- Post starter
- #109
R
Romup
Just as you're miffed that I seem to be generalizing in your eyes, I get miffed when people take concepts out of context, dismiss all of Freud's work, and deem it outdated. I am not a Freudian, but we would still be clubbing patients over the heads if it weren't for his work, so, transference
I do understand transference and actually am not entirely dismissive of it as a therapeutic construct. I don't have an issue with Freud particularly and yes working through transference doesn't necessarily mean reenactment.
In saying that, there's a drive for people who have experienced relational trauma to seek to reenact that dynamic in an effort to resolve the trauma. Outside of therapeutic relationships, for example, you see it in women who experience domestic abuse and go on to have further abusive relationships - not a purposeful decision on their part so much as an unconscious drive. This means that in therapy the person is driven again to recreate the traumatic relationship dynamic and it takes a huge amount of skill to work with the transference and not inadvertently reenact the abusive dynamic. You'll see all over these boards where that process has gone badly wrong and the T relationship has become quite toxic at best and abusive at worst.
No one is partly to the full facts of this posters therapy but describing a situation where they find themselves doubting themselves and feeling therapy itself is crazy making strongly suggests something isn't working. I'm also very wary when clients say they can't make decisions about their therapy because they are too attached - it suggests the T isn't managing dependency in a way that supports client autonomy and agency.
So, I'd never say never re psychodynamic therapy and trauma, but I would exercise a huge degree of caution because the very processes that underpin psychodynamic therapy are the processes that are activated in relational trauma and while there's the potential to work through that towards healing, it's very very easy to get it wrong.