When the Psychoanalytic Institute of New England (PINE) created its Psychoanalytic Foundation a few years ago, one of its major goals was to promulgate the institute's knowledge among the community in new ways. As analysts, we had limited practical experience in how to accomplish this.
Fortunately, the foundation's new community board members (from a range of non-analytic backgrounds) were full of ideas. One of our board members, Leah Sprague, a district court judge, knew how difficult and isolated a judge's life is. She felt that a discussion group could help judges cope better. The two analysts who volunteered for this project, Elissa Arons and Susan Workum, met with her and agreed that she would extend invitations to several judges.
Judge Sprague found more interest in this idea among the women judges than the men. She said, “I began by identifying women judges who work in ‘people’ courts (district juvenile, probate, and family courts). A judge working in these courts is likely to have direct contact with people — litigants, victims, families — as many as 50 to 80 cases come before her every day. I explained that this would not be a support group, in the sense of a therapy session, but rather, an opportunity to explore professional issues of mutual concern, having to do with understanding human behavior, and openly to confront the difficult nature of our work and to draw support from one another.”
A core group of six judges and two analysts began meeting monthly about a year and a half ago. The format is an informal potluck dinner in the home of one of the analysts. From the beginning there has been an outpouring of feelings and experiences about difficult cases, painful situations, power or lack thereof, isolation, helplessness, fear, and anger. The content of the conversations has included difficult cases, the politics of maneuvering in an “old boy network,” delicate (and not so delicate) administrative responsibilities, and competing with peers for senior positions.
The scope of what judges face daily is daunting. “Judges are closely and publicly scrutinized,” wrote a juvenile court judge. “In our positions we observe or experience racism, sexism, and ‘ageism.‘ We also confront our society's most difficult social problems: violence, substance abuse, and child abuse and neglect…. I confront overwhelming and difficult cases involving children and families. Not only is there minimal institutional support, but [there are] also limited resources to protect children.”
The group's composition of women created an immediate intimacy, once the judges understood that our “agenda” was merely to lend our psychoanalytic understanding to whatever issues they brought up. They had never known a confidential peer supervision group, which is essentially what we were creating.
“I have found the cooperative nature of this venture, the sharing of experiences, conversation, gratifying,” wrote a district court judge. “My colleagues on the bench outside the group naturally share war stories' as do most professionals, as we did when we first started meeting. Gradually though, Elissa and Susan have helped us shape these experiences so that they take on new meaning.”
Another juvenile court judge reported,
The group provides me with the support and encouragement I need to keep up the good fight. The experiences of the more seasoned judges, coupled with the insight provided by our psychoanalysts, provides a new perspective. I am becoming more objective, while my sensitivity and intuitiveness are increasing…. I am a judge who is becoming less judgmental!
A third juvenile court judge wrote, “The group right now is made up of all women. I find this refreshing after dealing all day with a court system [made up] predominantly of males. The weaving of professional and personal stories in a beautiful setting over a delicious meal is restorative.”
At first the group served as an arena for feelings, but more recently we have begun to look at the concepts of transference and countertransference and how these forces affect all of us. As one of the juvenile court judges wrote,
It is only in the past few months that we have had … material to read, which I have found to be of great help. … Reading about countertransference has provided instant recognition of what may be happening to me in the courtroom, and just knowing about it has helped me take a step back from the emotional tension that frequently marks a courtroom proceeding.
A district court judge wrote,
There is a concept we have characterized as ‘instant transference.‘ We have only begun to explore the ways in which we, as powerful figures working in our courtrooms, inspire or evoke responses in those individuals who come before us and whose lives are sometimes altered by our decisions…. Those of us who have received threats of harm, or complaints of judicial misconduct, have experienced the sense that the perceptions of those who appear before us are not always based upon the reality of what transpires in the courtroom. We have also begun to discuss the concept of countertransference, and the ways in which we react to those who appear before us. Is it not important to understand those reactions and perhaps put them aside, in the interest of improving the administration of justice?
The group is beginning to look at how it might develop, either for itself or in a broader way. A second district court judge wrote,
From the beginning, I have thought there is a judicial education seminar aborning here. Many of my colleagues on the bench (particularly some men) are completely clueless when it comes to understanding the effect they have on people.
Another district court judge commented,
It is my hope that we as judges may be able to develop techniques to share with our peers about lessening the stressors of our work and become better judges in the process. Perhaps the real benefit of our group will be in this area — to develop the means to confidentially yet candidly explore the intricacies of our work and the ways in which we can improve our responses to the tremendously complex problems of human life we are called upon to resolve.
The project has been a gratifying process for the two analysts. This is an extraordinarily dedicated and intelligent group of judges who serve the front line of a community increasingly denuded of service resources. They must make dozens of critical decisions daily, in short time, with partial information and full public accountability. As they have absorbed a more analytic stance in listening to issues, they have developed a rich range of insightful and supportive responses to one another, which we can also hear filtering into their work from the bench.
Elissa B. Arons, M.D., and Susan B. Workum, M.D., are on the Faculty of PINE. Both are clinical instructors in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.