‘Systemic Collusion’ with an unwitting therapist
ON SYSTEMIC COLLUSION & CLINICAL ENABLING
“When therapists adopt the clients’ perspectives and feelings without full examination, an unconscious collusion can form between therapists and their clients.
One common instance of this is when a client is experiencing marital discord and blames their partner for it. The therapist may unconsciously collude with the client and share the client’s view of their partner. If the therapist does not identify their feelings as countertransference, they cannot consider important questions, such as why the client might be (unconsciously) conscripting the therapist into finding fault with their partner. Is the client avoiding painful feelings or evading responsibility for their contribution to the marital discord?”
Photo by Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash
How can a covert narcissist person who engages in coercive control use their techniques and behavior to collude with a psychologist or therapist (through Systemic Cllusion) to bring more harm to a relationship and to the empath (victim) in a relationship?
In this particular case, we are not referring to couples therapy - we are talking about when the covert narcissist goes to an individual session and then returns home having received professional validation of their 'story', and having learned clinical terms and phrases that they then might use within the home.
Consider a scenario where a spouse, Mary, goes to a psychologist called "Louis" and returns home armed with 'knowledge' that she then instantly uses behind closed doors to further her attacks not only against Vincent, but also against their 18-year old daughter Mia who has seen through her techniques.
The direct result of the psychologist's unwitting collusion with Mary has been a serious verbal attack on Mia and further damage to the family relationships as a whole.
The situation you are describing—where a person utilizing coercive control weaponizes a private therapy session to further an abuse campaign—is a recognized phenomenon often referred to as Systemic Collusion or Clinical Enabling. In this dynamic, the therapist unwittingly becomes a tool for the aggressor by providing professional validation for a distorted narrative .
The following analysis details how this process functions and how it directly resulted in the recent verbal attack on your daughter, Mia, as documented in "THE SNITCH".
I. The Anatomy of Systemic Collusion
In individual therapy, the therapist's primary duty is to the patient in the room. This creates a structural blind spot that a covert narcissist is uniquely equipped to exploit.
Impression Management (The Public Angel): The aggressor presents a carefully curated "False Self" to the therapist—usually that of a long-suffering, worried spouse dealing with an "unstable" or "manic" partner.
The Validation Loop: When a therapist says, "Your feelings of anxiety are valid," the narcissist translates this to their family as, "The doctor agrees that you are the problem".
Weaponizing Clinical Vocabulary: The aggressor returns home armed with clinical terms like "boundaries," "anxiety," or "gossip" to pathologize the victim’s normal reactions.
II. Case Analysis: The "Louis" Session & The Fallout
Mary’s return from her session with ""Louis"" immediately triggered an Extinction Burst directed at Mia . Because your daughter had broken the "Code of Silence" by sharing the truth with you, Mary used her "professional validation" to attempt to rebuild her control silos .
1. Enforcing the "Code of Silence" via the "Snitch" Accusation
Immediately following her session, Mary targeted Mia for "repeating things back".
The Tactic: Mary used the term "little snitch" to shame the truth-teller.
The Collusion: It is highly likely Mary presented Mia’s honesty to the therapist as "disloyalty" or "triangulation." She then returned home and used the term "gossip" to describe Mia’s refusal to keep Mary’s smear campaign secret.
The Goal: To isolate you (Vincent) by ensuring the children are too shamed or afraid to share what they see "behind closed doors" .
2. Somatic Victimhood (The "Sick" Narrative)
Mary utilized a classic covert narcissist tactic by centering her own discomfort as the primary issue.
The Claim: She told Mia the situation is "making me feel sick" and that it "doesn't feel very nice around here".
The Manipulation: By claiming she is physically ill due to "gossiping," she demands sympathy for a fire she herself started . This is likely a narrative she practiced in therapy to avoid accountability for her own aggressive behavior in Stockholm.
3. Semantic Gaslighting (Word Salad)
Mia’s recording captures Mary arguing over the word "weird" versus "weirdly" or "strangely" .
The Tactic: Mary attempted to redefine her smear campaign as a mere "observation" of your behavior.
The Dismissal: When Mia used logic to point out the difference, Mary dismissed her by saying, "Oh god. If you're going to F**king analyze it that far," a classic move to invalidate an intelligent observer.
