgive him because it's not really his fault - because I'm a rescuer, and he's a persecutor except when he turns victim!' Just simple frameworks like that can be literally life changing. So, I just want to put a question mark, and I absolutely want to be clear - we are not saying to the client 'Of course, you are doing this' we gently offer it and say 'how does this sound? We keep the client in the driver's seat. Does that make sense?"

And I don't have the energy to say anything except.

Of course it makes sense.

He - "So do you want to go to the...what do you want to do about the 19 Propositions?"

I am exhausted and beaten. 

My thought is: OK, let's do theory, I assume that this is what he wants to do! We are not going to do truth because I'm scared of his reaction. Because we are already in conflict. He has a need to be heard and to fulfil the role of teacher (I am assuming this, by the way, I don't know...) and I want to speak from the heart...but when I access my feelings or speak from my personal experience he feels that we are going off at a tangent.

And, you know that there are five styles of dealing with conflict...which of course we could link to states of the autonomic nervous system (Ventral, Dorsal and the other one! Polyvagal theory) but hey - not now!

1. Avoidance, 
2. accommodation, 
3. competition, 
4. compromise or 
5. collaboration.

I ponder briefly is this me accommodating or compromising, or am I competing? How is it that I feel like I have to compete, in order to get us in to collaboration - and to be honest this is the underlying 'game' of every session!

All righty then, I fire up the 'intellectual' core - let's play philosophy!

Me - "..there is an implied sense of autonomy in here - but he (Rogers) never uses the word autonomy - it is as if he juxtapositions autonomy against responsibility"

He - "Not juxtaposed I think. The two have to go together and...

Me - "For the good..."

He - "So for example not knowing - I'm not sure if I know where you want to go with this? The first thing I thought was - the client has more autonomy than the therapist always. The client can go and talk to anybody they want to about anything thing they've said in therapy - the therapist can't! And the client can spread themselves all over social media, pictures of them when they are drunk. and if a therapist does that they are bringing the profession into disrepute. but also you know, the therapist is obliged whatever they do to have the motivation that this is for the benefit of the client. It doesn't have to benefit the therapist at all, ever. So it is quite, quite different"

"The client can go and talk to anybody they want to about anything they've said in therapy." I take my authority to write directly from his statement.

Me - "But it's about fostering autonomy, because I'd say that inherent in the 19 Propositions is the concept of autonomy. Therapy requires a person to feel safe and secure enough to be able to face things that are scary. So, to have self mastery which is control leading to inner autonomy - So I'd say that inherent in the 19 is a sense of allowing a person to understand 'internal locus of evaluation' leading to a similar concept; autonomy. So it seems to me to be quite close - autonomy and internal locus of evaluation? That sounds like a question!"

He - "But I'm wondering - autonomy as distinct from what"?

As well he might! Because I'm not sure what I'm saying either. Nevertheless I am very clear about what gets in the way of autonomy... 

Me - "Coercion. To use a TA kind of concept - feeling-thought is 'I never want to go to that place!' but then the internal  Parent is 'Well you've got to do that!' and the inner dialogue misses out the Adult (middle) who says 'I can and I can't but I will weigh the situation up'. So that's an internal coercion."

He - "So that's a wonderful illustration. The Adult ego state is the only autonomous one"

Me - "So it (Adult) is supporting, and allowing the energy of the other two (Parent and Child ego states) to play? Inherent in the 19 Propositions...I don't like to use the term 'self-actualization' I imagine angels and bells and a stairway to Heaven, because it is a lofty term. But, to be aware of how one really feels about stuff fosters autonomy.

Every single memory of any event is reconstructed in the here and now. Therefore each character in the Drama triangle is only us, when we replay and remember. But what we do next to create the future is constructed through recombining, modifying and rearranging memories to visualize a different future. 

And nothing here in my way of understanding this conflicts with Balint and his basic fault, or attachment theory, or any other theory for that matter. And I'm trying to impress him, I know that. And I probably just sound mad.  And I don't understand why I so much, so need to really know him. 

He - "And while you were talking something hit me with great force - your history, thinking oh...is this in the background somewhere. Your experience (sectioning) with your son is the very opposite of autonomy. 'You must do this and if you don't you are non-compliant. It has the force of law behind it. So this is a real contrast to that. and if I'm hearing it right, what you are saying about autonomy may also be seen in terms of respect. I wonder if another way of talking about autonomy might be respect, respecting the client, giving the client their own voice seeing them as a separate person - back to autonomy again rather than an extension of the therapists process and will - respecting the client's own process and will"

Me -"Yes, that's very well put"

He - "Which goes I think with exactly what you were saying about theory, that if it's ever going to be used it needs to be in the service of the client rather than opposed upon them - like in psychiatry 'here's your disorder!' But it also fits in exactly with <pause>1950s/1960s radio broadcast, true self false self?"

