Warm Up in Pairs & Small Groups
- getting to know each other
- what would I work on today?
- what is my learning edge at the moment?
First Therapy Demonstration
Presenting issue:
Client presented a difficulty with a colleague. The colleague looks up to client but then bad-mouths client in front of other people. If client confronts the colleague, the colleague makes excuses and apologises, but then later does it again. This rouses anger, fear and panic in the client.
The Work:
A. Rupa: colleague of client
1. We set up a scene with Client watching a group in which the colleague is talking and probably about to say something disparaging about the client. Client experienced a variety of feelings.
2. An auxiliary was put in to represent the client and client discussed with therapist what the auxiliary should do to handle the situation
3. Client took her own role again and practised being more assertive.
4. Therapist redesignated the group as children. Client continued trying to assert herself.
B. Rupa: Client’s mother
5. Client shared that client is the youngest child from a family of non-assertive parents and thus has no model for how to be assertive.
6. Dismissing the action scene and returning to dialogue, therapist facilitates client talking about client’s mother.
7. Client has strong identification with the mother and feels guilty that client has easier life than mother.
Conclusion:
Client practised dealing with the presenting problem and had insight into how the problem touches aspects of client’s own character deriving from childhood experience.
Realities to be faced:
- colleague may continue to be troublesome so there is a need to learn to deal with the trouble in a dignified yet assertive way
- this leads on to needing to master skills in being authoritative in other situations where client has responsibility for juniors.
- there is a limit to how much client can do to relieve the difficulties of mother and this is not a reason to be guilty.
Points of interest
1. Moving into action work in order to amplify the vividness of the rupa
2. Therapist chose the auxiliary to play the part of the colleague, so that no blame attach to the client for the choice.
3. Therapist gave specific instructions on how to be assertive. This included inhibiting the impulse to laugh. Laughter discharges energy that the person needs to do the job. It is often a symptom of fear. The therapist also gave implicit reassurance by being present and unafraid.
4. We looked at when the therapist should be directive. The therapist’s directions should implement something that has been already indicated by the client as the desired direction. In this instance, it was a way of helping the client to find the courage to do what she wanted to do.
5. Therapist did not accept overly idealised “solutions” - gave permission for client to have normal emotional reactions.
6. Therapist brought out what was happening for the rupa figures.
7. When the therapist had a hunch - eg. that the colleague was jealous - this was shared but not held onto.
8. We had discussion about how to keep the rupa vivid in the mind of the client and the kinds of things therapists should avoid that sometimes distract the client from the rupa (intellectualism, redirecting the client toward introspection, introducing reference to other rupas, etc.)
9. We looked at how to determine what is the significant rupa when the client’s story is confused - taking one thing at a time.
10. We saw how one rupa may lead to another, as happened in this instance. This does not mean to skip along through many, one after another, but sometimes there is a natural and significant shift of attention, often from a figure in the present to one in the past.
Second Therapy Demonstration
Presenting issues:
Difficulty in making life decisions. Difficulty in squaring high ideals, especially re freedom, with actual life in the world. Anxiety. Depression. Loneliness.
The Work:
When younger the client had been a convinced Christian and this provided a structure and direction to life that is now missing. The client talked about having done well easily at school which was completed abroad, but then becoming a recluse and getting involved in activities that his parents “rescued” him from. Since then he has become again dependent upon them, but is rebelling in various ways. Also rebelling against society’s system of basing everything on money and payment for services rather than real engagement with intrinsically worthwhile activity.
The therapist engaged in this discussion and there was a good rapport with the client. The therapist avoided giving advice or “solving” issues for the client, rather empathising with the client’s idealism while highlighting the difficulties of life. When the client talked about loneliness the therapist moved away, leaving the client alone so that the circumstance of aloneness be made more palpable. Client has ambition to get free from parents and has some plans but is uncertain when or how to put them into effect. He is waiting "for the wind to blow" to show him the way.
Points of Interest:
1. No strong object cathexis emerged. There were suggestions of a complex dependent/conflictual relationship with father, and a significant relationship with a mentor was referred to, but these did not crystalise into the main issues in this interview.
2. The crucial thing was the relationship with the therapist. The father-son relationship was not addressed directly, but through the transference - client talking to the therapist as an older male. In this circumstance it was important that the therapist not replicate the pattern of putting the client in a dependent position.
3. Client is intelligent and picked up on points very quickly. Therapist did not have to spell matters out. There was, however, danger of getting into too intellectual a discussion. Nonetheless, the substance of the difficulty of trying to live one’s ideals but then “failing” was real.
