« Internet counseling | HomePage | Attachment and proximity »
Sunday, 01 June 2008
Internet counseling
Kahless states:
“If the therapeutic relationship is key to effective counselling then if i recall you have asserted previously that internet attachments are not really attachments?”
Thanks for your comment. I have copped a bit of flack over this one. My assertion that one cannot have this thing called “Internet attachment”. I sort of agree and don’t agree that one can. If that makes any sense - which it doesn’t.
Well I even went back to my old books to just check and see if my assertion was right. I was reassured that what I read last time which was at least 5 years ago I had recalled accurately.
John Bowlby in his widely known book “Attahcment” states:
“Attachment behaviour has been defined as seeking and maintaining proximity to another individual.”(P241)
Seeks proximity
So there we have it. If a person does not seek and maintain a proximity to another then they do not have an attachment of any great strength. Most fellow bloggers have never met the other person face to face and it is highly likely that most never will. So they do not have that incessant drive and urge to seek the other party out and to maintain a proximity to them that the person with a psychological attachment does have.
A good example of this is when two adults fall in love and go into the honeymoon stage of their relationship. It is at this point that the psychological attachment is growing and developing on a daily basis and is growing stronger and stronger. Of course they usually are constantly thinking about and contacting and seeking proximity to the other loved one. Often freinds and family complain as they are spending much less time with them and more with the loved one. Of course they are, they are seeking proximity to the lover because of the attachment. And as I have said human attachment is a very potent motivator of human behavior.
Attachment can be scary
Just have a look at the blogs of my two pommy friends Hullaballoo (http://hullaballoo-hullaballoo.blogspot.com/) and Bobo (http://bobodoll.blogspot.com/) for a clear example of the desire to maintain proximity. They are counting down the seconds until they have full time proximity.
So this means blogger internet attachment does not exist -IF - you wish to be consistent on what the word and concept of attachment has been defined to be in the past. Of course people can go ahead and use the term internet attachment. If that happens and is wide spread then we will end up with two different definitions for the one term. My view would be to not do that and instead use another term instead of internet attachment.
However I would like to add that I am by no means discounting what some people have called internet attachment. One only needs to wander for a short space of time in the blogosphere and one quickly sees that many express strong emotions to other bloggers and have a strong sense of support and belonging from them. I think that is great and I am glad those people have been able to find that for themselves. It clearly is very real and does exist and it is not psychological attachment in the usual sense of the word.
Human attachment does not discriminate
It seems to me that the psychology of the strong feelings and sense of belonging expressed between bloggers is yet to be articulated. It is yet to be explained and defined. Perhaps we should give old John Bowlby a call as we are in the same situation as we were 50 years ago when the psychology of human attachment had yet to be articulated.
So how can one have internet counselling? If it is deemed that the relationship between client and therapist is the thing that has the most curative power is asked by my good pal Kahless. Firstly the internet counsellor and the internet client do have a relationship. It is not the same as the face to face client and counsellor but it is a relationship none the less and as we have seen in the blogosphere it can be a relationship of substantive emotional impact.
Whislt huge libaries of books on transference with face to face counselling exist, there is very little written on the transfernce relationship between the internet client and counsellor. Its qualities and vicissitudes are yet to be defined or articulated. And its features are yet to be honed and shaped so as to provide the maximum benefit for the client. I think I am learning precisely how to do that myself with the use of blog communication to my face to face and internet clients. How can I use my communications on this blog to optimize the transferential impact on my internet clients?
Do what's been done before, just do it different.
I would like to add that as I think about the clients who I give internet counselling the majority (but not all) I have met face to face at some point. Usually for short periods of intnesive face to face counselling but I have met most of them at some time. Also again the vast majority is not just internet counselling but also includes phone counselling. So it is a combination of both but the internet counselling is by far the most prominent at least in some instances.
Thank you Kahless for prompting this post.
Graffiti
20:25 Permalink | Comments (31) | Email this
Comments
Graffiti, I know people who crave "proximity" with their online friends, not necessarily face to face proximity, but regular contact via the typewritten word. Maybe in this day and age we need to redefine what proximity means in the sense of attachment.Maybe simple regular contact keeps the attachment.
also I don't see my son often, we have regular phone contact and email contact, but not face to face. I definitely feel attached to him as I know you do to your sons even if you don't see them on a daily basis.
