Re:Transference

I can see Monica's reasoning in the abstract. Plus, moving (if to be near the therapist, rather than coincidentally ??) demonstrates a committment to the therapy.

But then so does travelling routinely to see them. And in these days when it is increasingly difficult to justify long term psychotherapy in insurance terms, at least in the U.S., ... making the committment to move to be near a therapist seems to me to send a different message than it would moving to be near a lifelong analyst in the past, for example.

Just intuitively, it would strike me as a bit odd to move to be near a medical doctor in general today, unless they were one of a tiny handful of specialists who could deal with a very challenging chronic problem. Viewing the therapist in this light seems to put a not entirely positive slant on their relationship. A bit too far toward reinforcing the dependency aspects of the relationship for my own taste. I wouldn't frame it as transference as much as dependency with an eye toward moving into increasing boundary confusion and inevitable disillusionment. What happens when the therapist moves or cannot take on the client any more for some reason ? How can they make the already difficult decision to end the therapeutic relationship, knowing the quasi-permanent committment made by the client ? Hard to avoid seeing it as a betrayal if you moved your entire home to be near them.

No, for me, an important goal of psychotherapy is empowering clients to be independent, using the therapeutic relationship as a unique context for seeing themselves, and moving to be near them puts too many implicit conditions on the relationship. It definitely doesn't feel right to me.

kind regards,

Todd

Replies:

Re:Transference, by Monica, 08/11/00

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.