Regarding Ornstein's curative fantasy, there is a paper I am itching to get my hands on.
Another author has taken Ornstein's concept of 'curative fantasy and developed that concept further--by inviting psychotherapists to enhance their own self insight (self-supervision) by examining their own curative fantasies.
The spotlight is turned upon the powerholder in this exchange.
And..ponder the implications here.
Dr Shaffer is urging psychotherapists to make themselves accountable in yet another area. These are people who have been through training analyses and clinical supervision. And Shaffer is warning 'em that continued self scrutiny is still necessary, long after one has graduated from school.
These are the folks who, unlike BK, admit fallibility by carrying liability insurance, and have put themselves through clinical programs and who can be tracked by license numbers, by anyone who wants to check them out.
The analyst embarking on training often harbors strong, unconscious convictions about the nature of cure.
The sense of what is curative may have multiple derivations and is often closely related to unconscious motivations for entering the field
These curative fantasies often endure, dismantled by neither the analyst's own analysis nor by training.Instead, they persist and influence clinical choice
Maturation as an analyst therefore requires a self-supervisory grappling with the differences between what feels curative and publicly held theories of therapeutic action. Supervision should recognize the strength of the analyst's curative leanings and should foster the self-supervision requisite for the analyst to know and gradually ...(abstract breaks off here. Anyone interested needs to track this down at a medical library or order it online from PEP
Abstract from:The Analyst's Curative Fantasies: Implications for Supervision and Self-Supervision
by Amy Schaffer, Ph.D. (2006). Contemporary Psychoanalysis, (2006) 42:349-366
'They (curative fantasies) persist and influence clinical choice.'
Dr Shaffer does not say so, but it may also influence why certain people despite professional training succumb to flattery by gurus and start using untested 'fad' methods in thier work..to the detriment of clients.
And these unexamined curative fantasies may also lead others to be attracted to LGATs as a career, to guru-ing as a career, to be attracted to offering total solutions. Certain curative fantasies may make the humble and gradual solutions of therapy seem not enough--one demands total solutions--for oneself--and then demands the whole world be converted, too!What about the unconscious curative fantasies that lead folks to create and lead LGATs?
What about unconscious curative fantasies so urgent that you'll feel entitled to pound people with questions on videotape as BK has reportedly done, until they allow their predicaments to be crammed into the BK box?
(I met a lawyer who no longer practices---and he'd graduated Order of the Coif from one of the top five law schools in the nation, then clerked for a federal judge. Ace material, here. He confessed he got out of the profession partly because he disliked hammering people with questions. He discovered he was treating them exactly the way his own nagging mother had treated him when growing up. He did not feel entitled to pound on people that way.)
Those must be pretty jolly powerful. Yet these folks are in a set up that, unlike psychotherapists, evades self scrutiny in powerholders. LGAT leaders dont publish and read journals with articles of the kind Shaffer has written. There are no trade journals for gurus and LGAT leaders with articles that tell such people 'Examine your counter transferance' or 'Narcissistic issues for Forum Leaders.'
No, no. The problems are all in the poor zlubs who are processed through the courses. They bear the shadow of the LGAT leader and bear the burden of enacting the unconscious curative fantasy of the human potential guru!
And the guru never, ever has to face him or herself in the mirror.
No training analysis required. No board certification needed. No need to carry malpractice insurance--for a guru or human potential empress can do no wrong. Just get a lawyer to create the right set of forms for your
devotees to sign off on and your ass is covered.
So....look at these words: "Maturation as an analyst therefore requires a self-supervisory grappling with *the differences* between what feels curative and publicly held theories of therapeutic action
Just because something feels
curative, does not mean it is actually curative to one's patients.
Or that one has benefitted oneself.
'But I experienced this!'
Experience can be deceptive. I had the flu and had fevers that spiked to 103/104 F. I saw it on the thermometer. But I FELT cold to the bone. I was
rolling up in blankets, blasting the heat on high.
My body was creating chemicals that fooled my brain and body into feeling ice cold, when my tempreture was sky high.
Experience can be totally deceptive.
Now, what about the legions of human potential entreneurs/ueses and self enlightened gurus who have curative fantasies so very strong that they are driven to heal the whole planet?
Shaffer wrote this for the benefit of therapists and analysts who are merely working in a particular city, in a single state or nation, who are busy grappling with HIPAA confidentiality rules, taking continuing education courses, and filling out forms for their client's insurance companies and HMOs.
Real therapists have to do all this---and
if they find the time to read Dr Shaeffer's article, keep track of thier own curative fantasies and make sure wishful thinking generated by unexamined curative fantasies, does not lead them-trained therapists---to get enamored of interpretations, methodologies or fads that could harm, rather than benefit their patients.
But...what about BK?
What about Oprah?
What about Eckie Tolle?
What about Werner Erhard?
What was there to ensure that they ever questioned and humbly applied insight to their own curative fantasies?
What was there to ensure that each of these persons has any incentive to ask, 'is there a difference between what feels beneficial to me, and whether this is actually benefitting the people I apply this to?'
Unlike trained therapists, none of these persons has ever reportedly completed a clinical training program in mental health counseling, or received the necessary number of hours of training analysis or clinical supervision.
Their fantasies could run unchecked.
And it is interesting that in the one tiny corner of cyberspace where this question is asked---we get demands to justify our 'illogic'.
A curative fantasy has to be a very fragile thing if it cannot permit one tiny corner of disagreement to exist anywhere in cyberspace. Milllions of devotees are blogging BK's praises.
Isnt that enough to prop her curative fantasy up?
If not, the lady is apparenty troubled by some sense of lack, and is not satisfied with 'what is'---despite her proclaimation of enlightenment via cockroach.
Instead of asking RR.com to examine its illogic, why not ask why one's curative fantasy is so fragile that RR.com's illogic should matter so very much---and not be ignored with a smile?
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2008 07:14AM by corboy.