I like the writing of Dawn Lipthrott on Imago.
For example: How does Imago differ…
I got something clear from a passage in that article, and it will assist me in moving to a “Parent Child Dialogue”.
In the article she speaks of the importance of the unconscious processes, and how they emerge with safety through lack of interpretation but with full Mirroring Validation and Empathy
In addition, in most of the processes that Hendrix has formulated, there is an added element of referencing back to childhood from an affective base which gains ready access to the unconscious childhood issues. The lack of questioning and interpretation on the part of the receiving partner adds to the safety, and respects, as well as validates, the unique perceptions and feelings of the partner expressing a frustration or concern. Both people are given the time and space to show up in the relationship as differentiated, yet connected partners.
This leads me to think that rage is one indicator to move into expressing that to the parent, while in the role of the child.
I know how Imago therapists are taught to produce that, and it is OK, but I occasionally used a Psychodrama approach. I introduced a fourth chair, for a psychodramatic enactment with role reversal. I have not used the partner as an auxiliary ego, but used cushions and my own voice in the role reversals. My thought is that it creates some distance between the parent and the partner. In the sharing (the partners response) some similarity in the role patterns are often discussed.