You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
chrisyakimov 's review for:
DID NOT FINISH: 7%
It was sudden. The first 30+ pages have some incredibly compassionate, nuanced and yet clear, and important illustrations of trauma, how it can work, how you might recognize its impact. But I have little tolerance for psychotherapists proclaiming simple, generalizable narratives about trauma from single human stories. This isn’t the first time Maté’s writing takes this stance, but it was blessedly absent as I got through the first 30 pages. I was really hopeful the entire book would preserve this attention and respect for the complexity of human story.
But then it came. First one “analysis”, almost off the cuff and in fairly clear contradiction to the person whose story was being recounted: “This man’s impulse to protect his mother was not a defense against anything I had said or implied but against his own unacknowledged anger” (p.30). I wonder how “this man” felt (or was made to feel) about being described in this way?
Then again, as a general proclamation about human psychology and its rootedness in trauma: “Nobody is born with such traits [superautonomous self-sufficiency]. They invariably stem from coping reactions to developmental trauma” (p. 38). If you grasp the subtlety of his statement about big vs little “-t” “trauma,” you can read this sentence with a bit more nuance. And yet the word “trauma” packs a cultural punch that overwhelms such nuance, especially when used by a psychotherapist as a way to interpret someone’s psychology. #Unhelpful.
It’s not that his analysis is “wrong” — it’s that it’s presented as simple fact (either right or wrong) rather than as a complex frame for additional insight, curiosity, or learning. Given the author’s position of power and influence over those with whom he works, this level of disrespectful arrogance deserves to be named and called out. The time of therapists proclaiming their own insights about their “patients” is long over.
But then it came. First one “analysis”, almost off the cuff and in fairly clear contradiction to the person whose story was being recounted: “This man’s impulse to protect his mother was not a defense against anything I had said or implied but against his own unacknowledged anger” (p.30). I wonder how “this man” felt (or was made to feel) about being described in this way?
Then again, as a general proclamation about human psychology and its rootedness in trauma: “Nobody is born with such traits [superautonomous self-sufficiency]. They invariably stem from coping reactions to developmental trauma” (p. 38). If you grasp the subtlety of his statement about big vs little “-t” “trauma,” you can read this sentence with a bit more nuance. And yet the word “trauma” packs a cultural punch that overwhelms such nuance, especially when used by a psychotherapist as a way to interpret someone’s psychology. #Unhelpful.
It’s not that his analysis is “wrong” — it’s that it’s presented as simple fact (either right or wrong) rather than as a complex frame for additional insight, curiosity, or learning. Given the author’s position of power and influence over those with whom he works, this level of disrespectful arrogance deserves to be named and called out. The time of therapists proclaiming their own insights about their “patients” is long over.