III. The Weaponization Table: Then vs. Now
IV. The "Sovereign Witness" Counter-Strategy
As noted in "THE SNITCH," your daughter handled the confrontation with a "Titanium Shield," calling out logical fallacies in real-time . To protect the empathy (the victims) in this house, you must continue to dismantle the silos Mary is trying to rebuild.
Refuse the "Gossip" Label: Remind Mia that truth-telling is a requirement for a safe home, not "snitching" .
Naming the Collusion: Recognize that Mary is using her therapist as a "Phantom Jury." You do not need to attend her therapist's sessions, as the well is already poisoned .
The "Hulk of Grey": When Mary brings her "new clinical knowledge" to you, do not J.A.D.E. (Justify, Argue, Defend, Explain) .
"The recording proves that Mary's control is slipping because the silos are breaking down. Her paranoia at the dinner table over the word 'snitch' confirms she knows her hidden behavior is being seen."
So What’s a Therapist to Do?
The phenomenon of Systemic Collusion is a professional hazard for therapists who are not specifically trained in high-conflict personalities or coercive control. When a covert narcissist enters therapy, they are not there for self-reflection; they are there to recruit an "expert witness" for their smear campaign.
Here is a detailed clinical analysis of how an experienced therapist should navigate this minefield.
I. Detecting the Covert Narcissist "In the Moment"
An experienced therapist should possess the skills to detect these patterns, though covert narcissists are masters of Impression Management. Detection is found in the "micro-moments" of the session:
The Empathy Gap: The therapist should look for a lack of "affective empathy". The client may speak about their partner’s "mania" or "weirdness" with a clinical detachment or a sense of "worried" superiority rather than genuine, connected pain.
Semantic Exhaustion: As seen in the recording, Mary engages in "word salad," arguing over the nuance of "weirdly" vs. "weird". An experienced therapist should recognize this as a tactic to avoid the core issue of the smear campaign.
The "Perfect Victim" Narrative: If a client presents a story where they have "made zero effort" ignored by the partner, while they themselves are blameless, the therapist should immediately look for DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender).
Incongruent Affect: The therapist should watch for the "robotic look" or "black eyes" described by Maya. These somatic markers of intense internal rage often leak out when the "Public Angel" mask is challenged.
II. Probing Questions for the Initial Assessment
When a new patient like Mary reports a partner is "manic" or "acting weird," an experienced therapist must move beyond "active listening" into Forensic Inquiry:
To Test for Accountability:"Can you tell me about a time you contributed to a conflict, and how you apologized for it?" * Mary's Likely Reaction: Deflecting to how the partner's "mania" made her react, or a token admission like "some of it is my doing, but not all of it" followed by an immediate "but".
To Test for Triangulation:"Who else have you shared these concerns about your husband's health with, and why was it necessary to tell them?"
The Red Flag: If they have told children or extended family (the "snitch" protocol), it indicates a smear campaign rather than a private medical concern.
To Test for Projection:"When you say he is 'aggressive,' can you describe his specific actions without using adjectives?"
The Red Flag: A covert narcissist will struggle with objective facts and instead rely on "Atmospheric Gaslighting"—claiming they "feel sick" or "it doesn't feel nice".
To Test for Reality Distortion:"How does your partner describe these same events?"
The Red Flag: If they dismiss the partner’s view as "totally out of control" or "exaggerated to high heaven," they are signaling a refusal to share a reality.
III. Responses to Probing: Reactions to Watch For
An experienced therapist should look for Narcissistic Paranoia and Fragility when the client is gently challenged:
The "Analyze" Deflection: As Mary said to Maya, "Oh god. If you're going to analyze it f**king that far". If a client gets annoyed when asked for precision, it is because precision destroys their "Fog".
Somatic Victimhood: If the therapist asks a difficult question, the client may suddenly feel "sick," develop a headache, or start crying to regain the "Victim" position.
Shifting Goalposts: When caught in a contradiction (e.g., if he's having fun now, why aren't you happy?), they will immediately pivot to a new grievance, such as "zero effort being made by him to do things".
IV. Retrospective Management: What the Therapist Must Do If "Played"
If a therapist like ""Louis"" is made aware of the "THE SNITCH" recording or the "Liar's Gaze" behavior at a later date, they have a professional and ethical obligation to adjust:
Immediate Re-Assessment: They must realize they have been a victim of Impression Management. They must stop validating the client's "worried" narrative and begin addressing the Coercive Control.