I'm just mulling on the keyboard tonight.
Posted by: Madeleine | Sunday, 01 June 2008
Hello Madeleine,
I don't understand what the problem is. What is wrong with an attachment diminishing with a person who used to be a close loved one when you don't see them face to face for a long period of time?
That seems an OK thing to happen to me. The relationship has changed and there is a less strong attachment. I don't see what is wrong with that.
graffiti
Posted by: Graffiti | Sunday, 01 June 2008
I agree Madeleine that internet proximity is real in some sense of the term "proximity". I would like to explore the possibility of different types of modern attachments. Such as the pseudo attachment, intelectual attachment in contrast to the attachment we have with recently deceased loved ones. The attachmenst is there but not there in geaographical terms. Perhaps object relations can explain to a certain degree, where a person develops an object relation kind of relationship to an internet person or group.
kenoath
Posted by: kenoath | Sunday, 01 June 2008
I concur with both you and Madeleine, Kenoath,
Internet proximity is real as is phone proximity and dare I say it a hand written letter proximity.
And perhaps it is a different proximity compared to face to face proximity and human touch proximity. And it may have different effects on the attachment?
Maybe?
Graffiti
Posted by: Graffiti | Sunday, 01 June 2008
A couple of quotes I found.
kenoath
To the query, “What is a friend?” his reply was “A single soul dwelling in two bodies.” Aristotle
I think we dream so we don’t have to be apart so long. If we’re in each other’s dreams, we can be together all the time. Bill Watterson
I waited and waited, and, when no message came, I knew it must be from you. Ashleigh Brilliant
Posted by: kenoath | Sunday, 01 June 2008
Interesting Graffiti,
You say you have copped flack, I guess it is all about the words / definition. When you talk about attachment it is within the definition of John Bowlby which is about proximity. Maybe the persons giving flack view it in terms of including the dictionary definition of affection. So for a good friendship not to be viewed as an attachment affronts them? I guess I was coming from that angle previously. (Not that I was affronted, just didnt get your viewpoint.) To define an internet bond as a non attachment kind of dismissed it as meaningless. But I see now that you are not. Merely describing it as something different.
I have a few more questions but I am knackered! Time for a siesta. I'll pop by later!
Cheers
Kahless.
Posted by: Kahless | Sunday, 01 June 2008
Does not the internet present more opportunity for transference?
You see if I am face to face with someone, and communicating with them, not only do I listen to their words, but also the tone of their voice, the rhythm of their voice, their gestures / body language. All these can influence the meaning that I put to into what is being said. So the same sentance can be interpreted as humour, or pissed-off-edness or challenge or...
Yet once I have established a common ground with someone over the internet, I only have the words to go by. So given what my transference state is with that person, I will most likely interpret the words in that context. What else have I to go on. So those people I have warm fuzzy feelings for over the internet, I will almost always attriute positive warm fuzzy meaning to what they say.
Do you get what I mean?
Etabishing that initial link may be harder, but once there it is easier to maintain and develop?
However,
Posted by: Kahless | Monday, 02 June 2008
Actually this has really got me thinking....
An internet link can never reach the full strength of that developed face to face though?
Posted by: Kahless | Monday, 02 June 2008
I agree with Madeleine that we need to redefine what attachment means in this day and age. Remember when Bowlby was writing his book, travel and communication was totally different to now. It was likely that if someone went overseas it was harder to keep contact with them than it is now. The attachment maybe faded after a while with less regular contact. While the concept of what Bowlby wrote is still right today, maybe how we apply it needs to be different.
I think we have to be open to how attachments are now and not base it on something that was written in a different Era. It's a different world now, to when Bowlby wrote his book, even though I'm not saying that he was wrong - he was right for the times in which he wrote the book.
Posted by: KazzaB | Monday, 02 June 2008
Yes, maybe they will invent a new developomental stage Kazza. It will be called Teenage Raproachment SMS Stage.
