At some point, a therapist has to take a deciscion. A
quite significant one, actually. One has to decide whether to serve the
personal-subjective or the transpersonal-objective. Most therapists take a ,
abeit unconscious, a decision in favor of the personal-subjective,
a) because it is easier on the short run
b) because it enables the therapist to remain
in his/her own subjectivty.
Daily, the
therapist encounters therapeutic situations where he is faced with that choice: do I cater to what the
patient’s subjective ego is craving from me or do I chose not to give in to
that (unredeemed child's) impulse of the patient and confront him/her with his/her emerging shadow, a dark part of themselves that has been hidden for a long time in the deeper cellars of the psyke. It is worthwhile noting that -even though, objectively speaking, people seek out therapeutic help because a wiser part of themSelves really wants to redeem that shadow, and often invest a lot of time, energy and money in the therapeutic process - the patient's subjectivity, the old software, the part that is entangled- works hard to protect what it needs most to dispose of. This paradox frames the therapeutic context.
And that point therapy has come to a crucial point. A
turning point. And the therapist –as the appointed leader of the process (that
is what he is paid for !) -has to decide whether to heeds his calling to
transpersonal duty (therapia originally
means as much as ” to serve the transpersonal”) or whether to remain on the
personal-subjective level, based on his own fear of rejection and a wish to be
liked by the patient.
The transpersonal-objective choice is in almost case the
unpopular one. The patient gets often quite
pissed off ”at the therapist” , because they meet their original wounds again
via the transference of their psychological material on the therapist. The therapist then is mixed
up with the person that the original wound is related to (f x the father or the
mother). With some experience it is
quite easy to read what it its the patient would like the therapist to be ( a ”better” father or mother, a ”more
understanding” partner etc).
In such situations, the therapist is challenged to
stand his ground, not to accept the projection -and rather serve the larger
purpose of the patients individuation than ”be nice ” or take the easy way out.
In the objective picture, taking that unpopular choice would on the long run also
be the most loving and supportive choice for the patient. But that is really
hard for the patient to see, understand or handle. At that point of
transference, they are often so entangled in their wounds and the ensueing
blindness around that issue, that they become like hurt children again. And act
like it, too. As I mentioned before, this can be a crucial turning point in the
work. I have experienced that situations can lead to a major breakthrough – something
that necessitates from the side of the therapist a strong committment to the
cause – or it can stop the process dead in its tracks. In fact, it happens every year a few times
that people get so stuck in their projection that they actually stop coming to
therapy. It’s the reaction of the hurt child that says: ” if I don’t get from
you what I want, then I’m not coming back. I am leaving you. You are a bad
father ! ”. That is a option the
therapist has to take into consideration as part of his/her job, and as part of
serving a larger transpersonal order.