The trade-off between ‘Transference’ vs ‘Countertransference’ in light of Safeguarding Investigation

With a sense of exchanging professional insights, I wanted to share some tips that can potentially contribute to our journey towards undertaking an effective investigation of Safeguarding cases or more specifically investigation of SEAH (Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Harassment) cases.? Perhaps, depending on the context you are in it can also benefit colleagues who are involved in providing psychosocial support (PSS) for survivors of abuse, exploitation, and other types of violence.

‘Transference’ vs. ‘Countertransference’ ?

Of course, for those who are regularly providing individual counseling and involved in a therapeutic relationship with their respective clients, these two interwinding constructs are not new and are ordinary. However, it is my responsibility to nurture the focus of the reader and channel my thoughts only towards Safeguarding Investigation practices across various organizations.?

Scholars detect ‘Transference’ and ‘Countertransference’ as the major evident factors in the context of a therapeutic relationship that ultimately affects the successful accomplishment of goals set by the Social Worker and Client.

It is procedural enough to traverse in a preliminary way about who hosted these concepts at the inception, which umbrella practice paradigm encompasses both, and what is all about ‘Transference’ and ‘Countertransference’. So that this initial exercise will serve as a smooth launch pad to mingle these high-tech terms into our routine safeguarding investigation practice.

Who was the pioneer in hosting the concept?? ?

Rewinding your time machine to the beginning of the 20th century, the debate between the profound psychologists Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud particularly in 1912 can be considered a landmark for the conception of ‘transference’ and ‘countertransference’. Carl Jung was an advocator of ‘Analytical psychology’ while Sigmund Freud devoted his time to ‘Psychoanalysis theory’, this polarization between the two scholars created a long-standing confusion in framing our understanding of ‘transference’ and ‘countertransference’.?

What is the governing paradigm?

The Psychodynamic theoretical paradigm which is much influenced by the Freudian firm engagement in psychoanalysis can play a governing role in terms of shaping thoughts against ‘transference’ and ‘countertransference’. Psychodynamic theory in practice applies a problem-solving approach to alleviate the current behavioral difficulties faced by clients/patients by linking their situation with the previous internal (mind) process and conflicts they have encountered.?

What is all about ‘Transference’ and ‘Countertransference’?

‘Transference’

Both the Swiss psychiatrist (Jung) and Austrian neurologist (Freud) agreed on the existence and significance of ‘transference’ but preferred to do the conception in different ways. ?Freud articulates ‘transference’ as a process of projecting a ‘repressed unconscious’ from the client/patient towards the analyst (therapist) through intentional deliberation. According to Freud this process of triggering the client to project his/her past unpleasant experiences to the therapist would be helpful as a compelling ground for the patient to attain a stable status. ??

Whereas Jung conceptualized ‘transference’ as not only about projecting the ‘repressed unconscious’ but rather all the ‘collective unconscious’. Jung seriously advocates that transference is a subjective and spontaneous process that can happen innately instead of objective deliberation by the analyst/therapist. ( Jan Wiener,2009)

‘Countertransference’

Here comes sensible and diametrically opposite thoughts between the two contemporaries, they conceptualized ‘countertransference’ in a wrangling manner, particularly in terms of the appropriate way to manage the ‘transference’ that we have acquired from our client.? This is mainly concerned with the intended modality of our reaction and administration against the projected feelings to materialize the ultimate benefit of our client.? ??

The Austrian legend considered ‘Countertransference’ as a golden opportunity for the analyst/therapist to maintain a position of neutrality without being distracted by the unpleasant emotion transferred from the client nor being emotionally inclined to the suffering of the person which can hinder the successful accomplishment of the goal of therapy. In any case, to best help our client, Freud strongly advised us to suppress the struggle we encounter as a therapist which can forcibly lead us to ‘Countertransference’. ?

Whereas the Swiss ‘rebel’ fights his senior saying that a reaction by analysts/therapists through ‘Countertransference’ is an important piece in the process of providing relief for the client. He deterministically positioned himself hindering the natural process of counter-reaction against a projected feeling would not be feasible. Jung considered an emotional inclination of analysts/therapists toward the projected feelings of a client, that is ‘Countertransference’, would help to ensure a mutual level of unconsciousness and state of ‘ambivalence’ between both parties. This state of ‘ambivalence’ will encourage the analysts/therapists to rush for solutions since he/she practically senses and reflects against the emotions of the client and at the end of the day the outcome of the therapeutic relationship will be mutual emancipation.

******************************************************************

I trust I have built a secure launchpad to spark the insights I wanted to share through leveraging these two jargons against Safeguarding and SEAH investigation practices that most Safeguarding professionals are experts on.

What is our trade-off experience between ‘transference’ and ‘countertransference’? within the context of Safeguarding investigation

As a Safeguarding practitioner engaged in a few investigation processes on alleged perpetrators and survivors of SEAH, I took a lesson that maneuvering between ‘transference’ and ‘countertransference’ does really matter to achieve our investigation goal. ?Most importantly, this is one of the areas that I genuinely struggle with while undertaking a Safeguarding investigation.?

I do have a quest to address for colleagues whether we did reflections to evaluate our investigation practice from the ‘transference’ and ‘countertransference’ perspectives. By the time you have been engaged as an investigator for Safeguarding cases are you ‘Freudian’ or ‘Jungian’? ?I understand that every organization has its investigation procedures to be adhered to, however, considering these two aspects as a principle in our investigation process would be an added value and boost our quality delivery.

It is my strong interest to demonstrate some of the practical instances that most of us encounter during the course of our investigation process and I will leave it to you the remaining judgment in terms of positioning yourself.

1st: It is not uncommon to come across the frustration and tangling emotion of an alleged perpetrator while conducting our investigative interview. In such a scenario it is natural that the feeling of the perpetrator would project towards the domain of your emotion. How do you trade off then? Practically what is your experience? Are you going to manifest your indifference to the frustration of the perpetrator? Or will you be a fan of Carl Jung through counter-transferring to equilibrize the unconsciousness? - A very important tip to be considered as an investigator is the term ‘alleged’, it is all about potentiality so in this case the perpetrator you are investigating is also your client who needs your therapy.?

2nd:? As an integral component of the Safeguarding and SEAH investigation process you are also essentially expected to conduct interviews with the victim/survivor. Particularly it is undoubtful that it requires a strong determination if the SEAH victim is a vulnerable child. ?How do you trade off the tremendous traumatic transference of the victim? Can you afford to be neutral/indifferent as per the Freudian notion? Or would you decide to counter the projection of the delicate emotion of the survivor and how do you do that??

3rd:? ?The final instance that I would like to spot is related to the occasion of interviewing the leadership function of a given organization as part of the investigation process. I personally encountered noticeable frustration from top-level management which emanates from the point of view of organizational reputation instead of worrying about the case itself or the abuse faced by the survivor. How do you trade off, as an investigator, when such emotion strives to penetrate the sovereignty of your own emotion? Are you going to counter? why and how will you counter??

***********************************************

As a final thought I believe the abstract coined by Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud towards ‘Transference’ and ‘Countertransference’ would really be an important asset, if contextualized nicely, to advance the positive result of our Safeguarding and SEAH investigation practice.

Hope this will make sense.

If you are interested in bombarding your mind (I am kidding??) through deep diving about ‘Transference’ and ‘Countertransference’, please read this fascinating book attached below(or the link).

???? The Therapeutic Relationship: Transference, Countertransference, and the Making of Meaning. Ms. Jan Wiener. 2009.