The construct of resistance is frequently discussed during marriage and family therapy (MFT), yet it is often addressed without being located in a systems-oriented framework. When therapists label clients or families as “being resistant,” we notice MFT supervision turning into an advice-driven environment where trainees invest a significant amount of energy in offering antidotes to the therapist who is plagued by the resistance itself. Although people are well-intentioned in their solution-oriented interactions, we believe that constructs that are rooted in a more traditional psychoanalytic approach might need to get a “systemic check” in order to be acknowledged when accounting for a systemic way of thinking.
In the field of psychotherapy, it has become almost impossible to explore how MFTs speak about their clinical processes when offering therapy without sharing their thoughts and assumptions about how clients are responding—the dichotomy of “responding well” or “responding not well” to mental health treatment. Although AAMFT supervisors are trained to provide supervision from a systemic framework, supervisees can easily be lured into using language that might not do justice to how they are relating to clients in the therapy room.
If Gregory Bateson (1972) was right about people being interconnected in complex living systems, should there be more ways of describing relationships that constantly learn from each other in relation to what exists? Our answer is: Yes! The invitation to start relating to relationships and developing different metaphors to understand living complex systems as interrelated networks of communication and feedback became prominent in social sciences during the ‘60s. Through systems theory and cybernetics, Bateson (1972) argued that systems are capable of learning and evolving over time and called our attention to consider how we think affects what we are influenced to do. Now, we ask: How might the use and overuse of resistance as a construct in supervision influence what MFTs are inclined to do when relating to people in the therapy room?
As MFT educators, we believe that it is our responsibility to help future supervisors develop into their systemic professional identity as they consider how they are thinking about people, problems, and change. In other words, supporting the professional development of those positioning themselves as systemic thinkers is a significant part of supervision training. Based on this hope, we would like to invite you, reader, to explore how the construct of resistance is or is not related to a systemic framework.
To start, we acknowledge that resistance is a well-known concept in psychotherapy that was first introduced in the late 19th century by Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)—the founder of psychoanalysis. In the context of psychoanalysis, resistance seemed to become a fundamental aspect of psychoanalytic theory and practice, highlighting the connection between the conscious and unconscious mind in the therapeutic process.
In contemporary psychotherapy, the construct of resistance has evolved and expanded beyond its Freudian roots. Modern psychodynamic therapies continue to explore resistance as a manifestation of the tension between the conscious and unconscious mind (Trujillo, 2023). However, resistance is now also understood in broader contexts, such as client-therapist dynamics, influenced by cultural factors, and also systematically affected by human behavior (Leiper & Baltbi, 2004). This perspective suggests that resistance can sometimes reflect the person’s response to the therapeutic relationship itself and, in many ways, the broader social and cultural systems in which the person is living (Cushman, 2015).
In the context of therapeutic interventions, the concept of resistance seems to include so much of the defenses, drives, character traits, ego attitudes of defiance, and desperate opposition to change (Schafer, 1973). More specifically, in supervision, the concept of resistance usually appears when supervisees believe clients are failing to comply with therapeutic interventions. If we are connecting resistance to individualized approaches such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and motivational interviewing (MI), we are invited to understand resistance in a particular way. In the words of Miller & Rollnick (2012), resistance is described as a lack of readiness for change or ambivalence rather than a purely unconscious defense mechanism. This way of thinking is not a big departure from psychoanalytic work in our view, but it does change the therapeutic focus from exploring deep-seated unconscious processes to addressing the client’s current motivation and readiness for change—which ultimately shapes the way supervisees engage in dialogue about their work.
Now you might be wondering: Why so much time is being spent reviewing the foundations of certain approaches to challenge resistance within individualizing epistemologies?
Although evidence-based therapeutic approaches have been accepted as the gold standard for mental health delivery, accounts of supervision based on what happens between the client and the therapist continue to be one-sided and often based on the therapist’s experience of their work and their process.
We must move away from mechanistic, reductionist paradigms that oversimplify the relationships of which we are a part.
The problem with defining resistance based on the therapist’s assumptions is the risk of oversimplifying complex responses, reducing them to mere obstacles rather than understanding them as meaningful expressions of the client’s lived experiences, cultural background, and broader social context. If we are truly committed to the work of describing or trying to understand complex living systems, which is the cornerstone of systemic supervision (Holloway, 2014; Watkins & Milne, 2014), then we must move away from mechanistic, reductionist paradigms that oversimplify the relationships of which we are a part. Instead, we should embrace a more dynamic relational practice that allows us to engage people in a manner that is fluid and everchanging.
When the construct of resistance takes center stage in supervision, it is our responsibility to move beyond a linear metaphor by asking: How do we become aware of therapeutic constructs that belong to orientations that are non-systemic in nature? How can we better understand the foundations of these therapeutic constructs in a way that offers everyone—supervisors, supervisees, and clients—the changes they are interested in?
Exploring resistance from a systemic framework offers a reorientation following a transformative approach to a collective process. What if resistance was a necessary process and response that we as MFTs were excited to note? What if resistance were actually a requirement to counter the effects of injustice and systemic oppression in a person’s life?
