RECONSIDERING THE TERM,
"PSYCHODYNAMICS"
Adam
Blatner,
M.D.
(First
posted @ 2002, revised a little and re-posted, November 4, 2005.)
The word,
"psychodynamics" refers to a particular category within the more
general
field of psychology–the set of all the ways different parts of the mind
interact. It may
be contrasted with several other types of psychology–perceptual
psychology,
the sub-field in which most of the earliest work was done;
developmental
psychology; cognitive psychology, etc. Also, the dynamics being
described
aren't referring to the physical interactions of complexes of nerves in
the brain–that's "neuro-physiology" or "neuroscience"-- but rather to
the experiential
dimension:
concepts, values, imagery, will, emotion, interpretation of meanings,
etc.
In
the
first half of the 20th Century, academic psychology was most involved
with
the school of thought called "behaviorism." In contrast, dynamic
psychology,
concerned with psychodynamics– see how the words reflect each other–
was
associated chiefly with the psychoanalytic approach. The problem is
that
in spite of seeming to begin with Freud, the idea that different
aspects
of the mind interact occurred to others before him (Whyte, 1960), and
also since. And
though Adler, Jung, Rank, Reich, and others split off from Freud, and
they
all have their own lines of thought, they all can be viewed as
contributing
to the larger idea of dynamic psychology. I
consider role dynamics--my systemized development of Moreno's role
theory--to be a psychodynamic approach, as is the systems of
Berne's Transactional Analysis, Perls' Gestalt Therapy, Assagioli's
Psychosynthesis, and others!
Varieties of
Dynamic Psychology
Here
are a few general categories of contemporary approaches in
psychotherapy,
involving both treatment methods and underlying theories of psychology:
..within psychoanalysis:
| Classical
Analysis |
Object
Relations
Theory |
| Ego
Psychology |
Lacanian
Psychoanalysis |
| Self
Psychology |
Inter-subjectivity |
..and branching off from psychoanalysis or arising separately...
| Individual
Psychology (Adler) |
Analytical
Psychology (Jung) |
| Family
Therapy |
Group
Therapy |
| Gestalt
Therapy |
Transactional
Analysis |
| Cognitive
Therapy |
Reality
Therapy |
| Interpersonal
Therapy |
Psychodrama |
| Psychosynthesis |
Bioenergetic
Analysis |
| Imagery
Therapies |
Creative
Arts
Therapies |
| Existential
Psychotherapy |
Person-Centered
Therapy (Rogers) |
| Humanistic
Psychology |
Transpersonal
Psychology |
| Behavior
Therapy |
Neuro-Linguistic
Programming |
| Hypnosis |
Narrative/
Constructivist Therapy |
| Brief
Therapies |
Solution-Focused
Therapy |
... and within each of the above there are often numerous refinements,
integrations, overlaps, and variations.
I
think they are all valid, at least to some extent. Their underlying
insights
may not be so exclusive, however, and the challenge then is to distill
out the essential common denominators. In addition, there is much known
that hasn't yet been integrated into the aforementioned approaches, and
even more yet to be learned.
It
should be
emphasized that the term "psychodynamic" should not be overly
associated
with the psychoanalytically- oriented approach alone. The term is too
useful
and really refers to the broader category of approaches that also
address
the ways parts of the mind interact with other parts. I want the term
to
include the best insights of Transactional Analysis, Gestalt Therapy,
Bioenergetic
Analysis, Psychosynthesis, Psychodrama, Adler, Jung, Rogers, Maslow,
and
scores of other pioneers in this general field, and it should be
emphasized
that these other contributions are often more important than the many
psychoanalytic
ideas. (My thoughts on psychoanalysis–how in some ways it offers very
useful
ideas, and in other ways not–is addressed in another paper.)
Another
point
to be emphasized is that the many different schools of therapy evolving
in the mid-20th Century didn't just come up with revisions of method or
new techniques; they also developed new theoretical insights, bringing
to light aspects of dynamic psychology that hadn't been sufficiently
recognized
or emphasized by previous workers.
By
the 1980s,
the majority of psychotherapists were thinking of themselves as
"eclectic."
The trend towards integrating the best insights continued, but it
wasn't
easy, because each school of thought had its own premises and language.
The Politics of
Dynamic Psychology
From a political
viewpoint, this expansion of the idea of psychodynamics offers an
interesting
advantage. At present, the health care field seems to be developing a
tendency
toward polarization, with the "biological" psychiatrists on one side
and
the psychoanalysts on the other. Of course there are those in the
middle
advocating a more balanced view, but they lack as compelling a theory
as
the more zealous advocates of either extreme. (This seems to be
generally
true as a sociologic-intellectual observation of how the dialectic of
knowledge
advances in the process of cultural evolution: The extremes
vociferously
argue and eventually more sensible syntheses are adopted.)
The
problem
is in part the lack of a vigorous intellectual foundation for that more
balanced middle ground. (In another paper I suggest that applied role
theory
can serve as a common language.) In a larger sense, one of
the themes in my writings is that it is desirable and possible to
develop
a more integrated approach to psychology and psychotherapy. It
is important
today to offer an alternative vision to the general public, a more
balanced
position in which the proper use of therapy can balance the pressure by
managed care to push psychiatrists to rely excessively on the use of
medication.
(This pressure is a reaction to the common practice of very lengthy
psychotherapy,
influenced by the psychoanalytic tradition of the 1950s and 60s.) In
fact,
most people don't need long-term counseling, and also those who would
benefit
from therapy often would benefit even more from a multi-modal approach,
in my opinion.
I'll
confess
to having become an unabashed eclectic after many years of studying the
different therapies. There are some who say that it is impossible to
develop
a rigorous intellectual foundation for this, and I don't agree. I use
applied role theory as a user-friendly and integrative approach which
I claim can serve as a foundation for integration among the
therapies, and this is discussed further on this website in another
paper on role
theory.
Summary
Dynamic psychology
addresses the realms of meaning, and more, the realms of practical
concerns:
What
are those fights with my spouse really about and how can I work them
out
better?
Why
am I so shy and afraid of taking risks with people?
How
can I manage my anger, or my sense of injury so that it stops messing
up
my relationships?
How
can be a better parent? How can I work out unfinished business with my
ageing parent? How can I resolve the unfinished grief I have for
parents
or others who have already died?
How
can I feel better about myself?
...etc.
These
questions
involve a wide range of issues, chiefly concerned with habits of
thought,
temperament and how to work with it, skill building, questions of
meaning,
etc. The various schools of thought mentioned above, the many types of
therapy, all offer ideas that can be woven together creatively, and
individualized
for the purposes of helping each other and helping oneself.
I
would like
to see dynamic psychology taught in school along with teaching biology
and other aspects of science. I think it can be presented in simple
terms
and then, as with biology, at different levels of increasing
complexity.
Along with knowing dynamic psychology, young people could learn the
skills
that put this knowledge into practice. (This is addressed in my paper
on
the place of drama in education.)
Reference:
Whyte,
Lancelot Law. (1960). The unconscious before Freud. London: Social
Science Paperbacks / Tavistock.
