shift the dynamic of the relationship, even to the point of reversing roles. In Session 3, the Therapist empathizes openly with the Client, who is frustrated with her older brother for not taking responsibility for the dog they bought together. But soon, the Therapist’s disdain for the Client’s brother intensifies beyond that of the Client and her language becomes belittling, even dehumanizing: Therapist: hhh-heh heh heh heh so you’re looking after two Client: yeah [it’s like what’s the point] Therapist: [er children the dog] Therapist: and your brother heh heh heh …………….. Therapist: maybe you could train them together maybe you could take him to like hhh back to puppy preschool While the Client is critical of her brother’s actions, she does not go as far as dehumanizing him until invited to by the Therapist, who seems motivated by CLARK: PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC RELATIONSHIP IN MT sympathy for the dog, rather than empathy with the Client. The Therapist’s anger is further suggested by her disproportionately lengthy application of highpressure strokes to the Client’s back. This appears to be an example of countertransference, where the Therapist’s own experiences and frame of reference unconsciously shape her response to the Client. As a result of what appears to be a strong attachment relationship to dogs, the Therapist acts more out of concern for the dog than for the Client, which seems to elicit guilt from the Client: Client: yeah just didn’t think about it like that [X X] Therapist: [yeah] (35.0) Therapist: it’s like we watch this space hey? Client: mm-hm During the 35-second silence, the Therapist appears to linger on her frustration, her unconditional positive regard for the Client wavering for the first time, and the empathic connection falters. Only when the Client is able to add some positives to her depiction of her brother is the rupture repaired. A few times throughout the sessions, the Therapist appears to experience a countertransference reaction, most notably in response to the Client’s anecdotes about her dog. The Therapist’s pervasive interest in the Client’s dog and her disdain for the brother’s apparent neglect, along with her disclosures to the Client that a film about a dying dog made her “bawl” and that, growing up, she would “bring home every stray dog”, all point towards a strong attachment relationship to dogs. For the most part, this does not threaten the relationship, but a potential rupture arises when the Therapist’s emotional response exceeds that of the Client. This suggests that the Therapist is responding to her own past experiences rather than the specific experience of the Client, which affects not only the tone of conversation but the quality of touch that the Therapist applies. Theme 4: Internalization The merging process seems to allow the Client to absorb some of the Therapist’s knowledge, which sharpens the Client’s awareness of her body and how it moves. In the first session, the Therapist maximizes the placebo effect by suggesting to the Client that massage therapists “always have a secret way of finding [a client’s sore] points”, and the Client verifies this: Client: I didn’t know that I was sore in those areas until she like, cos she asked me before and I said, “I don’t think so” but when she actually started massaging me then I was like, “Oh that is kinda sore.” The Client comes to expect that the Therapist will continue to discover areas of pain previously 28 International Journal of Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork—Volume 12, Number 3, September 2019 CLARK: PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC RELATIONSHIP IN MT outside awareness. This expectation and its fulfillment by the Therapist feeds the Client’s experience of pleasure and her sense that the Therapist truly understands her needs, which in turn seems to fuel the Client’s curiosity about the Therapist’s clinical reasoning. Because they have ‘merged’, curiosity about the Therapist is also curiosity about self, which seems to be something the Therapist consciously fosters. She seeks to increase the Client’s self-awareness by educating her about how her habits and activities may be contributing to patterns of dysfunction. At the end of Session 3, the Therapist explains the Client’s neck and shoulder pain by gesturing to her own neck and shoulder, as well as those of the Client, as if their features were interchangeable. The mutual identification continues as she demonstrates to the Client a technique for self-massage, inviting the Client to mirror her actions. The merging process thereby may facilitate the Client’s ability to treat herself the way the Therapist treats her, to show herself the same degree of care and warmth, to nurture and affirm herself, but also to observe herself without judgment, and to remain curious about herself. The research did not examine the extent of this internalization, how long the process of internalization takes, or how it affects the Client on a day-to-day basis. This may be a starting point for future research. Kleinian psychoanalytic principles of projection and introjection deriving from early experiences with the ‘good’ breast and ‘bad’ breast(21) lend further weight to the idea that internalization occurs in MT, and are suggested by the Client’s remarks near the end of Session 3: Client: She was kinda like mom-like, you know how moms have that natural, nurturing instinct, or some do anyways. That’s what she was like. The infant–caregiver comparison is