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.