56. The Group Contact Rebus

The couple contact rebus (blog no. 54) is only one example of how a combined effect of interpersonal contact rebuses may occur, and how they jointly build a new composite contact rebus that is targeted at several individuals at the same time. Another example of contact rebus collaboration is the mutual group contact rebus of group members (Motivational Work, Part 1: Values and Theory, pages 561 – 587).

Case Study

Twenty-five-year-old Asta is visiting her social worker Karolina, who takes care of her finances. Karolina is a new member of staff and it is the first time she is meeting her client. Asta has her social worker with her – Iris, from a substance abuse team. Asta tells Karolina how displeased she is with Iris, saying she doesn’t get any help and that, anyway, she doesn’t have much of a drug problem. Iris is angry with her client because she feels the criticism is unjustified.

Asta uses heroin, and Iris and her colleagues have together succeeded in preventing her from being completely consumed by her drug abuse. Nevertheless, Iris is stressed out by the fact that her supervisor has emphasized how important it is to have a good relationship with the social workers who take care of their client’s finances. Now that Asta is so critical, Karolina might feel that Iris is not doing a good job, thus making cooperation between the two social workers more difficult.

Still, she cannot display her anger and defend herself since Karolina would then have a negative impression of her. Asta is, however, very cooperative towards Karolina and willing to discuss her finances. She is friendly and tells Karolina that it is wonderful to talk to someone who is really helping her. She particularly appreciates receiving such clear confirmation.

Karolina feels she has succeeded in developing a trusting relationship with her client, but she is critical of Iris, who she feels has a negative attitude, is lacking in sympathy, and does not listen enough. The finance team of which Karolina is a part has, in fact, been expressly critical of the activities conducted by the substance abuse team, and is of the opinion that very little positive change is induced in their clients. On the other hand, the substance abuse team feels that the finance team can be a little too formalistic and bureaucratic.

Discussion

Here the client is testing the cooperation between the substance abuse team and the finance team. This she does by criticizing the abuse team and praising Karolina from the finance team for displaying precisely the same qualities that she denounces in the abuse team. She then praises Karolina for being formal, a quality that the abuse team dislikes in the finance team.

In reality, Asta does not want Iris to feel offended and she does not want Karolina to let herself be flattered. Asta will also receive negative feedback if Karolina feels she has further evidence that the criticism of the abuse team is merited. Karolina is invited to enter into a conflict between the two teams instead of recognizing the client’s compliance contact rebus and the group contact rebus. Asta will similarly receive negative feedback if Iris has a negative image of the finance team confirmed to her.

By behaving differently towards the different members of staff the client tests whether she will receive positive affirmation from the collective group contact rebus of the finance and abuse teams. It is very common for clients to test the group contact rebus with an aggressive contact rebus directed at one member of staff and a compliance contact rebus at another, thus investigating whether their cooperation can withstand the strain.

If the staff members are loyal to one another and maintain a professional approach, they will endure the one receiving very negative feedback, and the other very positive affirmation. The client is testing the transmuted and untransmuted inner group contact rebus of both staff teams.

Their unity and loyalty put the staff members’ transmuted contact rebuses in focus, as they reflect the members’ equal emotional needs in relation to one another. However, having a professional approach to one another is linked to each member’s ascribed untransmuted contact rebus towards the client, which in turn affects the inter-collegial relationship.

If the staff members pass the client’s test of the group contact rebus, they will not be drained of life force, meaning that they will continue to have a good working relationship with each other. However, if one of them does not solve the client’s contact rebus, he will start to become drained. In that case the other might switch to having an ascribed untransmuted contact rebus towards his colleague. This is the alternative method of addressing his colleague’s reactions.

By having an ascribed untransmuted contact rebus, the staff has the opportunity to receive life energy from one another. The colleague who is being drained of life force can then receive some from his partner without draining him, the latter actually receiving life force in return. The ascribed untransmuted contact rebus may thus be utilized by colleagues when they are unable to establish contact with each other through the transmuted contact rebus.

However, the ‘price’ for employing the untransmuted contact rebus is that staff members can no longer have their similar emotional needs satisfied within the team and the relationship ceases to be equal.