4. Client has high ideals - possibly unrealistically so - which make engagement with real life problematic in that it can seem sometimes that nothing is ever good enough and also in that it tends to isolate the client from all the other people who do not share the same outlook.
5. It is possible to see the matter in developmental terms - the stage of life of breaking away from parents and all the ambivalence involved in this process.
Replies
20170821 Course 3 Day 1 ~ Day 11 of 15 day training
Posted by David Brazier on August 21, 2017 at 13:15 in KOREA 2017
https://eleusis.ning.com/group/korea/forum/topics/course-3-day-1-day-11-of-15-day-training
Translated into Korean by Jaesung Kim
번역: 김재성
Warm Up in Pairs & Small Groups
- getting to know each other
- what would I work on today?
- what is my learning edge at the moment?
두 사람 짝과 작은 그룹에서 워밍업
- 서로 알게 되기
- 오늘 나는 무엇을 할 것인가?
- 그 순간에 내가 배우는 것의 지평(edge)은 무엇인가?
First Therapy Demonstration
Presenting issue:
Client presented a difficulty with a colleague. The colleague looks up to client but then bad-mouths client in front of other people. If client confronts the colleague, the colleague makes excuses and apologises, but then later does it again. This rouses anger, fear and panic in the client.
첫 번째 치료 시연
제시된 문제 :
내담자가 동료와의 어려움에 대해 제시했다. 동료는 내담자를 만난 다음 다른 사람들 앞에서 내담자에 대해서 나쁜 말을 한다. 내담자가 동료와 대면하게 되면 동료는 변명하고 사과한다. 그러나 나중에 반복한다. 이것은 내담자에게 분노, 공포와 공황을 일으킨다.
The Work:
A. Rupa: colleague of client
1. We set up a scene with Client watching a group in which the colleague is talking and probably about to say something disparaging about the client. Client experienced a variety of feelings.
2. An auxiliary was put in to represent the client and client discussed with therapist what the auxiliary should do to handle the situation
3. Client took her own role again and practised being more assertive.
4. Therapist redesignated the group as children. Client continued trying to assert herself.
치료 작업:
A. 루빠 : 내담자의 동료
1. 우리는 내담자와 함께 한 장면을 설정한다. 그 장면에서 내담자는 그 동료가 내담자에 대해서 이야기하고 있는데 아마 내담자에 대해 비방하는 말을 하려고 한다. 내담자는 다양한 느낌을 경험했다.
2. 보조자가 내담자 역할을 하도록 투입되었고, 내담자는 치료자와 그 보조자가 상황을 어떻게 처리해야만 하는지 토론했다.
3. 내담자는 다시 자신의 역할로 돌아와서 보다 단호하게 되도록 연습했다.
4. 치료자는 그 그룹을 아이들로 다시 지정했다. 내담자는 자신을 주장하려고 계속 노력했다.
B. Rupa: Client’s mother
5. Client shared that client is the youngest child from a family of non-assertive parents and thus has no model for how to be assertive.
6. Dismissing the action scene and returning to dialogue, therapist facilitates client talking about client’s mother.
7. Client has strong identification with the mother and feels guilty that client has easier life than mother.
B. 루빠 : 내담자의 어머니
5. 내담자는 자신이 비 독단적인 부모의 가정에서 막내이며 따라서 독단적인 태도에 대한 모델이 없다는 것을 공유했다.
6. 행동 장면을 멈추고 대화로 돌아와, 치료자는 내담자의 어머니에 대해 내담자가 이야기 할 수 있도록 촉진한다.
7. 내담자는 어머니와 강한 동일시를 하고 있으며 내담자는 어머니보다 더 쉬운 삶을 누리고 있다는 사실에 죄책감을 느낀다.
Conclusion:
Client practised dealing with the presenting problem and had insight into how the problem touches aspects of client’s own character deriving from childhood experience.
결론:
내담자는 제시된 문제를 다루는 연습을 했으며, 문제가 어떻게 어린 시절의 경험에서 비롯된 내담자 자신의 성격의 측면과 닿아있는지 통찰력을 가지고 있었다.
Realities to be faced:
- colleague may continue to be troublesome so there is a need to learn to deal with the trouble in a dignified yet assertive way
- this leads on to needing to master skills in being authoritative in other situations where client has responsibility for juniors.
- there is a limit to how much client can do to relieve the difficulties of mother and this is not a reason to be guilty.
직면해야 할 실재들 :
- 동료는 계속 골칫거리가 될 수 있으므로 위엄 있으나 단호한 방식으로 문제를 처리하는 방법을 배울 필요가 있다.
- 이것은 내담자가 아래 사람들에 대해 책임이 있는 다른 상황에서 권위 있는 존재가 되는 기법의 습득이 필요하게 된다.
