Adrian Scott Counsellor Supervisor MBACP Accred

Enjoy life.                                                                                                                                             
But what if you don’t. What if you don’t enjoy life or living.

A true taboo – social cultural personal.
Life is a gift. Life is precious. Life is what you make it. Live life. Live your full potential.

To say you don’t enjoy life sparks ideas in others of suicide, depression, upset, unhappiness, hopelessness, helplessness. Society fears it: not productive: not contributing: not playing the game.

For a moment imagine that this perspective was acceptable? What world would we be in? Are we nuanced or subtle enough to allow a not enjoying of life: rather than seeing it as the start of a slippery slope towards extinction / annihalation.

Or underneath is it a challenge to the power structure. If enough people said they didn’t enjoy life: this woud be a direct challenge to the system that wants the structure to remain the same. As we are fluid selves we slip in and out of states. Sometimes happy, sad, engaged, bored, fulifilled, … and on.

As always what is not permissible or allowed motivates us. Not enjoying life is not an end of life. But perhaps an acknowledgement of the pretence that life in the 21st Century is fit for purpose. Rather than a resource exploited by the few at the expense of the many.

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2025
All rights reserved Disclaimer:
This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Rivers are dying so give them rights: apparently this is the new radical. To give inanimate objects rights: or to assign an individual to speak for the river appears fanciful yet we are doing this all the time. With animals, children, teenagers, women, men, adults we can see how we do this. By speaking out, attracting attention, setting up charities to the plight of others. If they are sentient, feeling beings then we understand.

But with inanimate objects it can sound a bit fanciful. But who doesn’t need support other than our polluted rivers?
A voice to push back on the waste that is poured into them. Push back on the fish & animals that can no longer live in or alongside them. To be an advocate for an abused inanimate object that cannot help itself seems worthy. Especially as it encroaches more & more on our human lives. Roles for people are funded to raise the voices of our rivers. In contradiction the rivers are said to heal themselves.

Therapy also has this role. The therapist has to advocate for the child which the adult cannot see or feel. A lot of the work is the therapist holding parts of the client which are abused & wounded. What is blocked in the client gets put onto the therapist so the client can avoid feeling it. Anger, pain, resentment are the weights which the client unknowingly slides acroos the therapy room to the therapist.
Our work is to hold the weight for safekeeping, ready for it to be passed back to the client when ready.

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2025
All rights reserved Disclaimer:
This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Lukas started the session: “I am guessing that your Father might have fought my Grandfather in the war”
Therapists are afraid of these sort of comments – frightened that they are going to get drawn into a conflict. Conflict though is where the work is. I asked him to continue as if that was true.

“Well …. your father would have fought my grandfather: they would have been enemies. One country trying to destroy another country.” I was surprised and put me into reflection.

Lukas and I have a testing relationship. He talks a lot about European politics in an informed way: nothing personal. It struck me that he has placed me in the transference of the enemy. If I was the enemy, I was attacking him and he had the right to defend himself. In our relationship a defense against his connecting to his feelings.
Lukas continued “if this was true you would see me as the enemy, hate me, and want to kill me”

In reality he has a point. Part of family scripts include our parents’ history including living through periods of war. These prejudices filter down into friend/enemy stories: however little or much talked about. This is no modern urban social racism: but set in the reality of enemies at war.

From a transference perspective we are all orientated around survival. To do this we primitively, instinctively want to be around the familiar, the same. War cements our prejudices in a real reality of the other wanting to kill us. To this extent we are all racist: fuelled by real/imaginery fears of difference. I reflected on my racism, and then with my relationship with Lukas.

To bring the shadow into the light: I might agree with Lukas. That we are all prejudiced, biased, racist. That this creates doubt & mistrust. That this is a natural reaction to our own safety, and consideration. It benefits us so that we can remain in a defensive state. For most therapy is a place of unsafety posing the opportunity to look at the self. That this is a good position to have between the two of us so we can both remain defensive & shut down.

