Psychodynamics at Work

Working within a psychodynamic context the therapist looks at the client’s past and sees how this influences their present situation to find what is at the basis of their presenting issue(s). A purely Freudian approach maintains that despite the fact an individual might repress early memories the “Id” does not. However this strategy is not accepted by all exponents of psychodynamic therapy. All psychodynamic approaches do however work in reference to the client’s personality and their personal history.

Whatever the therapeutic approach, it is the therapeutic alliance between client and therapist that decides whether the therapy will prove to be successful or not. It is the relationship between therapist and client that allows the process of self-discovery to evolve. Goldfried (1980) suggested that the relationship between therapist and client is the foundation of all psychotherapy. Jacobs (2011:132) suggests “The basis of a […] counsellors work, […] is the real relationship that exists simply by virtue of two (or more) people coming together; one in the role of the helper, the other(s) seeking help […] they are ordinary human beings, sharing the common joys and sorrows of life.”.

The object relations approach to psychodynamic therapy in particular underscores the human need for emotional comfort and therefore works towards establishing a nurturing and reparative relationship with the client. The relationship that is subsequently established provides the client with the emotional needs that may have been missing during childhood, Clarkson suggested that the reparative relationship was “intentional provision […] of a corrective, reparative […] relation or action where the original parenting was deficient” (Jacobs: Clarkson: 155).

It is within the context of the client/therapist relationship that transference and counter transference are encountered. Hough (2002:17) suggests that ‘transference refers to a human tendency to displace emotional attitudes and feelings, learned in early childhood, to many situations in adult life’. This means that past experiences are relived in the present within the context of the therapeutic relationship.

The Importance of Supervision in Psychotherapy

Good supervision offers psychological support which helps the therapist/counsellor process material that might be worked on in the therapeutic space with clients, this may promote the therapist/counsellor’s acceptance of their client and therefore improve the way that they communicate with them thus ensuring the therapeutic space as a safe place for both clients and therapist/counsellors to explore.

In an ethical context supervision is important in that it promotes professional practice and ethical behaviour, supervision provides an opportunity whereby an individual’s work is observed and where a client’s development is monitored in this way supervision also contributes to the self-regulatory process. As Corey, Corey and Callanan (2007: 360) suggest “professional competence is not attained once and for all. Being a competent professional demands not only continuing education but also a willingness to obtain periodic supervision when faced with ethical or clinical dilemmas”.

Supervision helps both experienced and less experienced counsellors in different ways. A supervisor can act as a mentor providing supervisees with emotional support and as an instructor helping supervisees with issues involved in their work. Inskipp and Proctor (2001:1) suggest supervision provides “A working alliance between the supervisor and the counsellor in which the counsellor can offer an account or recording of their work; reflect on it; receive feedback, and where appropriate guidance.”

More simply we can say that supervision evolves as a professional relationship between two or more people which cultivates a professional attitude and good practice. Supervision is essential in developing skills as a counsellor. Supervision goes beyond the client’s issues providing a process that appreciates the working frame of reference. Walborn (1996) maintains that the counsellor/therapist establishes a healthy and secure environment for the client. However it is equally important that the counsellor/therapist also feels safe and to a certain extent supervision facilitates this.

The Influence of Different Cultures on Human Growth and Development

As previously shown an individual’s development is affected by the environment in which the child develops, this includes sociocultural and socioeconomic influences which reflect the culture that the child is born in and influences a wide spectrum of behviour (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Owen, Ware & Barfoot, 2000). As a consequence culture plays a central role in how children relate to their surroundings and this impacts on the creation of a child’s self- image, confirming Vygotsky’s theory that the sociocultural context of the child has a central importance in the development of the individual, particularly because this influences the way the child is reared (Vygotsky,1978).

How Divorce Can Impact on Children

An individual’s physical and mental wellbeing can be influenced by several different factors that will impact on the individual’s growth, development and sense of self, either in a positive or negative way. The impact on the individual might be of a physical, emotional, socio-economic and environmental nature.

The therapist needs to know of these factors in order to understand the effect they have on the physical, intellectual, emotional and social development of the individual and how this has contributed to the individual’s self-concept and behaviour.

Parental separation has a significant impact on a child’s behaviour. However the way the child reacts may vary considerably, depending on the child’s age at the time of separation (Amato, 2000). Family dynamics connected to divorce, such as the extent of parental strife, modifications in parenting, the estrangement of a parent and changes in family finances contribute significantly to the child’s development and long-term adjustment. As Hetherington & Arasteh (1988) suggest parental separation changes the child’s positive view of the world.

