Handling "Countertransference" in Writing

In graduate school, we are often asked to be "objective." We are told to critique arguments fairly, even if we find them repulsively wrong. But what happens when a topic is highly emotional, triggering, or deeply personal?

I remember an undergraduate class where I had to write papers effectively arguing both sides of controversial topics, like abortion. It was a grueling exercise, but it taught me the foundational skills of neutrality. However, no matter how much practice I get, I am still human. I still experience high emotional responses to certain materials.

Applying Clinical Skills to Academic Reading

Over time, I’ve realized that managing bias in writing is exactly like managing countertransference in a clinical setting.

In therapy, if a client triggers an emotional reaction in me, I don't suppress it; I bring awareness to it. It is only through awareness that I can make mindful decisions about my actions. I apply this same strategy to my writing.

For instance, if I am reading an article that criticizes a spiritual practice I personally engage in, my immediate reaction might be defensive. I might even toss the paper aside in dismay. But once I recognize that feeling, “Okay, I am feeling attacked right now”, I can step back. I use empathy to try and understand the author’s point of view. I use self-talk to remind myself that my perspective isn't the only perspective.

The Trap of Agreement

Objectivity isn't just hard when we disagree; it's also hard when we agree too much.

When I read a topic I personally relate to, I often find myself over-identifying with the author. This feels good, but it is actually problematic. If I am nodding along to every sentence, I might overlook the limitations of the article or miss the gaps in their research.

True objectivity requires us to catch ourselves on both ends of the spectrum whether we are tossing the paper away in anger or holding it close like a mirror.