Core Concept Biodynamic · Gerda Boyesen · Core Clinical Principle · DIP Critical Reading

Resistance — Make Friends With It

When does “resistance” describe a psychological process — and when is somebody accurately saying no?

At a glance

The Biodynamic tradition’s own principle explicitly instructs practitioners to respect resistance as protection rather than push through it — a direct departure from the earlier Reichian instinct to confront and break through defence. This is one of the most genuinely useful ideas in the whole Biodynamic tradition for disability-informed work, largely unchanged.

Why this word is dangerous when used badly

A therapist can call almost anything resistance: “I can’t.” “I don’t want to.” “That hurts.” “I need to stop.” “This doesn’t work for me.” “I don’t agree with your interpretation.” For disability-informed therapy, these statements need to retain their ordinary meanings. They deserve to be differentiated, not folded into one theoretical category: psychological ambivalence is not the same as physical impossibility, which is not the same as pain, which is not the same as fatigue, which is not the same as lack of consent, which is not the same as plain disagreement, which is not the same as an accurate anticipation of real risk.

You might recognise this

“I said I couldn’t and was told I was resisting, when I genuinely couldn’t.” “My disagreement with a therapist’s read was treated as proof the read was correct.” “When I said stop, I meant stop, not ‘keep going gently.’” “Sometimes my hesitation really is psychological, and I want that explored — just not assumed.”

Why this principle fits disability so well

“Resistance” in a disabled body might be genuine psychological protection worth understanding — or it might simply be a real physical limit, a pain response, or a body accurately declining something that would cause harm. Either way, the instruction is the same: respect it, rather than treat it as an obstacle to be overcome.

A lived scene · fictional teaching example

A client repeatedly declines an invitation to turn toward a difficult memory, and a therapist trained to read this as classic resistance gently keeps returning to it, believing patience will eventually soften the defence. Eventually the client says, plainly: “I’ve told you three times I don’t want to go there today. That’s not resistance, that’s an answer.” The therapist had been treating a clear no as a door still slightly open. It wasn’t. Respecting it immediately, rather than eventually, was what the moment actually needed.

A process: Hear → Clarify → Reality-check → Respect → Wonder

Hear: take the statement at face value first, whatever it is.
Clarify: ask what kind of “no” this is, if it isn’t already clear — physical, emotional, a boundary, a preference.
Reality-check: is there a plausible physical, medical or situational explanation that has nothing to do with psychological defence?
Respect: honour the no as given, regardless of what caused it.
Wonder: only once the no has been respected, and only if the person is willing, explore together whether there’s more to understand about it.

Notice this is not: spot resistance, then overcome it. It runs the opposite direction.

Before asking anything to soften

The genuinely useful clinical question, borrowed directly from this tradition and extended: before asking a resistance, a tension, or a “no” to soften, understand what becomes unsafe if it does. That’s especially important around medical trauma, dependency, care relationships, sexuality, and any history of violence or discrimination — all places where a body’s protective “no” deserves to be taken at face value first.

Where this concept can help

Exploring genuine ambivalence, understanding what a protective pattern once guarded against, and building a practice of curiosity that never overrides a stated limit.

Where interpretation should stop

When a stated physical limit, pain, or plain refusal is being reframed as psychological resistance; when repeated no’s are treated as an invitation to keep trying; when a client’s disagreement with an interpretation is used as further evidence for that interpretation.

Evidence and status

Respecting resistance rather than confronting it is a clinical principle within the Biodynamic tradition, representing a documented historical shift away from more forceful Reichian technique. It functions here as sound clinical practice and a person-centred safeguard rather than as an empirically tested protocol.

A question worth carrying

What is this resistance actually protecting — and has anyone actually asked, rather than assumed it needs to be moved past?

You may also want to explore

Vegetotherapy · Medical Trauma & Body Ownership · Interpretive Certainty · Biodynamic Psychotherapy

Evidence & sources

Sources checked in October 2026, using targeted searches rather than a systematic review. “We have not located” means our searches did not find it.