 Hello, this is Bob Cooker here again from the Manchester Institute for Psychotherapy. This is a series of videos on supervision, clinical supervision, and we've been exploring the seven-eyed model by Robin Sherwood and Peter Hawkins first came out in their book Supervision in the Helping Professions, 1989, a fabulous book. Anyway, what we're going to do is explore this model. We're going to look at two particular parts of the model. One is to see how it's used as a grid for the supervisor and supervisee. And we're going to look at the different stages and modes in this interactive supervision process. We've done the first mode, which is about behavioral observation as a major focus of supervision. We've looked at the second stage and the major focus, which is all about contracts, treatment plans, why a therapist does what they do clinically and how the supervisor can help them without focus. And the last video we did was on the third stage, which was looking at the systemic process, the transfers onto the therapist, and how the supervisor, supervisee, by looking at the particular supervision in that focus can help the supervisor move forward. Okay, so now on to stage four. So this video, this clip with Roy Leokes again, taking the story further, is looking at the focus of mode four, which is the counter-transference of the supervisee. In other words, that unconscious part of themselves is often gets acted out, and it's very important for the supervisor to concentrate on, because it allows the supervisee particularly to explore parts of themselves which is outside their awareness, which might be hindering the therapy-client relationship. Okay, Doki, so let's move on to stage four. I've got Roy Leokes here again. Yeah. Thank you. That's great. I've really enjoyed these last three videos. Yeah. And now on to the next part, which is stage four, looking at your counter-transference. So tell me a little bit where we are with the story. What are the fifth sessions, I think? Yeah. Yeah. Well, the last time we spoke, it talks about kind of how angry the client was. And she's came up this time kind of deflated. They've now arrested her son. The son's now been arrested, rear-rested. I know. Gosh. Rear-rested. Rear-rested. And he's in custody. And she managed to communicate that he needs extra water and he needs a mental attention. So part of that is that she knows where he is, and I reflected that to her, so that she knows that he's getting the attention. He would tell me about the last Supervision session. He would tell me something very interesting, I thought, anyway, that we focused on other things. He would tell me about how angry she was. Yeah. And he would also talk about how you thought that, you know, you felt like her son at some stages. And then he said another interesting thing, which you may want to look at in this Supervision, which is your fear and just hypothesising how you are around women who express anger. And I thought we'd take that bit further and just explore what happens. Yeah. Perhaps, you know, he said you were, if I'm right, and you remember, he said that in writing your notes up, you were just reflecting on as a person, you know. Yeah. And when I counter how you are, perhaps with females that are angry, I was just thinking about counter-transfers and what might have been a vote there for you. Well, it's kind of interesting that, you know, being the age I was always brought up to think of men and women different in terms of anger. And that, not to put too far in the point, I mean, but women were the kind of sentient, weakest in my history. This isn't something I believe now I want to be talking about. No, I understand. But, yeah, but historically I was brought up. And as I grew up, women, I'm sure were angry, but they didn't express it. So your household, maybe that was the case? Absolutely. Absolutely. I have to say that my father wasn't a particularly angry man, but generally speaking I met a lot of angry men through my life, and in fact quite violent people. But I've never really met any very angry women, and it kind of gave me a bit of a dissonance, really, because part of me, you know, I could feel, you know, if someone gets angry, I don't know if it's the same to you, Bob, but women, when someone's really angry, it's managing that kind of adrenaline rush, because, you know, the part of the brain is expected next thing you'll be rolling about fighting. You know, I'm having to kind of manage that with this kind of picture that I've been painting of women in my history. It was quite, I had to kind of hold paradox a little, hold both of those, yeah. And how do you think you've got on in the session? I think I did very well. Oh, good. If I say so myself, I think that I knew immediately she wasn't angry at me, that helped a lot. She was angry at her son, and I was just the person she felt safe enough to express it. So, very quickly, I realised that actually she was, most of the time when she was speaking to me, she was luckily looking over my shoulder as if the son was still behind me. So, I know you're pretty astute, and it was really good to hear that you were able to hold those two polarities. Yes. Now, say, just for example, if you weren't being so good at holding those two polarities, what might have been the danger? I think the danger is that I may have run off. Like the son? Like the son. If it had been a man, the danger would have been that it could have escalated. It wouldn't have done, because I would have come to the same point. But as a woman, I think I would have run off. So, what could have happened? Is the evoking of this, you know, what could have been a vote? Yes. Is an early historical process? Absolutely. And then, what might have happened for both of you, of course, is there might have been a re-creation of history somewhere. I think so. I think it could have fallen into two distinct camps, but one would have been women aren't supposed to be like this, as I reached into my history. And also about the other way to deal with this is to avoid it. To run off, you know, and to enjoy. So, in fact, I know that, as I said before here, you were a reflective practitioner, so you were able to hold those priorities. Yes. So you did something different by the sounds. Yes. Sounds like you stayed in the room and were able to reflect back to her the impact of her on you. Is that right? I didn't initially, I worked with the theme of, I can see you're really angry, son. I wanted part of my work with her to let her know that I knew how angry she was with son. And even that, let her know that she wasn't angry with me. Right. So you did something very different from what I'm suggesting. Yeah. Often happens to supervisors. And supervisors are like anyway. So when a supervisor sometimes comes to my practice in mode four. Yes. They're bringing things outside their awareness where they actually play out a process which gets them a meshed off with their clients because their clients are evoking fragmented cut-off parts of themselves. And my job has always been to help them be aware of that. So it's nice to talk to you in the sense that you're able to hold those priorities. I'd like to think of it. I'd like to think of it. I'm sure that initially there may have been some leakage as I had to kind of settle that kind of process in there. But I think it helped me, if I'm honest, Bob, by saying I could see how angry we are with your son. Because by that I was taking away, I was diffusing the anger, wasn't I? I wasn't going to go around me. Yeah, you separated that as well. And so it was a good way of not getting caught up in account of the adjustments. Okay, well thank you for that. Thank you.