It's like they have the mobile phone glued to their index finger just to keep connected to the gang! Technological Reliance stage for those Gen Y's leading the evolutionary stakes at the moment.
kenoath
Posted by: kenoath | Monday, 02 June 2008
OK, OK!
Internet attachment does exist.
There I said it!
KazzaB makes a good point in that communication is so much more prolific now as compared to Bowlby's day.
But the natural human condition is a very powerful thing
I ask you to consider this. What does seeing someone face to face feel like, human touch is a powerful element. To sit or stand right next to someone, to smell their perfume, to hug and touch them and be touched by them, to eat a meal with them, to play with them.
Take those out of a relationship for long periods of time and would that relationship change?
Graffiti
Posted by: Graffiti | Monday, 02 June 2008
I know some boys who hardly ever get to see their Dad's. The lack of intimate connection does play a role in the attachment over tiime however the idealization or object relational-relationship with Dad seems to be strong as the original intimate attachment while they develop into young men.
In that way the distant attachment has little effect on the relationship. Its only when there is less need for that "object" and after serial dissapointments (the hopes of being in the same proximity as Dad) that the relationship begins to change.
There seems to be an expectation and goal to be in the same proximity as Dad though. The Holy Grail of attachment pleasure so to speak. I think that individuals change in the end as well as the relationship. One's personality adjusts to get along with less intimate attachments for the lack of close proximity factors. Thats when the "object" of the relationship has more meaning in separateness.
kenoath
Posted by: kenoath | Monday, 02 June 2008
I think it depends on a few factors Tony. Like the type of relationship, the strength, the type of bond. Touch is very powerful, being with someone, interacting with them and being attuned to things about them. But I still think if the relationship is strong enough and the bond is there, then a relationship can withstand distances. Especially with the quality of phone calls now - it sounds like the person is right there with you. Also web cam and other media that can be used.
It's an interesting question. I'm especially thinking of couples who are seperated by their job - like in the mines up North and only being home one week in 4. I think the woman, if they have kids, would get used to being the main person running the household and it would be an adjustment when he comes home. But once again I know of one person whose husband does that and they use webcam to keep him in touch with her and the three kids. The attachment is obviously still there because they work at keeping it like that.
Posted by: KazzaB | Monday, 02 June 2008
If true love were dependant on sight, then are you saying that a blind person can't ever find true love? What if someone had a disability and couldn't feel, would that person never find love? I know people who can't smell and are totally in love - ohh, i mean 'attached' sorry.
Tony, you said...
"I ask you to consider this. What does seeing someone face to face feel like, human touch is a powerful element. To sit or stand right next to someone, to smell their perfume, to hug and touch them and be touched by them, to eat a meal with them, to play with them."
Tony I ask you to consider this... never have them in a relationship - will that relationship change?
roses
Posted by: roses | Monday, 02 June 2008
Sorry,
I mean, if we never have those things that you talked about in a relationship - then that relationship will still exist won't it?
roses
Posted by: roses | Monday, 02 June 2008
I am with Graffiti on his original assertions I think. You guys are giving examples where proximity existed in the first instance and then the separation occured. Hence attachment can be sustained through the internet.
Take us for example. I have never met any of you. However in my original thinking I would say I feel a strong attachment to some of you. When I am quiet in blogland I will still keep coming here. Maybe one or two of you feel an 'attachment' to me? Yet supposing I delete my blogs now and never come back here, I may get a passing thought for a day or two but then I will be forgotten and nothing felt. So really this is not an attchment.
I don't think I am necessarily making sense but what I am saying is that we want the internet to allow us to have attachments, but are we kidding ourselves. It can sustain but not create attachments. At the end of the day all we have here is written words. No smell, touch, etc as Tony said.
Posted by: kahless | Monday, 02 June 2008
Roses, people with one sense disabled will adapt and use their other senses.
Can someone who is deaf, blind, can't be touched because of an immune disorder, can't smell and has no tongue. I am sure they would have rather a lot of difficulty forming an attchment?
I get what you are saying and not being facetious. Just trying to understand this myself. Also why are people so protective about their attachments?
Posted by: kahless | Monday, 02 June 2008
Phew, that's a relief, I thought you were going to say that Bobo and I only had a virtual attachment lol.
