Can One Be A 'Master Therapist'?
It is from Adam Phillips and Todd Dufresne (in his very astute introduction to a new translation of Beyond the Pleasure Principle) that I have learned to regard the whole concept of being a 'master' of something with a good deal of skepticism.
In several of his books (but perhaps especially Terrors and Experts from 1997, and more recently his The Cure for Psychoanalysis), Phillips notes that we should in fact be suspicious of the whole idea of mastery of the psyche (and much else). Any psychoanalysis or psychoanalyst that promises such a thing exceeds its brief, Phillips says, arguing that there is no such psychoanalytic equivalent as the King's English or an 'authorized translation' or editio typica of the mind.
I must say that it has taken me rather a long time to make my peace with this, but I think Phillips is right: mastery is not ever completely possible, and it should in fact be interrogated when such a desire reveals itself. Though I have spent rather a lot of time on the analytic couch, and it has been invaluable in ways too numerous to mention, it was only my second analysis that led me to let go of my infantile wishes for omnipotence and omniscience and to abandon the hope that I ever could examine and thus come to control every part of my mind, draining it of all ambivalence and ambiguity and the anxiety both sometimes produce. (Put in a Winnicottian way, I would be tempted here to say I'm on better terms with my primary process!)
I have achieved a lot of insight, but it is not and never will be complete, nor anything approaching mastery, and I am now not only at peace with that but--thanks again to Phillips--rather amused (instead of alarmed and angered) at the surprises my unconscious will produce from time to time. As Phillips says "A good life entails the tolerance and enjoyment of inner complexity....There is no final resolution here" (On Flirtation: Psychoanalytic Essays on the Uncommitted Life).
None of this is to say, however, that 'mastery'--as in mastering a skill--is something I reject. Quite to the contrary, I do believe that when it comes to such practices as learning languages, playing piano, or comparable activities, mastery can and should be aimed at.
That is especially the case with psychotherapy though--as we shall see--it seems paradoxically true that one crucial hallmark of being a 'master psychotherapist' is precisely an ongoing uncertainty about whether one is a master or not, and a recognition that one still has things to learn. The master therapist, it seems to me, is the one who never feels he has learned everything.
With this as background, I picked up Jeffrey Kottler and Jon Carlson's On Being a Master Therapist: Practicing What You Preach (Wiley, 2014) and read it with interest.
The authors begin on the right footing, by raising the right questions, asking whether 'mastery' of therapy is "based on the mastery of certain clinical skills, particular personal qualities, or professional characteristics" (p.11). They next note problematic ways of finding master therapists: do you self-nominate? are you nominated by colleagues? are patients who love you or got better with you able to nominate you as a master?
All of these selection methods have, of course, problems, so we are no closer to an answer of how and where one might find master therapists. Instead, the authors add additional questions: does mastery differ based on the type of therapist or therapy? They inch towards an answer by suggesting that "no two master therapists perform therapy in the same way" (p.16).
From here we get some suggested characteristics that are likely to be encountered in those recognized as masters:
- they are more inventive
- they are more humble
- they are uncomfortable drawing attention to themselves
- they prefer difficult truths to comforting illusions
- they are emotionally honest with themselves and their patients
- they perceive things, and more quickly, that others usually miss
- flexibility
- creativity (reinventing therapy for each patient)
- originality: finding your own voice
- learning from mistakes
- evolving views responding to new evidence
- seeing the patient as the greatest teacher.
- Trustworthiness
- Dependability
- Integrity
- Flexibly tolerant
- Modestly self-assured (believing in the patient, the process, and themselves)
- Truthful
- Spontaneous and Intuitive without being Impulsive
- Kindness
Comments
Post a Comment