IJSP Number 4, 2022

46 achievement of the therapeutic goal. The therapeutic offer of relationship (see above) is on the one hand “ powerful ” (in the moment of the encounter usually intense, personal, devoted), but on the other hand it has narrow limits (temporal, spatial, economic, legal). This ambivalence must be accepted and endured by both sides. Here, too, there is a “ tipping alarm ” , namely when the offer of a relationship mutates unnoticed into an all too “ sweet ” promise and meets unmet needs, so that the limitations (and the therapeutic goal) are faded out. If such developments remain unnoticed in the long run and are not addressed and worked on, they lead to variants of a therapeutic “ juxtaposition ” : a permanent idealization of the therapist (or the patient), a permanent “ victim role ” of the patient, a possible eroticization of the therapeutic relationship, a common intellectualization (one has intellectual discussions), and so on. A danger may also arise from certain therapeutic techniques with high suggestive power (speculative interpretations, body exercises, family constellations, cathartic exercises, etc.), which are used without being embedded in a supportive relationship. The therapist becomes a kind of “ miracle worker ” and thus undermines progress and further development on the part of the patient by virtue of her own insights and efforts. Under certain circumstances, there is a greater potential danger in all variants of therapeutic „ side by side ” than in „ against each other ” . The permanent „ tipping ” into hostility will sooner or later lead to a rupture of the relationship, so that the patient (if she has not been completely discouraged by the rupture and has finally resigned) can take new paths to reduce her state of suffering. However coexistence will possibly extend over a long period of time and prevent alternative ways of achieving the goal. 5.3. What makes „ tilt-resistant ” ? The therapeutic relationship as a form of development in the excellent form of shared devotion to the task at hand (see above) allows us to expect stability; primitive attitudes and expectations on both sides make the relationship fragile and “ prone to tipping over ” . It must therefore be a matter of moderating such attitudes and expectations. In the immediate relationship event, especially those moments will be precarious in which openly or covertly, consciously or unconsciously, evaluations are made or criticism is expressed. Henle [6] emphasizes the close connection between the ability and the way one deals critically with oneself, and how one deals critically with others and receives criticism from others. A severe inner critic – whether on the part of the patient, the therapist, or both – will cause the relational process to be more fragile. It will therefore depend on the abilities of both participants to deal sensitively and carefully with evaluations and criticism or to be attentive to all forms of exchange in which evaluation and criticism are hidden. In principle, this is consistent with a therapeutic approach that is cautious about exerting any kind of direct influence on the patient, and instead sets boundary conditions to promote self-organization processes. A simple example: To ask the anorexic patient again and again to eat more is an encroaching, essentially aggressive intervention, which does not lose its primitive character even if it is dressed up in therapy contracts or the like. A conducive therapeutic cooperation will