In this episode, Rachael gets tangled up in her own anger and hostility towards her patient on behalf of the patient’s daughter. While trying to distance herself from the patient's enmeshment with the daughter she inadvertently gets enmeshed herself in the patient’s dynamic. 

By more fully accessing her anger with the patient and realising that in her mind she has been treating the daughter rather than the patient, she is able to recenter herself more clearly with the patient in the room.

The importance of feeling into the therapy and not only thinking into the therapy is emphasised, with the end point of integrating both. Rachael⁠ must own her murderous rage towards the mother/patient and to reflect on its meaning and beyond that have the capacity to articulate it in a form which can be heard by the patient.  By the end of the session, Rachael⁠ is able to achieve this.

In this episode, Andrew struggles with the question of therapy terminable and interminable. He faces an ethical dilemma as to whether continuing therapy with a particular patient who has made considerable gains would be in some way unethical.

Andrew⁠ is thoughtful about the issue of fostering dependence which is an important issue to consider. However, he finds through supervision that he has unconsciously stepped into enacting the role of the patient's authoritarian father who imposed separations on the patient as a child.

Andrew⁠ comes to see he has engaged in a subtle power struggle and has unconsciously used psychoanalytic premises as an anti analytical third that blocks thought rather than facilitates it. Interestingly, Andrew⁠’s awareness of the enactments in therapy are discovered through a parallel process that emerges in the supervisory relational field.

In this episode, Rachael struggles with her own feelings about her therapy being cut across by a psychiatrist who seems to be opposed to long term therapy. 

She feels activated especially as the patient has asked her to intervene and contact the psychiatrist. 

In supervision, she engages with her frustration at the interference in her treatment and her therapeutic relationship and also her anger in relation to the zeitgeist that opposes in-depth therapy. 

Rachael⁠ recognises that in her activation she gets pulled into focusing more on the zeitgeist and less on the patient and is hooked by the emergence of her own sibling rivalry . 

These are not enacted with the patient but they interfere with Rachael⁠’s ability to think about the analytic meaning of the patient’s request. Through supervision, she is able to see that she is inadvertently being invited into a split and while activated is loosing the opportunity to explore the psychodynamic meaning of the patient’s request. Through this understanding she returns to her analytic position. 

In this episode, Andrew presents an unusual situation where a patient requires his partner to be present in his therapy not to work on couple dynamics, but as a benign observer. 

Andrew finds himself unable to resist this demand both because Andrew is ideologically opposed to imposing his will on the patient and because he can’t in the moment think why the patient’s preference should be resisted. 

Andrew consciously accepts the patient’s narrative that therapy should take place in the threesome but unconsciously resists it. This resistance manifests in an insistent thought that the therapy will be short term. 

In supervision, he realises that the thought is a wish covering over his frustration at being manoeuvred into working in a way that is restrictive and recognises that he is in the presence of a merger.  

Andrew comes to see this merger as less sweet and more problematic than he had thought and he determines to use his frustration to challenge the merger and negotiate a different therapeutic frame. 

In this episode, Rachael struggles with her impulse to be castrating when she encounters what she experiences as an impenetrable patient, a Citadel.  She is irked by the patient constantly batting away her interventions and seemingly needing to know better than her.

In this episode, she and Gill discuss a stinging intervention that Rachael made. The problem was less the intervention itself than Rachael’s  desire to cut the patient down, a desire she recognised and asked for help to resist.  Through supervision Rachael was able to be more in touch with the patient’s vulnerability and developmental age and to move past the power struggle the patient evoked and to think about how to engage his vulnerability. 

In this episode, Rachael plumbs the mysteries of the erotic, both in the transference and the countertransference; mysterious because it occurs in liminal or transitional space as Winnicott would say. It is a space of illusion and disillusion where it is not clear what belongs to who. Both Rachael and her patient playfully enjoy the experience, while both in their own way bring in a third to dilute the experience. Rachael becomes aware of her own loss in this and is able both to observe and experience it while also observing and experiencing her patient's change. Together with Gill, the associators conclude that sometimes it is better to settle the waters by not stirring them. The erotic is often beyond words, and thus leaving the erotic known but unarticulated is, in this instance, a good option.

In his therapy with Noor, Andrew comes to realise that he is inadvertently co-constructing an avoidance of grieving and mourning. Through a careful unpacking of enactments in the room, Andrew comes to see how mini separations and losses within the therapy caused by sessions ending and holidays taken influence both the content and process of therapy. Through modifications in the pace and rhythms of therapy, Noor unconsciously communicates her grief. Andrew initially struggles to recognise this as to do so involves him in accepting loss himself. Andrew is helped by his unconscious, which reveals itself in the session both through an enactment of a jet lagged state, and an understanding of what the words jet lag signify. Thus, an understanding of both the music and the the words of the session, as it developed in supervision, allowed a paradigm shift  from intellectual defence to emotional engagement.

In this episode, Rachael encounters the uncanny intelligence of the patient's unconscious. The patient, having criticised Rachael for her “messy” management of her clinical practice then adopts the same management style and surreptitiously benefits from it.  Feeling guilty, the patient has a dream revealing these dynamics but withholds her insights from Rachael. This produces a desire in Rachael to be mean and partake of the jouissance of revenge. By unpacking her own unconscious with Gill, it becomes clear to Rach that her countertransference wish is a clue to the patient's fear, which is preventing her from surrendering into the patient position.

In this episode, Andrew finds himself embodying traumas the patient has experienced but has placed an explicit prohibition on articulating. During his therapy sessions with Rob, Andrew respects this prohibition. There is much else to speak about and the session feels lively. However, after every session Andrew feels strangely dead, reflecting a limit on his capacity to comfortably process powerful affects when words are off limit and the patient wishes to screen off pain and to avoid facing into the void. 

Questions are raised about the perils of going along with the patient's wish not to speak the unspeakable as well the dangers of not doing so.  

All the while, the affective registration of Rob's screened off trauma persists at somatic and affective levels in Andew as an embodiment of Rob's traumatic memories. The power of this is barely tolerable and Andrew feels doomed if he does speak and doomed if he doesn’t, but in the supervision he explores the possibility of a third way and finds a way out of the binary.

In this episode, Andrew presents us with an insoluble ethical dilemma. Is it desirable or even possible for therapists to remain neutral when the patient lives by a value system very discrepant from their own and seems to do so comfortably and credits the therapy for this outcome?

Andrew and Gill agree that therapists are not neutral as they have their own moral compasses, even if they believe it is incumbent on them to bracket them. They also agree it is fair to question the patient about the consequences of their new found comfort with problematic actions and to explore if the comfort is authentic or defensive. 

However, Andrew and Gill also accept that they may be defending themselves against accepting the patient's comfort with a lack of empathy for those in his ambit. They are left with the question 'Whose defensiveness is it anyway?'.