journal no 6; 5th november 2012

A recap on all the psychodynamic practitioners we have looked at this term, to begin with;

FREUD –  levels of consciousness (unconscious, preconscious, conscious). Structure of personality (id, ego, superego) Pleasure principle and reality principle, defence mechanisms, dream analysis, free association, transference and counter transference, psychosexual stages of development (oral, anal, phallic, latent, genital)

JUNG – analytical psychology, archetypes – animus, anima etc, shadow, personality types – thinking, feeling, Intuiting, sensing, transcendental meaning, individuation – spiritual growth, synchronicity, collective unconscious, personas

KLEIN – attachment theory, child analysis, splitting – good breast, bad breast, object relations, depressive and schizoid positions, play therapy

WINNICOTT – ‘good enough mother’, ego splitting, transitional objects, art/ drawings, nursing triangle, space between, focus on environment and relationship with it

FAIRBAIRN – object relations, driven by attachment, working beyond transference, creates real relationship with client, internal saboteur, attacking/resisting object and exciting/disappointing object, attachment with self is important re attachment to others

BOWLBY – attachment, mother-child, separation, secure base, loss, attachment styles – secure, avoidant, ambivelant,

ERIKSON – psychosocial stages, identity crisis, identity achievement, moratorium, foreclosure, identity diffusion

A little more time was spent recapping Erik Erikson, as we hadn’t looked at him in about a year. Here are his stages of psychosocial development;

1. Infancy: Birth to 18 Months

Ego Development Outcome: Trust vs. Mistrust
Basic strength: Drive and Hope

2. Early Childhood: 18 Months to 3 Years

Ego Development Outcome: Autonomy vs. Shame
Basic Strengths: Self-control, Courage, and Will

3. Play Age: 3 to 5 Years

Ego Development Outcome: Initiative vs. Guilt
Basic Strength: Purpose

4. School Age: 6 to 12 Years

Ego Development Outcome: Industry vs. Inferiority
Basic Strengths: Method and Competence

5. Adolescence: 12 to 18 Years

Ego Development Outcome: Identity vs. Role Confusion
Basic Strengths: Devotion and Fidelity

6. Young Adulthood: 18 to 35

Ego Development Outcome: Intimacy and Solidarity vs. Isolation
Basic Strengths: Affiliation and Love

7. Middle Adulthood: 35 to 55 or 65

Ego Development Outcome: Generativity vs. Self- absorption or Stagnation
Basic Strengths: Production and Care

8. Late Adulthood: 55 or 65 to Death

Ego Development Outcome: Integrity vs. Despair
Basic Strengths: Wisdom


So, what do Erikson theories mean for me? I’m bang on cue, according to him. At 38 years old, having been divorced at age 35, I leave the young adulthood stage having been focussed on intimacy with my husband (I met him at 18) and  the solidarity of my family, and finding myself very much dealing with the issue of isolation as a result of having been unsuccessful in that  stage. Nowadays my focus is now firmly on my career (hence this training), and finding meaning in my life through what I do, and how much I contribute to society. At times, when I feel that I am not succeeding with that, I do find myself feeling as though I am stagnating, and that my self- absorption is my undoing. But of course, that is the peril of doing this course; there is a fine line between self- awareness and self- absorption, one that is easily crossed from time to time, and I have to be aware of that and the social consequences that brings as well.  Oh, I would love to talk psychological theory all day and night with whoever would listen to me (my poor children bear the brunt of that, I’m afraid – we often joke that they know more about Freud and Jung than most adults three times their age do), but I know that it must come across as boring and self-obsessed. Good thing, I am not married any more, really, because I can’t see how the strongest marriage could survive this kind of scrutiny!

Although I feel that there can’t be many relationships that can cope with a shake up this violent – I honestly do think that my children and I are coping better as a family unit, for it. I hope that my bringing them up with these ideas consciously  in their psyches helps them with their understanding of the world. They are between the school age and adolescence life stages, and I spend a lot of time advising them on the ‘pack mentality’ of their peers, and their fears of inferiority. The ‘moratorium’ that Erikson defined, where the adolescent goes through a period of withdrawing from responsibilities is well and truly happening in this house! It is hard to deal with, but I really do think it would be harder if I had to deal with a husband who refused to understand it as well (my ex husband thought that most psychological theories were patronising and ‘airy fairy’, not realising he, himself was a walking text book case study!)

Too much time spent talking about that stuff – the afternoon was spent being videoed in counselling skills practise, as part of our assessment process. How was that?  Horrendous! Nobody likes looking at themselves on tape, do they? Let alone people who have piled on over two stone in a year? I looked like a chubby middle aged jewish woman – which I suppose is what I am, really – but blimey – I have never EVER thought of myself in that way before, and to see myself in that way is erm, sobering to say the least. Oh well, diet tomorrow…

Jokes aside though, the taping of the counselling session was fun – it was good to see beyond my cringing, and note what sort of counselling skills I used. I hadn’t realised what an expressive face I have! To watch my face change through the session is almost akin to watching a mime – I think I need to work on toning that down a bit – hard, when it’s a completely unconscious process, though. There are many changes to be made; it is a process I would very much like to do again, perhaps towards the end of the course, to see if I do manage to change and evolve my style. As Erikson himself said, “There is in every child at every stage a new miracle of vigorous unfolding.” –  a metaphor for the continuing evolution of personality over time – after all, we are not ‘complete’ by the time we are 5 or 12 years old. We continue to evolve throughout life (and so will our counselling skills, hopefully)…



Journal 5; 22nd october 2012

Today; the theories of Ronald Fairbairn, an object relation theorist, who has not had as much written about him as the other theorists we have studied so far, it seems.

We were given a lengthy hand out containing a detailed critique of his views on therapy; his ideas were basically psychodynamic (ie. looking at birth onwards) but also seemed, to me, to bridge the gap towards the more humanistic approaches, by stressing the importance of the therapist entering the client’s inner world. He stated that the interpretation of the transference that occurs in therapy was not enough, alone, to facilitate change for the client. He felt that this transference relationship should be developed between client and counsellor, and gradually replaced by a real relationship that can give the client a model on which they can base future relationships in the outer world. He stated “the distortions of inner reality can be corrected by outer reality” (Fairbairn 1958:381)

Fairbairn was an ‘object relationist’, alongside Klein, Bowlby and Winnicott (whose work we have been studying over the past few weeks), fundamentally believing that all relationships in life are based on blueprints taken from our earliest connections with objects in childhood. I found the paper we were given wordy and confusing, but my basic understanding of his principles (after much searching online and reading around, trying to clarify the ideas in my head) are this;

  • An ego is present from birth.
  • Libido is a function of the ego.
  • There is no death instinct; and aggression is a reaction to frustration or deprivation.
  • Since libido is a function of the ego and aggression is a reaction to frustration or deprivation, there is no such thing as an ‘id’.
  • The ego, and therefore libido, is fundamentally object-seeking.
  • The earliest and original form of anxiety, as experienced by the child, is separation-anxiety.
  • Internalization of the object is a defensive measure originally adopted by the child to deal with his original object (the mother and her breast) in so far as it is unsatisfying.

He came up with a revised structure of the personality, which bears similarities to Freud’s id, ego, superego but has marked differences;

(taken from www. As shown in this diagram of ‘Fairbairn’s endopsychic structure’, the unconscious part of the mind is divided into the object seeking half – the libidinal ego which is driven towards objects, and the antilibidinal ego, which rejects and attacks objects. These filter into our conscious/ everday self – the central ego, which in turn creates our ‘preserved object’ (ie how we actually do behave toward things/people.

Phew! Theory dealt with (I think). I can’t stress enough how hard it has been to write this journal entry – my problems with absorbing this theory have been a huge block to me, and have sent me back to my old pattern of procrastination. Thank goodness for the half term break – it has given me more time to get my head into focus on this.

Brain drain still fresh – we spent some time thinking about how have dealt with pressure at different points in our lives, to help us to understand how our own individual approaches to counselling have evolved, and will evolve further as we go on.

The particular events we were asked to consider included; dealing with a crying baby, someone (teenager or child) having a tantrum, being with someone who has received news of a loss, someone who you care about being hurt, dealing with a family member having a breakdown, and someone close to you being terminally ill.

Heavy situations, all of them situations that I have found myself in, and all of them have provoked quite similar reactions in me; an instinctive need to be there, remain calm, and simply try to hang in through it; contain it and  allow it, creating a safe space where the crisis can happen in  relative sanctuary.

Well, that is all except the last one – the person close to me being terminally ill – this I couldn’t deal with, and I thought I felt ashamed of myself for that. But when looking back  and reflecting objectively on that situation, I was never really required to be there. It was my Aunt that was ill, and she wanted my Mum to support her, and in turn, Mum turned to me for support– which I did, to the fullest of my abilities. More evidence of me automatically being hard on myself, and turning emotions I found too hard to deal with (grief and worry) into an emotion I was more than comfortable with – guilt. Aaargh! Definitely learning to be done there…

Process group in the afternoon was… erm… interesting? Animated? Explosive? Cathartic. As time goes on, and I grow more comfortable with the group, and more determined to use the group  as a learning place, I get braver, and more willing to take chances, raising my opinions much more than I ever felt able to last year. This week, I think my frustration at the way I had struggled to get my head around Fairbairn  in the morning, and my subsequent ‘block’ on the rest of the day (the result of that earlier lack of engagement) got to me. I thought “f*** it” and I voiced that frustration to the class. The relief that I wasn’t the only one feeling it was huge, but in  trying to devise some kind of better approach to the learning that might be beneficial for more of us, other backs seems to be raised. The conversation grew heated, and this felt good to me. Some might describe the exchange that took place as ‘a fight’, but rather than trying to diffuse things between the group members involved, I found myself adding fuel to the fire; putting my gestalt hat on, and pointing out their body language to them, trying to make them aware of their way of being. Why did I do that? It was instinctive, not thought through at all. I felt a need to shake things up – to make changes happen. Internalising, trying to reflect and keep problems as my own no longer seemed like a viable option to me. And the group responded – vociferously – in a good way, in my opinion. I am quite sure that that was one of the most enjoyable and productive process group sessions we, as a class, have ever had afterwards and the general feeling amongst the group did seem much clearer and more positive .

Am I ‘becoming’ the counsellor – is this my natural way of being? I don’t want to ‘make things better’ any more. I want help people deal with things, even if it is uncomfortable…