From a social justice and civil rights perspective, resistance is viewed as a powerful quality and it is because of the people who resisted historically oppressive conditions—segregation, and women’s suffrage movements—that we have somewhat progressed toward building a society that hopes to be more inclusive of all people. Baez et al. (2018) map resistance in several theoretical traditions drawing from gender studies, feminism, peace studies, political science, sociology critical race, and anthropology, to name a few (Falender & Shafranske, 2004). Situating resistance in such a way seems to be useful as it relates to ideas of agency which is closely entangled in the lives of a person and how it affects a range of articulations and possibilities. Ford et al. (2008) explore the prevailing views of resistance to change being often connected to a one-sided story that favors resistance as dysfunctional. So, why is it that in supervision resistance continues to be viewed and described negatively? Have we gotten it all wrong?
We have spent a considerable amount of time situating ourselves within our roles as female educators and supervisors working from our diverse social locations. At the same time, we have witnessed firsthand how the most normalized description of resistance can be more harmful than helpful in dialogical conversations. Is it time to turn resistance into a better metaphor when working with supervisees when they are describing their processes in the therapy room?
Resistance as per therapist’s account of their work cannot be viewed as a one-size-fits-all construct, especially when considering the diverse cultural and social identities that clients present within the therapeutic space. The intersection of race, gender, socioeconomic status, and other identity factors strongly shapes how resistance manifests in individuals and families. In supervision, broadening the dialogue about how resistance is understood could open a window into our clients’ lives and is significant information in relation to cultural values, understandings, and responses to life events.
We firmly believe it is time to redefine resistance, not as a barrier, but as a vital force and informative part of the therapeutic process. This shift towards a relational understanding that connects rather than isolates can offer unique opportunities for the development of richer metaphors to describe lived experiences particularly those informed by the lessons of social movements of resistance. By doing so, we may create spaces that empower people to align more deeply with the values that matter most to them. Such explorations in MFT supervision could very well inspire a transformative way of interacting with the world—precisely the vision Bateson had articulated all along.
Danna Abraham, PhD, LMFT, is an AAMFT Professional member holding the Approved Supervisor and Clinical Fellow designations, and Assistant Professor at the California School of Professional Psychology at Alliant International University. In her work, she focuses on helping therapists in training develop into their preferred professional identities. She is the director of the Research Initiative for Storytelling Engagement (RISE) lab where her research focuses on exploring gender inequalities in higher education. dayanne.abraham@alliant.edu, www.theriselab.com
Afarin Rajaei, PhD, LMFT, is an AAMFT Professional Member holding the Approved Supervisor and Clinical Fellow designations, and Assistant Professor at the California School of Professional Psychology at Alliant International University. She is also an associate editor of International Journal of Systemic Therapy. In her work, she focuses on diversity, inclusion work, AI in mental health fields, healthcare systems, couples with chronic illness, and romantic relationships. afarin.rajaei@alliant.edu
Baaz, M., Lilja, M., & Vinthagen, S. (2017). Researching resistance and social change: A critical approach to theory and practice. Routledge.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. University of Chicago Press.
Cushman, P. (2015). Relational psychoanalysis as political resistance. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 51(3), 423-459. https://doi.org/10.1080/00107530.2015.1056076
Falender, C. A., & Shafranske, E. P. (2004). Clinical supervision: A competency-based approach. American Psychological Association.
Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story. Academy of Management Review, 33, 362-377.
Holloway, E. L. (2014). Supervision essentials for a systems approach to supervision. American Psychological Association.
Leiper, R., & Maltby, M. (2004). The dynamics of change. In The psychodynamic approach to therapeutic change (pp. 3-11). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446216729
Trujillo, M. (2023). Psychosocial treatments: Psychotherapy, behavioral, and cultural interventions. In A. J. Rush, M. B. First, & D. J. Stein (Eds.), Psychosocial Treatments (pp. 211-231). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15401-0_11
Watkins, C. E., Jr., & Milne, D. L. (Eds.). (2014). The international handbook of clinical supervision. John Wiley & Sons.
Other articles
Neuronutrition: An Introduction to an Important and Complex Topic
This new serial column on nutrition is for clinicians seeking more in-depth insights into the link between mental health and the body and the importance of understanding proper nutrition on the brain and emotional health.
Jerrod Brown, PhD, Bettye Sue Hennington, PhD, Tiffany Flaten, MEd, Jeremiah Schimp, PhD, & Jennifer Sweeton, PsyD
Embodiment & Equine Therapy: Anorexia Nervosa
Anorexia Nervosa is a complex disorder. The diagnostic criteria as defined by the DSM-V is the “restriction of energy intake relative to requirements leading to a significantly low body weight in the context of age, sex, developmental trajectory, and physical health; intense fear of gaining weight or becoming fat, even though underweight; disturbance in the way in which one’s body weight or shape is experienced, undue influence of body weight or shape on self-evaluation, or denial of the seriousness of the current low body weight” (American Psychological Association, 2013, pp.338-339). The incidence of diagnosed eating disorders is estimated to be 4.95% for women, and research indicates that one in eight women in the United States are impacted by subclinical disordered eating (Beccia, Dunlap, Hanes, Courneene & Zwickey, 2017).
Jennifer Cahill, MBA
Differences Are Not Deficits
Greetings AAMFT members! I hope all enjoyed a restful, fun, and productive summer! This was a particularly hot summer in most areas of the contiguous United States (if not all over the globe!) and I hope everyone remained safe and cool.
Silvia Kaminsky, MSEd