Me - "Winnicott?"

He - "Yes, Winnicott talking about the holding environment. That's what it is isn't it, it's valuing the client. In the holding environment it's saying 'you can grow here, which again we are back to Rogers aren't we" 

And on we go - and we are getting on so well! Until proposition number 11. This was the beginning of a real problem.  

Proposition 11:

"As experiences occur in the life of the individual, they are either...

•  a) symbolized, perceived and organized into some relation to the self, 
•  b) ignored because there is no perceived relationship to the self structure, 
•  c) denied symbolization or given distorted symbolization because the experience is inconsistent with the structure of the self." [Carl Rogers]

He - "In psychodynamic terms, a) is transference.

Me -" symbolized, perceived and organized into some relation to the self. Symbolized is transference, are you sure? Because in my understanding symbolized represents the healthy version of processing experience. So, b) ignored or c) denied are especially relevant in psychodynamic as an error. I think a) symbolization is the healthy one...I believe"

He - "Well, not necessarily - if for example if one has the experience of never being listened to, being ignored by parents, then that becomes symbolized. What's very, very likely to happen they will look out for people who are not listening to them, and replay that. 

Ah, not symbolized - this is ignored or denied, stuck, unprocessed - the unconscious mind is trying to resolve thorough conflict (see the five styles!)! This is the very foundation of why therapy works, and why a therapist collaborates to enable change! 

Whatever!

Me -"Well this goes back to what I understand about language, that language is a set of symbols - that there is no intrinsic meaning to a word or letter, and we share meaning through having experiences broadly in common."

He - "But I don't think he is talking about language here

Me - "I don't understand...everything is a symbol, meaning is constructed..."

Therefore everything we experience is technically transference! Everything we perceive is seen in terms of what we already know, and what we know is memory. Curiously we are now on the same page...

He- "Well essentially I think he means the same thing that Stern means when he talks about RIGs - representations of interactions generalized - 

Me -  Reading Proposition 15.

"Psychological adjustment exists when the concept of the self is such that all the sensory and visceral experiences of the organism are, or may be, assimilated on a symbolic level into a consistent relationship with the concept of self...

 So you are saying I think, symbolized means not really integrated?

He - "A symbol is just an internal representation, so for example if ...just think through a really unthought through response a child might have. so, Mom is in the habit of beating the child with a rolling pin to punish the child. So Mom always has a particular look on her face and goes marching out of the room  to fetch the rolling pin when the child is in trouble. So now the child has symbolized it; when Mom looks like that, when she walks like that the child knows she will be punished. One day this child is in school and the bell's gone oh, it's 9 o'clock and oh, no teacher, and now it's 3 minutes past 9 and the teacher comes rushing in the room which reminds the child exactly of when the mother is going to get the rolling pin. This child is cringing and falling into themselves  and is getting ready for the beating. Because the child has symbolized the beating in that way"

Me - "So the child has an inexplicit theory, the child can't actually say what it is, but something has happened and the child feels...and maybe  if he could sit calmly he could bring to mind  the way the teacher moved reminded him of his Mom...like my lecturer who looked like my husband, he looked like him, moved like him...But I thought symbolized was what people needed to do with memories that couldn't be thought about safely. I mean I think I know what you are saying but I don't think that is what he (Rogers) means"

He - "It's about sitting in front of somebody and trying to absorb and understand their world, and what the world means to them"

Me - quoting Proposition 13:

"In some instances, behavior may be brought about by organic experiences and needs which have not been symbolized. 

I think Rogers is using the word symbolized as a positive.

He -"Well for example, it's almost midday and time to eat, and when I eat I don't have any particular strong feelings around eating. I eat because I need to eat. It's not been symbolized, whereas if i was sitting here thinking I need to eat, I'm ravenous I can't even focus on what I'm doing now, that may be symbolized, that may be because...

OK, going to break the 4th wall. This is me writing in 2023: I hear a lot of the same thing in his examples, in almost every session, and it is relevant. And significant. And when he said 'you know about me....' And I did, and instead of offering empathy I acted dumb because I was in the client's chair.. I couldn't bear the thought of him seeing my love, I couldn't risk him knowing that I listened, heard and felt. I simply didn't have any permission to be myself in his room.

And I wish I hadn't pretended not to know. 

I wish I'd been braver.

I should have been myself...

But I know exactly why I made it look like I didn't care enough to know.

But I am truly, truly sorry.

For me, having to be a client in this situation was a crucifixion, I couldn't move or breathe. I couldn't reach out. I knew this couldn't end well.