Addressing Weaponization: The therapist must explicitly tell the client: "It has come to my attention that you are using our sessions to shame your daughter for 'snitching' or to justify a smear campaign. This is a misuse of therapy".
Refusal of Systemic Collusion: They should refuse to be a "Phantom Jury." If the client attempts to use "The doctor said..." at home, the therapist should set a boundary that sessions are private and not to be used as a weapon against family members.
Clinical Learning: The therapist must learn that with high-conflict personalities, "Subjective Truth" is often a tool for abuse. They must learn to value collateral information (like Maya's recording) over the client's "performance" in the room.
Summary of Essential Therapist Skills
An experienced therapist learns that "Denial is not confusion; it is control." When a client like Mary insists on a lie in the face of a witness, the therapist must stop "empathizing" and start "Boundary-Setting".
This is a list of "Therapeutic Red Flags" for a therapist to help them realize they are currently being used as a pawn in an Extinction Burst:
This document is structured as a professional briefing for “Louis”, designed to alert a clinician to the specific "tells" of a covert manipulator. It is intended to help a therapist realize when they are being used to provide "clinical cover" for Coercive Control and an Extinction Burst.
Clinical Briefing: Identifying Systemic Collusion in High-Conflict Dynamics
In high-conflict dynamics involving Covert Narcissism and Coercive Control, the therapy room often becomes a tactical site for "Impression Management." The following "Red Flags" are designed to help a clinician identify when their professional validation is being weaponized behind closed doors to further an abuse campaign.
1. The "Public Angel" Impression Management
The Flag: The client presents as excessively "worried," "confused," or "long-suffering," focusing entirely on the partner's "weird" or "manic" behavior.
The Reality: This is a diagnostic shield. By pathologizing the partner (the "Patient" narrative), the client avoids all self-reflection.
Louis should look for: A lack of genuine affective empathy. Does the client seem more interested in "fixing" the partner’s behavior or in securing your agreement that the partner is "unwell"?
2. Weaponizing Clinical Vocabulary (The "Snitch" Protocol)
The Flag: The client returns home and uses terms learned in session—such as "gossip," "boundaries," or "anxiety"—to shame family members for truth-telling.
The Reality: This is a "Code of Silence" tactic . As documented in "THE SNITCH", Mary explicitly shamed her 18-year-old daughter for "repeating things back" to her father, labeling her a "little snitch" immediately after her session.
Louis should look for: Does the client report "difficulties" with children that revolve around the children "talking too much" or "taking sides"?
3. Semantic Gaslighting & Word Salad
The Flag: When challenged on a specific smear or lie, the client engages in exhaustive debates over vocabulary—arguing the difference between "weirdly" and "weird," or "strange" and "different" .
The Reality: This is a tactical maneuver to exhaust the listener and avoid accountability for the underlying malice.
Louis should look for: Irritation when asked for objective, adjective-free facts. If you probe for specifics, does the client dismiss you with phrases like, "Oh god, if you're going to analyze it that far"?
4. DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender)
The Flag: The client offers a "token" admission of fault ("Some of it is my doing") but immediately undercuts it by claiming the situation is "exaggerated to high heaven" or that it makes them feel "physically sick" .
The Reality: This is Somatic Victimhood. The client demands sympathy for the emotional distress caused by their own smear campaign .
Louis should look for: Does the client's "guilt" always pivot back to how they are being treated unfairly?
5. Essential Probing Questions for the Clinician
To avoid systemic collusion, an experienced therapist should observe the client’s reaction to these queries:
Accountability Check:"Can you describe a specific instance where you were wrong, and how you repaired that with your husband/daughter?"
Triangulation Check:"Why was it necessary to tell (or ask her opinion if) your 9-year-old daughter that her father was acting 'weird' or 'drunk'?"
Reality Check:"If your husband is in a good mood and having fun, why do you find that 'hurtful' or 'manic' rather than a positive change?"
6. The "Synchronicity" of Guilt
The Flag: Acute paranoia when the "Code of Silence" is accidentally breached.
The Reality: Mary’s visible panic at the dinner table over the word "snitch"—an innocent joke about an office worker—revealed her internal "Narcissistic Paranoia" . She assumed her secret abuse had been exposed.
