Very good points in this article. It leaves open the question of how to define “overcome.” Are certain qualities present in the individual, or must it be a certain period of time after a crisis or healing? This is something I grapple with personally as I grow as a yoga teacher and pursue studies in yoga therapy.
Great questions, Julianne. In my experience, we are 'healed' when we can incorporate our past trauma into our current lives and use its lessons to inform our path forward. What do you think?
I think I am still in a process of learning what “healed” means. I used to think it meant that you were no longer affected by a given issue you dealt with in the past. To me it carries a designation, like one is now perfected or unflappable in given ways. In my journey, I’ll have a streak of feeling unflappable and then be knocked down on my butt again - doubting if I should be in a position of ‘teacher’ at all. It’s all very humbling. Maybe the healing is never “done.”
Just like a scar is often left behind after a wound heals, my experience is that our scars stick around long after we're "healed" and help ensure we don't fall back on old patterns. Never will we be "perfect," other than recognizing our own perfection amidst the chaos of life.
Great thought provoking article 👏👏 Personally, I prefer working with someone who has an understanding of what it’s like to go through a mental health crisis. And you don’t really understand it until you experience it. Of course the education is important, but I think having gone through similar struggles makes the person more empathic and easier to talk to. But that’s just my opinion and personal experience:)
Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply, Anna. I wanted to take the time to meditate on your words before responding.
I’m deeply sorry you’ve experienced harmful psychotherapists. We place our vulnerability in their hands, and it’s devastating to have that violated in any way.
I appreciate how you phrased, “Messed up people can mess up messed up people even more than they are already messed up.” It’s an eye-opening way of expressing that.
Perhaps, though, it’s also a good example of the sentiment discussed in the post, just in reverse: Instead of arguing that a psychotherapists’ own mental health struggles can make them better at their job, we’re stating that their negligent actions will somehow have more of a negative impact on clients’ lives than negligent actions from another professional. And it’s this bias I’m attempting to suss out.
While you’re right, a psychotherapist without holding capacity probably isn’t fit for that role, we can say the same for almost any professional role. If someone doesn’t have the necessary skills to perform the job, and/or if they remain mired in their suffering, then they shouldn’t be placed in a position to help clients. Period.
An accountant who has a gambling problem shouldn’t give financial advice. A personal trainer in the throes of an eating disorder shouldn’t give clients dietary advice. A doctor with a god complex shouldn’t give patients lifestyle advice.
Granted, achieving mental health can be more nuanced than finances or diet. My point here is this: Compared to these other roles, it seems that society makes a special exception for mental health professionals. That they’re especially unfit because of their suffering/lack of skills.
In other words, returning to the point of the article, it seems like society, in general, believes that a psychotherapist’s history of mental health struggles doesn’t make them better at their job, like a history of struggles might for another profession.
And on the flip side, to your point, it seems that society—in general—is biased to believe that a psychotherapist without holding capacity is somehow more potentially damaging than a doctor, accountant, etc., who's similarly unfit for their role. While I imagine that claim could somehow be quantified, I don’t necessarily see it aligning with reality.
Very good points in this article. It leaves open the question of how to define “overcome.” Are certain qualities present in the individual, or must it be a certain period of time after a crisis or healing? This is something I grapple with personally as I grow as a yoga teacher and pursue studies in yoga therapy.
Great questions, Julianne. In my experience, we are 'healed' when we can incorporate our past trauma into our current lives and use its lessons to inform our path forward. What do you think?
I think I am still in a process of learning what “healed” means. I used to think it meant that you were no longer affected by a given issue you dealt with in the past. To me it carries a designation, like one is now perfected or unflappable in given ways. In my journey, I’ll have a streak of feeling unflappable and then be knocked down on my butt again - doubting if I should be in a position of ‘teacher’ at all. It’s all very humbling. Maybe the healing is never “done.”
Just like a scar is often left behind after a wound heals, my experience is that our scars stick around long after we're "healed" and help ensure we don't fall back on old patterns. Never will we be "perfect," other than recognizing our own perfection amidst the chaos of life.
Great thought provoking article 👏👏 Personally, I prefer working with someone who has an understanding of what it’s like to go through a mental health crisis. And you don’t really understand it until you experience it. Of course the education is important, but I think having gone through similar struggles makes the person more empathic and easier to talk to. But that’s just my opinion and personal experience:)
Thanks, so much Darcy! Yes, I completely agree!
Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply, Anna. I wanted to take the time to meditate on your words before responding.
I’m deeply sorry you’ve experienced harmful psychotherapists. We place our vulnerability in their hands, and it’s devastating to have that violated in any way.
I appreciate how you phrased, “Messed up people can mess up messed up people even more than they are already messed up.” It’s an eye-opening way of expressing that.
Perhaps, though, it’s also a good example of the sentiment discussed in the post, just in reverse: Instead of arguing that a psychotherapists’ own mental health struggles can make them better at their job, we’re stating that their negligent actions will somehow have more of a negative impact on clients’ lives than negligent actions from another professional. And it’s this bias I’m attempting to suss out.
While you’re right, a psychotherapist without holding capacity probably isn’t fit for that role, we can say the same for almost any professional role. If someone doesn’t have the necessary skills to perform the job, and/or if they remain mired in their suffering, then they shouldn’t be placed in a position to help clients. Period.
An accountant who has a gambling problem shouldn’t give financial advice. A personal trainer in the throes of an eating disorder shouldn’t give clients dietary advice. A doctor with a god complex shouldn’t give patients lifestyle advice.
Granted, achieving mental health can be more nuanced than finances or diet. My point here is this: Compared to these other roles, it seems that society makes a special exception for mental health professionals. That they’re especially unfit because of their suffering/lack of skills.
In other words, returning to the point of the article, it seems like society, in general, believes that a psychotherapist’s history of mental health struggles doesn’t make them better at their job, like a history of struggles might for another profession.
And on the flip side, to your point, it seems that society—in general—is biased to believe that a psychotherapist without holding capacity is somehow more potentially damaging than a doctor, accountant, etc., who's similarly unfit for their role. While I imagine that claim could somehow be quantified, I don’t necessarily see it aligning with reality.
What do you think?