I agree that there has to be a new term for internet attachment which is respectful of the depth of feeling and connection experienced.
We could join twinship transference and linking and get 'twinking'
Or mirroring transference and linking to get 'minking'
Or wanting and linking to get.... oh never mind, that's rude lol.
Posted by: Hullaballoo | Tuesday, 03 June 2008
Kahless,
That would be an aquaintaince wouldn't it? There are a lot of people that i know, who, if they went away and I never saw again, well, that would be sad but not so sad. Pretty soon i wouldn't think of them again. My life would fill up with others i guess. So if you were to leave the same thing would happen i guess.
I must admit - i'm not a very good 'friend' in that way. If i don't have much interaction with some one for a while, when we do, its like getting to know them all over again - nervous and stuff. I have to keep in touch or that person is 'gone' to me and its like meeting another person all over again. I don't know if that's weird or not. Its just the way it is for me.
So i figure the same with internet friends/aquantainces.
Things are not only seen, smelled/tasted, touchable, heard, they can be sensed. Call it 'our imagination' if you like, but some things are more real than we would like.
I wonder if an alien came to earth, would they see, smell, taste, feel and hear air? I take that so for granted you know? There's so much we miss because we're so busy doing instead of being.
Oh my goodness! End of ramble ok? Gosh i hope you have a lovely day... roses
Posted by: roses | Tuesday, 03 June 2008
So therefore Roses,
whatever any of us say or do here, we will never be more than aquaintances with no attachment unless we have proximity. So therefore internet attachment in the narrow definition of the word, cannot be created.
I feel sad now.
Posted by: Kahless | Tuesday, 03 June 2008
Kahless, i just came from your place! *Giggles*
I don't think that's what i said Kahless. If it was, then its not what i meant to say. I apologize for that.
Its good to feel sad sometimes so get it out of your system. I think its even better if you can say it in some way shape or form. Good for you!
I like to be alone. Lots of the time. I organise my home so that is very possible. We have separate rooms set aside for separate things. Most of our rooms has a telly and video or dvd player. Not all have Telly arial but i'm not an avid telly watcher and i mostly just want to be musical or read/study anyway.
Its the same with outside places. We have only one at the moment, but when we move we'll have several again. Places one can go and be alone outside. It's vitally important to me for us to be able to get away from eachother. Vitally!
There are some people, for whom, i will drop everything to run and be with in their hour of need. I'm not necessarily their friend but i consider them mine. They don't have to feel the same to me, nor do i expect them to give me the same priority in their life. I consider them my friends - not necessarily the other way around.
I believe i'm attached here. I like the attachment very much and will feed it daily. Its not necessarily returned but i don't really care about that. Its torturous at times, but it's wonderful because it can't weigh me down. There's very little burden, and i can breathe instead of suffocate. It's like a loving to me, holding me lightly, not demanding from me every moment - all my attention continuously needed.
I will never forget any of this love. Never. I will never forget what it is to not be needed. It's a wonderful gift Kahless and i want to feed it for as long as i can. When i see it being threatened i stay away, so i know it will be safe for when the burden is lessened and i can return for a bit of a break from life again.
I am attached... roses
Posted by: roses | Tuesday, 03 June 2008
I developed a friendship with another blogger who was in America and we even sent presents to each other. But eventually something happened and we stopped writing. I feel a bit of a loss but the attachment was just not strong enough to keep us going. We had never met face to face and really didn't have a bond that was strong enough to last. So I do get what you're saying Kahless. I still think of her but I didn't know her properly so there isn't that same loss that I'd have had if I'd known her well. I've got friends who have been my friends for over 20 years and it's not the same as if I'd lost their friendship.
Posted by: KazzaB | Tuesday, 03 June 2008
I would notice you "gone" Kahless. I am sure Tony would sense your absence and perhaps inquire after you. There is at least, some measure of attachment over the internet, there is something there if one can call it that? Perhaps like aquaintances, associates, or routine contacts in life, like the postie coming by daily.
If there is some degree of an attachment while communicating on the www, then counselling via this route will require specific approaches and limitations.