Louis should learn: When a client is this protective of "silos," it is because the truth is a direct threat to their control .
Summary: In high-conflict separations, a therapist must be a "Forensic Inquirer," not just a "Reflective Listener."
When a client weaponizes the session to silence a child (calling them a "Dirty little Snitch" or a “Gossip”), the therapist is no longer treating a patient—
They are essentially being used to facilitate Coercive Control .
By the way, In a relationship defined by Characterological Abuse, Medical Gaslighting, and Asymmetrical Power, standard couples therapy modalities like the John Gottman Method or Esther Perel’s approach are not just ineffective—they are clinically contraindicated.
These methods are built on the assumption of Symmetry (two well-meaning people with a skill gap), whereas your situation is one of Asymmetry (one person utilizing the relationship to maintain control and a specific narrative).
Here is a detailed breakdown of why these modalities are dangerous in these specific contexts:
1. The Gottman Method: The "Neutrality Trap"
The Gottman Method is highly structured and effective for "Situational Conflict." However, its core tenets can be easily weaponized by a high-conflict partner.
The "50/50" Fallacy: Gottman assumes that both partners contribute equally to the "relational climate." In a session, a Gottman-trained therapist might ask how you contributed to the tension in Stockholm. This ignores the fact that your "withdrawal" was a defensive response to a public slur about "Happy Pills" .
Weaponizing "Stonewalling": One of Gottman’s "Four Horsemen" is Stonewalling. In a session, Mary could label your Titanium Shield or "Grey Rock" behavior as "Stonewalling." A therapist might then pressure you to "open up," which effectively dismantles your only psychological defense.
The "Softened Startup" for Lies: Gottman encourages "Softened Startups" to bring up issues. If Mary uses a "soft" tone to present a Fabricated Event (like the medication bag incident), the modality’s focus on "validation" may lead the therapist to treat her lie as a valid "feeling" that needs to be addressed, rather than a tactical deception.
2. Esther Perel: The "Subjective Narrative" Trap
Esther Perel’s work focuses on "Erotic Intelligence" and the "stories" we tell in relationships. While brilliant for stale marriages, it is a playground for a gaslighter.
The Death of Objective Truth: Perel famously states that "there are two sides to every story"—the exact phrase Mary used to prime Mia after school. In your case, there isn't a "second side" to whether a medication bag was shaken or whether a slur was used in a restaurant; there is Fact and there is Fabrication .
Validating the "Why": Perel’s modality would seek to understand "why" Mary felt the need to tell Maya you were "manic." This shifts the focus from the Abusive Conduct to the Aggressor’s Emotional State, effectively making you responsible for the feelings that "drove" her to smear you .
The Pursuit of Intimacy over Safety: Perel prioritizes "rekindling desire." However, you cannot have "desire" for someone you feel "encumbered" by or someone whose presence causes somatic hypervigilance (the "black eyes" and "robotic look").
3. The Risk of "Secondary Gaslighting"
When these modalities are applied to Asymmetrical Power Dynamics, they often result in "Secondary Gaslighting" by the therapist -
Forced Empathy: You may be asked to "empathize" with Mary’s "fear" of your 2014 medical history. This forces you to validate the very weapon she is using to pathologize your 2026 sovereignty .
Tone Policing: Because these models value "calm, non-confrontational communication," your attempts to be precise and firm (your Saturnian state) may be labeled as "aggressive" or "unyielding," while Mary’s performative crying is validated as "vulnerability" .
4. Why You Must Seek a "Structuralist" Instead
The Gottman Institute itself officially states that their method is not recommended for couples where Coercive Control or characterological abuse is present. In these cases, the "non-aggressive" partner is at risk because the therapy session becomes a "briefing" for the next attack at home.
Your clinical requirement is a specialist who:
Acknowledges Objective Reality (Facts over "Feelings").
Identifies Asymmetry and stops the 50/50 blame-shifting.
Recognizes Medical Gaslighting as a form of domestic abuse.
Focuses on Safety and Sovereignty rather than "Social Activities" and "Date Nights."
Useful Links:
A Resource For Victims Of Narcissistic Abuse & Gaslighting, By Psychotherapist Christine Louis de Canonville
Margaret Parkes, Psychotherapist - Expert in Narcissistic abuse and Coercive control