It was found that sympathy is best understood as a benign interest in the other, which helps to create the conditions for a successful therapeutic interaction. Empathy was seen to comprise two distinct processes--one involving affective co-experience and the other primarily cognitive understanding of another person. Affective empathy is useful to the psychoanalyst as part of the transference phenomenon in which the patient transposes past or present mental conflicts into the therapeutic encounter. Such empathy allows the therapist to experience some of the emotional turmoil of the patient, who needs to be dealt with in treatment.
It was concluded that judges are ill-situated and ill-equipped to engage in affective empathy with persons facing court except in certain unique situations, and such practice is therefore not recommended. However, cognitive empathy is considered a valuable technique for both psychoanalysts and judges. The role of this form of interpersonal understanding in therapy was examined through considering analysis as its primary feature. Following Kleinian thought, as extended by Bion.
International Journal of Therapeutic Jurisprudence 2016: Arizona Summit Law School
Article by Archie Zarski
https://summitlawreview.org/intl_j_ther_juris_1_1.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment