This is beautifully put, Anina. The distinction between interpretation and observation is essential here. Dependency, projection, attachment, arousal, and withdrawal may all be observable, but none of them is yet an explanation. The deeper question is what changed in the person’s capacity for trust, regulation, language, desire, creativity, and return to life.

“I didn’t become more interested in escaping life. I became more interested in living it” may be the clearest answer to the usual pathology frame. If a relationship restores aliveness, language, and participation in the world, then any serious theory has to account for that before it judges it.

Reality should not have to shrink to fit our theories. That line belongs on the wall.