I just watched an excellent documentary called “Inside Job”. It’s about the complicity of Wall Street in the 2008 economic collapse. More info is here: http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob. Everyone should see this movie, but be warned, it’ll keep you up at night.
What is the connection between this film and
the Con therapy? In the deleted scenes, there is an interview with Eliot Spitzer. (Say what you will about Spitzer’s choices in his personal life, there is no denying that he knows Wall Street.) I was struck by a remark he made about how Wall Street rationalized its actions to itself. Spitzer said the industry and regulators “defined the problem away”, “it was a way to handle denial, nobody wanted to see it.” He also quoted an analyst who said “what used to be viewed as conflict of interest is now viewed as a synergy.”
I thought those comments could easily be applied to the therapy industry, particularly the comment about “defining the problem away.” This is how the therapy industry deflects almost all criticism. Like this:
client’s negative feelings towards therapist = transference
client’s positive feelings towards therapist = transference
therapist’s feelings towards client = countertransference
(but the client is the one making countertransference happen, of course)
client doesn’t want to do or talk about something = resistance
And so on. See this link for more along these lines: http://www.goodpracticeinstitute.com/Good–Definitions-Reference.html
The problem is never defined as “client is having a natural and justifiable reaction to the therapist’s actions or remarks” or “client is making the right decision based on their needs and desires, and asserting healthy boundaries”. Notice how there isn’t even a word for these things; I had to write it all out to make it clear.
Grifters Therapists are great at naming things, they’ve got names that make a disorder out of every human belief or activity, but very few names that identify a healthy person. But what interest do therapists have in healthy people? There is no money to be made from them.
I’m not sure the therapy industry even has a concept of “conflict of interest”, so it hasn’t yet gotten around to redefining it. (So that’s one way in which Wall Street is more ethical, which is really saying something.) Therapy has a conflict of interest at its very core; ongoing emotional distress on the part of the client means ongoing income for the therapist. This is easy for everyone to see, except therapists. Of course, if you don’t see something in the first place, you never have to define it away.