- 내담자가 어머니의 어려움을 덜어주기 위해 내담자가 얼마나 많은 일을 할 수 있는 지 한계가 있으며 이는 죄책감의 이유는 아니다.
Points of interest
1. Moving into action work in order to amplify the vividness of the rupa
2. Therapist chose the auxiliary to play the part of the colleague, so that no blame attach to the client for the choice.
3. Therapist gave specific instructions on how to be assertive. This included inhibiting the impulse to laugh. Laughter discharges energy that the person needs to do the job. It is often a symptom of fear. The therapist also gave implicit reassurance by being present and unafraid.
4. We looked at when the therapist should be directive. The therapist’s directions should implement something that has been already indicated by the client as the desired direction. In this instance, it was a way of helping the client to find the courage to do what she wanted to do.
5. Therapist did not accept overly idealised “solutions” - gave permission for client to have normal emotional reactions.
6. Therapist brought out what was happening for the rupa figures.
7. When the therapist had a hunch - eg. that the colleague was jealous - this was shared but not held onto.
8. We had discussion about how to keep the rupa vivid in the mind of the client and the kinds of things therapists should avoid that sometimes distract the client from the rupa (intellectualism, redirecting the client toward introspection, introducing reference to other rupas, etc.)
9. We looked at how to determine what is the significant rupa when the client’s story is confused - taking one thing at a time.
10. We saw how one rupa may lead to another, as happened in this instance. This does not mean to skip along through many, one after another, but sometimes there is a natural and significant shift of attention, often from a figure in the present to one in the past.
관심 있는 점들
1. 루빠의 생생함을 증폭시키기 위한 행동 작업으로 옮겨 들어감
2. 치료자는 보조자를 선택해서 그 동료의 역할을 하도록 선택했고 그렇기 때문에 내담자가 선택을 위해 집착한다는 비난의 여지는 없다.
3. 치료자는 단호하게 되는 방법에 대한 구체적인 지침을 제시했다. 이것은 웃으려고 하는 충동을 못하게 하는 것을 포함했다. 웃음 때문에 그 사람이 치료작업을 수행하는 데 필요한 에너지가 방출된다. 웃음은 종종 두려움의 징후이다. 치료사는 또한 현존하고 두려워하지 않음으로써 묵시적인 확신을 주었다.
4. 우리는 치료자가 언제 지시적으로 되어야 하는지 보았다. 치료자의 지시는 내담자가 원하는 방향으로 이미 지시한 것을 구현해야 한다. 이 예에서는 내담자가 원하는 것을 할 수 있는 용기를 내담자가 찾도록 도움을 주는 방법이었다.
5. 치료자는 지나치게 이상화된 "해결책"을 받아들이지 않았다. 내담자가 정상적인 정서적 반응을 갖도록 허용했다.
6. 치료자는 루빠 모습들에 대해 무슨 일이 일어나고 있었는지를 드러냈다.
7. 치료자가 직감이 들었을 때 – 즉, 동료는 질투심이 많았다는 직감 – 이 사실을 가지고 있지 않고 내담자와 나누었다.
8. 우리는 내담자의 마음에 루빠를 생생하게 유지하는 방법과 내담자를 루빠에서 멀어지게 하는, 치료자가 피해야하는 종류의 문제에 대해 토론했다.(주지주의, 내담자를 내면으로 다시 향하게 하는 것, 다른 루빠에 대한 참조를 도입하는 등)
9. 우리는 내담자의 이야기가 혼란스러울 때, 한 번에 한 가지만 취하면서 중요한 루빠가 무엇인지 결정하는 방법을 살펴보았다.
10. 이 사건에서 일어난 것처럼 한 루빠가 다른 루빠로 이어질 수 있는 방법을 보았다. 이것은 여러 루빠들을 따라가며 순차적으로 하나의 루빠에서 다른 루빠로 건너뛰는 것을 의미하지는 않지만, 때로는 현재의 한 인물에서 과거의 인물로, 자연스럽고 중대한 주의의 변화가 있는 경우가 있다.
Second Therapy Demonstration
Presenting issues:
Difficulty in making life decisions. Difficulty in squaring high ideals, especially re freedom, with actual life in the world. Anxiety. Depression. Loneliness.
두 번째 치료 시연
제시된 문제 :
삶의 결정을 내리는 어려움. 세상에서의 실제 생활과 함께 높은 이상, 특히 자유를 얻는 일의 어려움. 불안. 우울. 외로움.
