Introduction: Transformational Theory
Montage by Victor Bloomberg, December 27, 2016
There is an adage, “It’s sometimes hard to see the forest from the trees.” I felt this when I started to conduct psychotherapy and supervision via Telehealth. The pandemic forced the issue to the forefront for many clinicians. The perceptions of early adopters and late-comers (like myself) could help all of us gain perspective and insight. So I began to listen to what other psychotherapists had to say. I have found that clinicians have varying degrees of explanatory ability, just like everyone else. Some were vague in response to the question, “What psychotherapy theory do you use?” or “How do your methods work?” The ambiguity is understandable if the forest that the clinician inhabits is making a living; that often does not give much time for conceptualization. The ambiguity is also characteristic of a clinician who has expert-level proficiency in the psychotherapeutic arts. Expert-level proficiency uses feel and familiarity, does not require calculation - the expert can improvise in an unfamiliar moment to achieve success (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1989, p. 50).
My theory provides readers with a clear description of therapeutic dynamics in psychotherapy. An aspect of therapeutic dynamics, previously mentioned, is quality of emotional experience. Not all emotional expressions have the same significance; there is one quality when it injures and another one when it heals. Thoughts are intertwined with emotions, this is so well-known it can be called common sense. Physical sensations are clues about and cues for thoughts and emotions -this is increasingly recognized by people interested in nutrition, exercise, meditation, etc. Taken altogether, we arrive at an important question: Telehealth doesn’t engage the whole of our physicality, so is it as good as in-person? To understand why it can be, I turned to Martin Buber (1970) who published his theological, philosophical treatise, “I and Thou” in 1923. In his book, I-You denotes human encounter and I-It signifies objectification. While it has seeped into the popular culture and the psychotherapeutic profession, I discuss it anew. “I and Thou” is indispensable to understand the nature of transformation which is achievable with psychotherapy and in other ways, too.
There is a nuance that stood out as I reread Buber’s seminal treatise and it is essential for a more complete understanding of effective psychotherapy:
“For the real boundary, albeit one that floats and fluctuates, runs not between experience and not-experience, not between the given and the not-given, nor between the world of being and the world of value, but across all of the regions between You and It, between presence and object.” (p. 63)
I refer to Buber’s “floats and fluctuates” as the Thing-Person Swing, because the terms I-It and I-You are a bit awkward, because they do not fit common speech. I-It turns the other into a thing. As you read this, most of the time “I” seems to refer to you. We need to refer to the experience of one’s own self as a thing, for that let’s use the term Self-It. When you sense yourself as human, we’ll call that orientation Self-Me.
I emphasize the essential factor of Buber’s “world of value,” beliefs, schemas. Schemas (core beliefs) “[are different from] underlying assumptions (conditional beliefs) and automatic thoughts [that are temporary]” (Padesky, 1994, p. 267).” The role of beliefs in the Thing-Person Swing is important to transformative psychotherapy.
Imagine a client believes that an entire population is subhuman, a type of Thing. As soon as that classification is activated, the client is in I-It orientation. Transformative psychotherapy cannot ignore the belief.
The swing can be beyond conscious awareness, it can be reflexive, it can be Self-orientation. Imagine a couple. They were in love, so they decided to live together. Their feelings of togetherness motivated each of them to pay attention to their partner whenever they were together. Their I-You orientation was mutual. But then one of them became inconsistently attentive, and the other reflexively reacted to each lapse with Flight-Freeze behavior. Flight-Freeze is part of the Fight-Flight-Freeze response associated with the amygdala (University of Toledo, n.d.)
The upset was smoothed over by re-establishing I-You, then the upset occurred again. What happened next? The couple entered psychotherapy because one partner became aloof and the other was angry. In session, beliefs that converted their orientation to I-It were revealed. The aloof partner’s stories showed that each lapse of attention confirmed shaming, Self-It orientation, “I’m worthless.” The angry partner’s stories showed that each withdrawal confirmed a punishing, Self-It orientation, “I can’t get it right.” Each pointed their finger to blame their partner, “You’re not fair.” Their I-It orientation was intersubjective. Intersubjectivity is a shared meaning that emerges from and is enacted within the social fabric of interaction (Garte, 2016, para. 1).
My theory suggests that transformative work addresses Self-It (the experience of one’s own self as a thing.) Transformation occurs when Self-Me (you sense yourself as human) is revealed more often, it lasts longer and rings clear as a bell.
