从想象到信息:社交媒体时代治疗师的好奇与偷窥

IF 0.5 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHIATRY Contemporary Psychoanalysis Pub Date : 2021-01-02 DOI:10.1080/00107530.2021.1890957
M. Medina
{"title":"从想象到信息:社交媒体时代治疗师的好奇与偷窥","authors":"M. Medina","doi":"10.1080/00107530.2021.1890957","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Today’s easy online access to personal information has redefined the concepts of privacy, disclosure, and boundaries in all forms of relating. The impacts of this on the therapy relationship have also been examined, but almost exclusively in the context of patients pursuing online information about their therapists. In line with the contemporary relational view of therapy as a two-person model, this article aims to address and explore the reverse; in other words, therapists pursuing the readily available online information about their patients. While it is considered clinically inadvisable for the therapist to seek out more information than what the patient chooses to provide, therapists sometimes privately act on their desire to know more about their patients through checking social media accounts or Googling them. Like many other “secret delinquencies” of therapists, it seems that this behavior is kept in the closet; it is not talked about, thus depriving us of the opportunity to examine it and learn from it. This article first explores how and why it clashes with the analytic contract in an effort to bring a more exploratory rather than critical approach to what otherwise might simply be considered wrong. Then, it aims to examine the complex relational dynamics surrounding this behavior and candidly address some of the deeper questions it raises. Case examples as well as a qualitative review of therapists’ personal accounts are used in an effort to situate this particular type of delinquency in a theoretical and clinical context.","PeriodicalId":46058,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Psychoanalysis","volume":"57 1","pages":"115 - 124"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00107530.2021.1890957","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From Imagination to Information: Therapist’s Curiosity and Voyeurism in the Age of Social Media\",\"authors\":\"M. Medina\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00107530.2021.1890957\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Today’s easy online access to personal information has redefined the concepts of privacy, disclosure, and boundaries in all forms of relating. The impacts of this on the therapy relationship have also been examined, but almost exclusively in the context of patients pursuing online information about their therapists. In line with the contemporary relational view of therapy as a two-person model, this article aims to address and explore the reverse; in other words, therapists pursuing the readily available online information about their patients. While it is considered clinically inadvisable for the therapist to seek out more information than what the patient chooses to provide, therapists sometimes privately act on their desire to know more about their patients through checking social media accounts or Googling them. Like many other “secret delinquencies” of therapists, it seems that this behavior is kept in the closet; it is not talked about, thus depriving us of the opportunity to examine it and learn from it. This article first explores how and why it clashes with the analytic contract in an effort to bring a more exploratory rather than critical approach to what otherwise might simply be considered wrong. Then, it aims to examine the complex relational dynamics surrounding this behavior and candidly address some of the deeper questions it raises. Case examples as well as a qualitative review of therapists’ personal accounts are used in an effort to situate this particular type of delinquency in a theoretical and clinical context.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Psychoanalysis\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"115 - 124\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00107530.2021.1890957\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Psychoanalysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00107530.2021.1890957\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Psychoanalysis","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00107530.2021.1890957","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要今天,个人信息的轻松在线访问重新定义了隐私、披露和各种形式的关系边界的概念。这对治疗关系的影响也得到了研究,但几乎完全是在患者寻求治疗师在线信息的背景下进行的。根据当代治疗作为两人模式的关系观,本文旨在解决和探索相反的问题;换言之,治疗师在网上寻找患者的信息。虽然临床上认为治疗师不应该寻求比患者选择提供的更多的信息,但治疗师有时会私下通过查看社交媒体账户或谷歌搜索来满足他们对患者更多了解的愿望。就像治疗师的许多其他“秘密犯罪”一样,这种行为似乎被藏在壁橱里;它没有被谈论,从而剥夺了我们审视它并从中学习的机会。本文首先探讨了它是如何以及为什么与分析契约相冲突的,试图为那些可能被认为是错误的东西带来一种更具探索性而非批判性的方法。然后,它旨在研究围绕这种行为的复杂关系动态,并坦率地解决它提出的一些更深层次的问题。为了将这种特殊类型的犯罪置于理论和临床背景下,我们使用了案例示例以及对治疗师个人账户的定性审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
From Imagination to Information: Therapist’s Curiosity and Voyeurism in the Age of Social Media
Abstract Today’s easy online access to personal information has redefined the concepts of privacy, disclosure, and boundaries in all forms of relating. The impacts of this on the therapy relationship have also been examined, but almost exclusively in the context of patients pursuing online information about their therapists. In line with the contemporary relational view of therapy as a two-person model, this article aims to address and explore the reverse; in other words, therapists pursuing the readily available online information about their patients. While it is considered clinically inadvisable for the therapist to seek out more information than what the patient chooses to provide, therapists sometimes privately act on their desire to know more about their patients through checking social media accounts or Googling them. Like many other “secret delinquencies” of therapists, it seems that this behavior is kept in the closet; it is not talked about, thus depriving us of the opportunity to examine it and learn from it. This article first explores how and why it clashes with the analytic contract in an effort to bring a more exploratory rather than critical approach to what otherwise might simply be considered wrong. Then, it aims to examine the complex relational dynamics surrounding this behavior and candidly address some of the deeper questions it raises. Case examples as well as a qualitative review of therapists’ personal accounts are used in an effort to situate this particular type of delinquency in a theoretical and clinical context.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
What Happens When We Talk to Each Other: Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Race and Other Difficult Conversations A Fresh Beginning to an Old Conversation: Thoughts on Leon Hoffman’s “We Don’t Trust YOU: Reflections on Anti-Racism in Psychoanalysis” Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places: Hatred as a Conflict Between Dependency and the Pseudo-Autonomous Self Surviving Hating and Being Hated On “Othering”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1