I have seen how 25 people around Australia who got to know each other over an internet support group. These people all met in Sydney a couple of years ago. Many of these people are still communicating as friends, some are not, some have left the group. Support groups are designed for people to eventually move on. Perhaps the internet allows that process more easily.
kenoath
Posted by: kenoath | Tuesday, 03 June 2008
Whilst I agree with some of what is being said here about myself and Kenoath feeling Kahless gone, as indeed I think I would. And KazzaB who had a US blogger friend that she 'lost'. The way I have been using the term attachment and the psychological meaning of the word I may have not described fully. So I will do more on that later today. Can't do it now as it would take too long and I have a client arriving in 30 minutes.
Thanks for all the comments. I like reading them and it does certainly help me clarify in my own mind the various ideas and they often lead onto a subsequent post as indeed this one has, or at least is about to
Tony
Posted by: Tony | Tuesday, 03 June 2008
Hello Hullaballoo,
If Bobo's 4 year old nephew complained about your bouncing on the bed then it seems it would be more than just a virtual attachment I think one can say with a high degree of certainty.
Your word play was entertaining!!
Graffiti
Posted by: Tony | Tuesday, 03 June 2008
Just quickly to Kahless and others,
The idea of do the blind have a different form of attachment as all the visual cues are not there is an interesting question.
I read an article the other day that said blind people don't dream with pictures. Not too sure how they actually would find that out but they claim to.
But no vision in a psychological attachment one would expect that to have an effect of some kind. However not really relevant to blogger attachment as people have seen my picture and me on video for that matter.
But I must admit sometimes when you finally meet a person who you have been emailing for some time it can be quite a shock to see a very different face than the one one had created in their own mind.
Tony
Posted by: Tony | Tuesday, 03 June 2008
I agree with your last paragraph Tony. I heard my blogger friends voice on a video and it shocked me. LOL It was such a broad southern american accent and for some reason I hadn't been expecting that.
I'm into the study right now for an exam in a couple of weeks, so I spose I better get into it. LOL I've set myself a goal of studying at a certain time each day. Otherwise I'm all over the place with it and it starts to irritate me. Then the rest of the day is mine!!
Posted by: KazzaB | Tuesday, 03 June 2008
I didn't see Hullabaloo's comment above. That is a very good way to describe internet attachment; in the idea of Twinship.
kenoath
Posted by: kenoath | Tuesday, 03 June 2008
Oh, good grief! What a lot of comments. Well... I will try to add my two cents, but don't mind me if it makes no sense as I am struggling right now.
I will simply stick to my own experience. There is one specific person in blog land who is not just a blog pal. I LOVE HER. I really, really love her. I am looking at her smiling face on my bedroom wall as I type this. And I love her. I will never just forget about her if I stop blogging. I have her mailing address and she has mine. We both have computers, telephones, etc. As I look at the wall above my desk, there is another photo next to hers. It is of someone else I love. He is not an internet friend, but I couldn't feel more attached to him if we were siamese twins. I've never seen him in person, either.
There you go. My two cents. Spend it wisely. It ain't been growin' on trees just lately.
Posted by: Lynn | Tuesday, 03 June 2008
Yeah Lynn, some really do get in don't they? I'm glad you commented.
roses
Posted by: roses | Tuesday, 03 June 2008
I am not gone; just pulled the plug on my laptop yesterday. I got myself in a right tizzy and unfortunately I can't blame it on alcohol. I don't know what was up - sorry.
Well I do know why really I was having a mad hour thinking every attachment in my life was meaningless.
Roses, you have absolutely nothing to apologise for. And to be honest I haven't the foggiest why you are apologising! I think you are ace and what you say is ace.
I guess Ken you were right I was gone as I just pulled the electric plug from my laptop. Unfortuanately it has a battery backup so that didn't kill the thing so I had to turn off in the normal way. And you are right, we can sense things through words on the internet. I can with my blog friends.
Lynn, your two cents is equivalent to gold bullion. (((Hugs)))
Anyway apologies again to you all. Guess it creates some subject matter for me for counselling this afternoon!
Posted by: kahless | Tuesday, 03 June 2008
The comments are closed.