Psychotherapy Grounded in the Feminine Principle

lamplighterMember

By Barbara Stevens Sullivan

An interesting read this, based on a Jungian psychoanalytic perspective where the author makes a nice distinction between the principles of ‘doing’ and ‘being’ (the one traditionally masculine, the other feminine) and how therapy has come to be focused on doing and has lost sight of (or rather never had in the first place) the fundamental necessity of just ‘being’ in therapy, where being involves being open to pain and suffering without the need to have to overcome or DO something about it.

Excerpts:

quote:
Masculine consciousness analyzes life from a rational perspective, breaking it down into its component parts, examining each piece, judging it in a directed, disciplined, logical way. Feminine consciousness enters into the experience of any one of life’s given elements and swims around in it. A feminine approach considers this bit of life, ponders and meditates on it, bringing together the inner experience with its outer reality, seeking to digest the whole of something, neglecting the masculine expertise which can sort situations out. The feminine concern is with meaning rather than with facts, with an entirety rather than with causative chains of pieces. This kind of understanding implies sitting with a problem, walking around an issue, familiarizing oneself with the territory over and over, until one may imperceptibly outgrow any given way of existence, any particular problem, possibly finding oneself living in a new situation. Neither approach is ‘better’ than the other; different tasks imply different optimal orientations.

quote:
Our resistance to a feminine orientation is tremendous. We are taught in every setting that we should be in control of our lives and that our lives will proceed in positive directions if we control them properly. We are urged to refuse to give in to depression and despair, to think positively. In the face of the clearest, most consistent evidence, our culture insists upon denying the ubiquitous, inescapable fact of darkness and death and upon maintaining a fiction of the possibility of living happily ever after if we will only manage our lives properly. The consequence of this attitude is not an increasingly widespread incidence of happiness, it is rather a situation in which people feel guilty about their depression and despair, exacerbating their pain by struggling against the legitimate suffering that life involves and that, when submitted to, ultimately brings wisdom.

quote:
The receptive Being that the feminine principle values is strenuously resisted, in analysis as in life, because Being involves suffering while Doing offers at least the illusion that suffering may one day be overcome. I do not wish to imply that Doing is not valuable, in analysis as in life. Much suffering can be overcome, and a vital involvement in life implies activity aimed at enriching and improving it. But considerable suffering must be endured. Our secular culture offers no containers to hold people through painful experiences, nor does it value experiencing the depths of the darker side of life. In general we begin our therapeutic journeys hoping to be cured of unhappiness, with woefully inadequate capacities to suffer the suffering that will deepen us and lead us to wholeness.

She also writes really interestingly about the concepts of merger and regression, topics that reflect attachment theory in many ways. Her approach is quite poetic and spiritual (natch, being a Jungian!) which makes it almost uplifting to read about stuff that generally seems to get a bad press in psychological literature.

The book isn’t all theory either, she gives case studies to illustrate a lot of her points.

Although the author is a psychoanalyst, I think quite a lot of what she talks about is relevant to all therapy not just psychoanalysis.

Note: Have to say that while I was impressed with this book, the author’s subsequent book ‘The Mystery of Analytic Work – Weavings from Jung and Bion’ which I’m reading at the moment, is absolute RUBBISH! It’s like she gone overboard into jargonized concepts and isn’t speaking English anymore. But the one I’m talking about in this thread is really good for getting a different perspective on how therapy works.

LL

6/30/117:40 AM

❤️ 0

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

lamplighterMember

Aaaarrrrggghh I know there was a reply here, I'm sorry you felt you had to delete it

But as I have a reply all set to go I'm going to post it anyway. Yeah the excerpts I've quoted above sound quite defeatist in a way, so I found another quote from the author that is maybe a bit more hopeful.

quote:
The most hopeful result of analysis finds the patient suffering MORE of his pain than he was able to manage before. More of his pain is held in conscious awareness instead of being discharged into behaviour that jumbles up his life, injuring his relationships or his work. A successful therapeutic venture leaves the patient’s outer life improved, perhaps dramatically. Ideally the patient will find more satisfaction and pleasure than before. But instead of being tormented by meaningless pain, he will suffer pain constructively. Pain is always part of life, and the wounds that have moulded the person into exactly this or that shape will continue to channel his responses to pain in his unique ways.