The Work:
When younger the client had been a convinced Christian and this provided a structure and direction to life that is now missing. The client talked about having done well easily at school which was completed abroad, but then becoming a recluse and getting involved in activities that his parents “rescued” him from. Since then he has become again dependent upon them, but is rebelling in various ways. Also rebelling against society’s system of basing everything on money and payment for services rather than real engagement with intrinsically worthwhile activity.
치료 작업:
어린 시절 내담자가 독실한 기독교인이었을 때, 종교가 삶에 대한 구조와 방향을 제공했지만 지금은 없어졌다. 내담자는 해외에서 도중에 끝내버린 학교에서 쉽게 지낸 것에 대해 이야기했지만, 은둔형 외톨이가 되어 부모님이 그를 그 생활에서 꺼내주고 나서야 활동들에 참여했다. 그 이후로 그는 다시 그들(부모)에게 의존하게 되었지만 여러 방식에서 반항을 한다. 또한 본질적으로 보람 있는 활동에 실질적으로 관여하기 보다는 돈에 대한 모든 것과 서비스에 대한 지불을 기반으로 하는 사회 시스템에 반항한다.
The therapist engaged in this discussion and there was a good rapport with the client. The therapist avoided giving advice or “solving” issues for the client, rather empathising with the client’s idealism while highlighting the difficulties of life. When the client talked about loneliness the therapist moved away, leaving the client alone so that the circumstance of aloneness be made more palpable. Client has ambition to get free from parents and has some plans but is uncertain when or how to put them into effect. He is waiting "for the wind to blow" to show him the way.
치료자는 이 토론에 참여했고 내담자와 좋은 라포가 있었다. 치료자는 삶의 어려움을 강조하면서도 내담자의 이상주의에 공감하기보다, 내담자를 위해 조언을 하거나 그를 위해 문제를 "해결"하는 것을 피했다. 내담자가 외로움에 대해 이야기했을 때 치료자는 멀리 이동하여 외로움의 상황을 더 명백하게 알 수 있게 했다. 내담자는 부모로부터 자유로워질 야망을 갖고 있으며 몇 가지 계획들을 가지고 있지만 언제 어떻게 그 계획들을 실행할 지 불확실하다. 그는 자신에게 길을 보여주기 위해 "바람이 불기"를 기다리고 있다.
Points of Interest:
1. No strong object cathexis emerged. There were suggestions of a complex dependent/conflictual relationship with father, and a significant relationship with a mentor was referred to, but these did not crystalise into the main issues in this interview.
2. The crucial thing was the relationship with the therapist. The father-son relationship was not addressed directly, but through the transference - client talking to the therapist as an older male. In this circumstance it was important that the therapist not replicate the pattern of putting the client in a dependent position.
3. Client is intelligent and picked up on points very quickly. Therapist did not have to spell matters out. There was, however, danger of getting into too intellectual a discussion. Nonetheless, the substance of the difficulty of trying to live one’s ideals but then “failing” was real.
4. Client has high ideals - possibly unrealistically so - which make engagement with real life problematic in that it can seem sometimes that nothing is ever good enough and also in that it tends to isolate the client from all the other people who do not share the same outlook.
5. It is possible to see the matter in developmental terms - the stage of life of breaking away from parents and all the ambivalence involved in this process.
관심 있는 점들:
1. 강력한 대상 집중이 발생하지 않았다. 아버지와의 복잡한 의존/갈등 관계에 대한 제시가 있었으며 멘토와의 중요한 관계가 언급되었지만 이 인터뷰에서 주요 쟁점으로 확고해지지 않았다.
2. 중요한 것은 치료자와의 관계였다. 아버지 - 아들 관계는 직접적으로 다루어지지 않았지만, 전이를 통해 - 내담자는 나이든 남자로써 치료자에게 이야기했다. 이 상황에서 치료자가 내담자를 종속 위치에 두는 패턴을 반복하지 않는 것이 중요했다.
3. 내담자는 지적이며 요점을 매우 빨리 파악한다. 치료자는 문제를 해결할 필요가 없었다. 그러나 너무 지적인 토론에 빠질 위험이 있었다. 그럼에도 불구하고 내담자의 이상들을 살려고 노력하는 것의 어려움의 실체가 있었고 "실패"는 실재적이었다.
4. 내담자는 높은 이상을 가지고 있다 – 아마도 비현실적으로 그렇게 하고 있다 –그 때문에 실생활에의 참여에 문제가 되는 경우가 있다. 때로는 충분히 좋은 것은 아무 것도 없고 그런 와중에 내담자와 같은 전망을 공유하지 않는 다른 모든 사람들과 내담자를 격리시키는 경향이 있다.
5.이 문제를 발달의 관점에서 볼 가능성이 있다. 부모로부터 멀어지는 삶의 단계와 이 과정에 내포된 모든 양가 가치.