 |
 |
Dear Alison, Sue, TerryS, Geoff and list Thanks for your considered replies to my questions, you were all very helpful. Alison, I concur with your experience of aspects of the parallel process moving both from the client/counsellor relationship to the supervisory relationship, and back again, and hope, as TerryS suggests, that this is about the positive and negative aspects of the work. Sue, I appreciate that you doubt the inevitability of a two-way exchange, and I also recognise how, both in supervision and therapy, the relationships become more equal over time, and a closer balance in power is perhaps indicative of an alliance conducive to growth for all parties. Over the weekend, I found mention of the parallel process from other than psychodynamic theorists, as you mentioned, and quite a lot of new writing (Carroll and Holloway among others) on supervision and issues of gender, race, (dis)ability, sexual orientation etc, which suggest that multicultural approach to supervision, as in therapy, addresses power imbalance. TerryS and Sue, you both comment on the parallel process having less to do with power, and more to do with 'explanation' and 'feelings', but that power issues may still be present within it, and indeed, Terry, that a degree of power imbalance is always present. Its my belief that whoever offers the chair and gets to slide the sign on the door to 'in use' is the holder of most power! Geoff, thanks for the 'Watkins' reference - I've tried 5 libraries to no avail as yet, but its certainly a text often quoted. Since mailing my first query, I've participated in an excellent workshop on Emotional Literacy (developed by Claude Steiner), part of which was about establishing 'cooperative contracts' which match your comments about negotiation and questioning, and include the following: Cooperation where the participants have equal rights and is based on realistic self interest. No rescues No power plays No lies No 'pigging', eg, the TA 'pig-parent', from within the Child ego state, being angry, blaming, invalidating and judgmental No witholding This type of contract is deemed applicable to many environments, but would seem to me to be most appropriate to supervision. Further comments welcome! Kind regards Bobbie