Psychological Resistance as Opportunity

Perhaps in furtherance of what I picked up in an internship at the VA, I've been thinking about how an understanding of strategy and tactics could help therapists. I'm currently reading Liddell Hart's book STRATEGY, in which he recommends strongly what he calls "indirect strategy"--which we know of, loosely, as "reverse psychology" essentially. (This comment is mostly one on attitude, but can be taken to a point of developing better understanding and techniques as well.)

One of the more difficult tasks that therapists supposedly face is the number and complexity of symptoms with certain clients. But this is largely a false problem when rapport exists, if we can expect that a client will return for the next appointment. Short of that being present, we are dealing in crisis management, not therapy. I don't know all that much about crisis management. Situational crises are analogous to fragmented personalities as well, so I am not really addressing issues such as schizophrenia, but this perspective may help identify when and how a stout ego--even if applied in apparent resistance to progress--can be a good thing.

The attitude shift I'm getting at comes from the realization that multiple goals allows one to adjust focus and techniques in such a way that resistance can be avoided, so I guess this is mostly a comment on difficult clients or difficult issues. The beginning of this shift (in terms of therapy) comes from recognizing the individuality of the other person along with their sense of threat. When we feel vulnerable, we are likely to feel threatened or pressured, reducing our ability to think creatively and increasing the likelihood and often the intensity of emotional reactivity. In therapy, clients often alternate between feeling threatened and soothed--both of these engendering low-creativity mind states, reduced agency. From my angle, I tend to be dissatisfied with simply soothing anxiety rather than increasing resilience and agency, and I think that idea is generally accepted, but I think many methods contradict that agreement.

The beginning of this shift (in terms of strategy) is a shift from a focus on superior force alone to a superior concentration of force. (Stick with me a few steps here, this makes ready sense once we arrive.) In boxing or war, we know we need to be prepared for both attack and defense--usually simultaneously. The best offensive strikes most often follow putting our opponent off balance, dispersing their defense while concentrating our offense. Hart highlights the idea, here, that in order to do so, it is very important to have multiple objectives. (This is where complexity comes back in, but as something that can support therapeutic goals rather than stress out therapists.) Just as it takes boxers or armies time to adjust their defenses--and they are vulnerable while adjusting--it takes people time to adjust their defensive mechanisms or resistance as they shift from resisting one perceived aim to another. That gap is rich with potential. When we have only one objective, our opponent can readily see where we are headed and align their defenses accordingly. When therapists find themselves caught in a head-to-head struggle, then, it is evidence of their own shortcoming.

Motivational interviewing addresses resistance by explicitly putting the focus on the client's motivation and allowing them the space to redefine the relationship as nonthreatening. The stages of change model provides multiple goals and also alleviates therapists' fear by outlining the process of change (reducing the "offensive" pressure).

The same force of will that is "resistance" in a conflictual relationship is "agency" from an individual or noncompetitive viewpoint. In these terms, then, the very idea of resistance as resistance saps a relationship of rapport and wears out anyone involved, reducing the force available for progress. Since clients cannot reasonably be expected to have a thorough theoretical background, this is always a shortcoming of the therapist when two conditions are met. The first condition, again, is that the situation not be a full-on crisis. Therapy as therapy does not occur during crises. Crisis management is called for, even if crisis management done well has therapeutic effects. The second condition is a workable degree of ego integrity. In other words, the ego must first be somewhat stabilized. Therapy as a talking cure--at least as is most often taught in training programs--is ineffective by itself when dealing with significant brain trauma, psychoses, and extreme drug effects.

Therapists wear themselves out by dispersing their own psychological energy or force, and clients do, too. Rather than diminishing force, progress occurs through an adequate application of force. So I'll define a therapist's realm of expertise as expertise in the excellent application of psychological force towards progress. (Since progress is constituted differently in various situations, I will leave "progress" undefined for now.) Essentially then, moments of head-to-head competition are healthy when we are playing or "exercising" (testing our strength). But otherwise, unless we are actually in a wartime situation, this application of force is stupid, wasteful, and unpleasant.

In fact, supporting someone's strength of agency comes from making explicit the availability of force and it's multiplicity of applications. In other words, when someone is willing to show us where they want to apply force, they show themselves. When we have multiple goals in mind--whether those goals are shared or not--we are able to use that knowledge to advance our goals. In war, those goals will not be shared, but in therapy, we can direct that force in whichever direction will gain the greatest progress rather than trying to railroad clients towards one goal. Whenever we feel "resistance", we are trying to dominate an opponent, and they are right to perceive it as so. This is where it can be incredibly helpful to have multiple goals; it is better to make progress towards a secondary goal than to lose ground or waste energy going nowhere in a stalemate. Similarly, crushing a client's "resistance" (sense of agency) is inappropriate.

The same understanding applies to education. While there may be a time and a place for dominating opponents, should that occur, we might as well be honest that this is what is occurring--at least with ourselves. Maintaining deceit or avoidance of reality also diminishes our available psychological energy--will and attention.