I observe relational depth is gained counter intuitively by awareness of the darker sides of our characters. We all have them. An honesty & awareness around our shadow bias creates a possibility of trust & connection.

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2025
All rights reserved Disclaimer:
This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Don & Maria sit in silence in front of me. Don had shouted at Maria after she accused him of stonewalling. Both look at me to take their side in the fight. They have come to couples therapy for a fix. The usual method is that each person has to change to suit the other.

Then Don said: “Do you think we should be together? You must have a lot of experience of working with people”
I replied: “You want me to decide whether you stay together or not, because of my experience of people in your situation”
This line of questioning went on for a few minutes – both becoming more angry with me: they turned away from each other and faced me – waiting for me to reveal the magic fix. For the first time in the sessions they had joined in alliance to be angry with me.
I replied: “You appear to have joined together to be angry with me for not giving you a way out. In fact you have created an alliance together against me: and the alliance feels strong”
Both looked at each other in recognition that perhaps they do have a strong alliance but …..

There is no technique in this. It is not the therapist’s business to keep the couple together or apart. But a common enemy can bring couples together. The therapist is used as a distraction, a vent for all the angry energy in the relationship. This is not a magic fix: but can show the couple that their bond is still strong – it just gets blocked in the relationship.

The therapist takes the alliance energy and reflects on it kindly: giving back a version of the alliance that they have built together. This can show that the relationship is worth continuing or not ……

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2025
All rights reserved Disclaimer:
This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Sarah arrived 15 minutes late.
She announced: ” I wanted to come on time but I just couldn’t” Silence ……

She continued “Whatever we talk about here I go over it in my head. I critique what I said and wonder what you    meant?” I ask for an example. “Well when you said I came across as hypervigilant, and asked me to reflect on the possible threat? I felt like I did something wrong”

Sarah complained of a constant deep loneliness while having supportive colleagues, friends, and family – but unable to fully relax with them. She described constantly scanning: picking up subtle nuances: predicting conversations to stay ahead of pain. Unable to be safe and fully present.

It is common to have two hypervigilant people in the therapy room therapist & client. The profession calls it tuning in, having empathy, unconditional positive regard, sitting with the client – while noticing the subtleities and nuances trying to hear through what is said to what might be meant.
This tuning in comes from a natural self protection formed in early life trying to survive the emotional danger of an unpredictable environment. Hopefully the therapist is aware of their own hypervigilance – while the clients’ perogative is that their own hypervigilance might be more hidden.

It is logical particularly in the beginning for clients to feel unsafe with a professional stranger who is trying to be curious, tune in with them. Curiousity is seen as a threat to their survival so the defenses harden. Talking about how this occurs in the therapy room loosens the defense knot. Noticing how the client responds to what the therapist says creates an outline of the clinical relationship: illuminating how the client has had to survive in early childhood repeating in adult life.

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2025
All rights reserved Disclaimer:
This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

With the culture of patriarchy as a counterpoint – men as discussed here before do not have an emotional fluency to keep them afloat. The frameworks of male friendship rest in accompanying, physical connection, turning up, heirarchical humour, putting down, love/affection through pretend dislike.
Scaffold Men

The idea of male vulnerability in male friendship groups is met with avoidance and silence.
With the petulant teenager/macho man holding on – to the nice weak man – a third way is demanded.
But how? Somehow men have to allow the men around them to be a ittle more vulnerable. The shame of male vulnerability is allowed upto a point by women: but not with men.

The idea of men brought up with sisters by women is seen to be a way forward. But men need to be calling out men – around for example – behaviour towards women by other men. For women to call out men hits a different place than a man called out by a man. Men call out/humiliate from physical strength or power other men as an authoritarian action is what men are used to. Men calling out men to provoke a conversation about feelings vulnerabilities, to in appropraite actions is rare.