Not the most uplifting or optimistic description of the outcome of therapy, but it makes sense. This author makes a distinction between pain and suffering, the first falling into the category of ‘meaningless’ whereby nothing changes and the pain just resurfaces continuously in one negative form or another, the latter falling into the category of giving meaning to pain, so that it can be worked through and resolved. I think what she’s getting at generally is that there never will be freedom from pain, just that it’s possible to reach a point in one’s own development and self understanding where pain can be experienced without being destructive.

LL

7/4/1112:47 AM

❤️ 0

blackbirdMember

**trigger for very religious talk***

I find as an Christian, this book, in particular from a secular perspective most enlightening, LL!! For myself as christian, I think Christ himself embodies (quite literally, in fact) the idea of Being versus Doing. It's interesting to me that the author chooses to capitalize the two concepts- it is basically a trinitarian concept she is speaking of. Where she seems to lose the thread a bit (from such a limited reading) is in the idea of the unification of Doing with Being- which would produce, (in the traditional Christian trinitarian understanding...Love (or in the case of sex for example- a child.) I (personally) believe that what she is describing here, is that we are traditionally, as male and female, created as an icon or representation of this trinitarian concept. Both as individuals with three distinct parts of the brain, and in relationship- in explicit, obvious ways. The more we embrace this concept, the closer to healing we are, IMO. Psychologically speaking, we are "known" by our creator, and what has to happen for our healing is laid out explicitly thourgh both psychologists like this one who understand deeply, the end point of suffering, which makes sense to no one-- and by scripture- interpreted for us, (albeit, accidentally) by individuals like this person you have recommended. It is the same things she says as:

quote:
28“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

I like very much, the idea of the "feminine principle." I sincerely hope this post is not too offensive. (I believe that the feminine principle described here is Christ, and is deeply rejected/resisted, as the author says)

thoughts?

7/4/1111:26 AM

❤️ 0

lamplighterMember

Hello Beebs thanks for replying. That’s some pretty deep things you are talking about there. And no not offensive at all, far from it!

From my (very limited) understanding of Christian theology, I think I can see some parallels – specifically the idea of ‘meekness’ – and embracing suffering. The excerpts I’ve quoted are probably misleading in that although the author does state that Being and Doing are not mutually exclusive, she is rather attempting to describe how psychotherapy works in terms of applying the ‘being’ principle, ie acceptance of what is, with an emphasis on suffering, as a counter to the prevalence of the ‘doing’ principle – which tends to focus on avoiding or ‘fixing’ suffering - in traditional therapy. She isn’t attempting to integrate them. And her spiritual theme is more along mythological lines than Christian ideas (for instance, alchemy, archetypal feminine ‘heroes’ like Penelope and the Sumerian goddess Inanna…) But she does talk about regression and merger in a very spiritual way (equating the process of these phenomena in psychotherapy with descent into hell, death and rebirth.)

I find your idea of the feminine principle here being embodied by Christ very interesting (I’d have not made that connection myself, but now that you state it, it’s certainly made me think.) And I think you’re right about the deep resistance we have to accepting this ‘principle’. But I don’t think I can make much more comment about what you’ve said, as I’m pretty much a heathen and only have a superficial understanding of Christian theology. Sorry

LL

Note: I should add for the sake of clarity, that the book isn’t as esoteric as I’m making it sound, the author spends some time looking at the work/ideas of the likes of Winnicott, Balint, Kohut and of course Jung, and also grounds her ideas in case studies.

7/5/1111:46 AM

❤️ 0

blackbirdMember

hah, don't worry, LL, I tend to intellectualize my Christianity far too much, and most of this is just my own analogy/suppositions and could be *way* off the mark. I don't think you are a heathen at all! I just found it interesting and thought I'd be brave and share my thoughts, after deleting much more innocuous ones posted earlier..

Go figure. It sounds like an interesting read!