In the therapy room it takes a while for men to not want to ask questions about questions. Eg -how are you? Reply- you mean now or which part etc …. then to – you said (about me) then to – we said (about me) then to – I said about me – then to I feel ……

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2025
All rights reserved Disclaimer:
This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Enquiring clients often want to test out the fit they are going to have with their potential therapist.   
The question is how much of a fit? To take the two extremes: the therapist who is exactly like you, agrees with everything you say. Has the same values, politics, worldout look as you. You get on. The other extreme is that you don’t like your therapist, don’t agree with their values, they disagree and challenge you. You don’t like the house/flat area decor that you have therapy in.

Therapists work in networks and refer clients to each other: with the ‘expertise’ of knowing what the client wants – covering for a reciprocal business recommendation.

Unfortunately and like all relationships we chose to satisfy our bias. Our choice of therapist out of awareness will be in the hope that we are comforted, held and listened to. That’s good – partly. But if the fit was less comfortable this would be more in line with the difficult painful parts of ourselves that motivate us far more: and we want to keep hidden.

The fuller therapies often involve conflict, a breach, which can be explored. Sometimes as a test, or provocation the breach demands more of the relationship from both sides. Trust is built from pain & adversity.

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2025
All rights reserved Disclaimer:
This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Therapy pays a lot of attention to endings. At ending we are an emphasised version of our emotional selves.
Endings show how we protect ourselves from the pain of ending. Where our culture pays little attention to endings.

An ideal ending is arranged 3-6 months before the end of a full term therapy. Like a light aeroplane taking off slowly on a very long runway. A full term therapy where feelings and relationships support narrative, and silence & stillness allow a space to reflect for something to emerge.
The knots are loosened not changed.
The ending is not a resolution, but a process of grieving an ending, reviewing the therapy relationship, and coming to a separation together.

Women are generally (generally…) are more suited to therapy endings. Nurtured in relationships there is more opportunity for creating a therapy relationship of curiousity & awareness. Vulnerability is more acceptable.

Men are more motivated by status, acheivement, action & outcome. Not relationships or endings. Mastery important: vulnerability less of an option.
Men can be vulnerable, women can be motivated by status.

Fellow professionals can also feed into this. In our monetised culture other therapists are willing to take clients on without letting the client end well with previous therapy relationships. And of course therapists have their own issues with endings.

Reasons for endings are many and varied. An intellectual ending is common:
Wanting to end throughout the therapy relationship (avoid intimacy)
See what it’s like to be alone (fear of dependence)
I’ve been in therapy long enough (no outcome)
I can’t afford it (expense/investment in self)
I could be in therapy for the rest of my life (trap)
Move to another therapist with no break (avoid loss)

Endings are natural but painful. A therapy ending is an opportunity to practice ending in awareness

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2025
All rights reserved Disclaimer:
This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique
Details changed for confidentiality

Nachträglichkeit, Apres-coup, Afterwardsness a Freudian term used to describe a repressed trauma which replays  itself in the future. A deferred action from childhood into aduthood.

The trauma gets pushed down: but bubbles away in the heat of unconscious atrophy: ready to boil over unsuspecting into a future present. Romantic Affairs A Case Study here can typically be seen in this way. The first relationship is deemed as inadequate to meeting emotional needs so another new relationship is started to meet the first relationship’s deficiences.

After the biological attraction wears off in any relationship: you might see that all our relationships are made with our wounds. Not what is healed / resolved. It is a way of the psyche trying to repair the wounds of the past: we hope to be rescued by the relationship. It’s the opposite. The relationship uses the other human to expose our wounds.

If you accept the idea that relationships are a way of healing our wounds by being attracted by them: the affair becomes less. What is the second relationship going to be able to resolve that the first one didn’t as we are the  same person?

Modern relationships challenge the notion of one important relationship. But the idea can still be applied. We are trying to resolve our wounds by relating.

Depending on your point of view therapy doesn’t heal anything. It makes us aware of our wounds: not to stop having affairs. It doesn’t avoid the mess & chaos of living. It is the mess and chaos that gives illumination to who we are & where we were hurt. It attempts to put meaning to our actions which we cannot understand.
It is a way of suffering well. To suffer authentically takes less energy: to do other things we enjoy.

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2025
All rights reserved Disclaimer:
This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique
Details changed for confidentiality