The breakdown of the family unit and the subsequent re-structuring of family life instigated by divorce or a separation creates a process whereby modifications to a child’s lifestyle especially regarding primary attachment can be detrimental to the child’s development. Evidence suggests that the nature of the separation can impact negatively on a child’s educational, emotional, psychological and educational arenas. These outcomes can continue into adulthood. Research conducted by Ross and Mirokovsky (1999) indicates that individuals who had experienced divorce as a child had a much higher tendency to marry at a younger age, divorce or separate and marry again, experience long-term emotional problems associated to attachments and relationships. Evidence provided by Ross and Mirowsky also suggests that children of divorced parents tended to be less successful educationally, socioeconomically, and showed higher levels of depression.

It has been suggested that this may be the result of a delay in social development, associated to the emotional intensity of parental separation. Moreover children and teenagers of estranged parents are more likely to experience greater economic, social and health difficulties through childhood, their teenage years and early adulthood and have a higher tendency to use alcohol, tobacco and recreational drugs; become sexually active at a younger age and have unwanted pregnancies. Haiman (1994) has concluded “When children experience the separation or divorce of their parents, it is common for them to develop problems and lose behavioural gains […] Well-behaved children may show anger and aggression […] Children who used to think clearly and understand easily may become confused and find it hard to communicate rationally. Once happy children may become morose and depressed […] It is common for young children to manifest one or a combination of these problems in various degrees of severity in response to the separation and divorce of their parents.

Why I'm Drawn to Carl Rogers

What attracted me to integrative psychotherapy was the opportunity of blending the works of my heroes into my own personal therapeutic model. No approach is perfect but as an integrative psychotherapist I have created a model that I feel best helps the client. My model incorporates the work of Alfred Adler with that of Lev Vygotsky, Carl Rogers, William Glasser and Carl Jung. I do consider myself however as predominately Adlerian in mind set and spirit but my integrative approach has not prevented me from understanding the value of other therapeutic approaches.

Carl Rogers’ Person Centred theory is perhaps the best known of the Humanistic theories, it evolves primarily from phenomenological philosophy in particular the works of Kant and Husserl. Philosophically therefore Carl Rogers theory is closely related to that of Alfred Adler. Rogers like Adler  concluded that reality was subjective and therefore exclusive to every individual, because we all perceive reality differently (Pervin, Cervone, & Oliver, 2004). Adler believed this process was achieved via the uniqueness of the individual’s social context.

Rogers promotes the idea of seeing the world through the eyes of others in order to better comprehend the individuals subjective experience. Rogers suggest (1980:102) “The only reality I can possibly know is the world as I perceive and experience it at this moment.” Rogers like Adler rejected Freudian determinism suggesting that we behave as we do because of the way we perceive our situation. “As no one else can know how we perceive, we are the best experts on ourselves.” (Gross 1992:905). Moreover Rogers claims that individuals have a great capacity for self-healing and personal growth and this provides the basis for self-actualisation. Rogers disliked Freudian psychoanalysis suggestion of a psychological leitmotif and abandoned the predominately canonical Freudian view that the individuals past influences the present, Rogers instead studies the individual’s current perceptions and the importance of the here-and-now  an approach also found in William Glasser's Reality therapy.

Rogers like Adler before him believed that mankind was essentially good and that all individuals seek to achieve self-actualization Adler viewed this as egalitarian social interest. Rogers believed that only when individuals achieve their full potential of self- actualization do they reveal their true nature. Within the context of Rogerian theory therefore, “man is an actualizing process” (Van Belle:1980: 70). 

Rogers suggests that actualization is a dynamic force for change, suggesting “the actualizing tendency present in every living organism’s tendency to grow, to develop, to realize its full potential. This way of being trusts the constructive directional flow of the human being toward a more complex and complete development. It is this directional flow that we aim to release” (Rogers: 1986b:198) this process resembles Adler’s “law of movement” Adler wrote (Ansbachers & Ansbacher: 1964: 87) “The law of movement in the mental life of a person is the decisive factor for his individuality. The declaration of this law was actually the strongest step Individual psychology has taken. We have always maintained the view that all is movement.”. Essentially life for both Rogers and Adler is a dynamic process towards self actualization.

Alfred Adler's Contribution to Psychotherapy

Alfred Adler’s contribution to psychoanalysis is predominately phenomenological and goal oriented. Adler is essentially inspired by a social approach to psychology and therefore highlights the individual’s value system that underpins their beliefs and perceptions, in this way it is very close to Constructivism.

Adler like the Constructivists whom he influenced believed that an individual’s behaviour is largely associated to their upbringing and education, Adler wrote (Ansbacher & Ansbacher 1964:182/183) “I am convinced that a person’s behaviour springs from his opinion. We should not be surprised at this, because our senses do not receive actual facts, but merely a subjective image of them, a reflection of the external world. In considering the structure of a personality, the chief difficulty is that its unity, its particular style of life and goal, is not built on objective reality but on the subjective view the individual takes of the facts of life. Each person organizes himself according to his personal view of things, and some views are sound, some less sound”.

Adler coined the term “family constellation” in order to explore the impact of birth order, family values, role models and gender on the child as they grow up. Adler’s approach suggests that an individual learns attitudes and behavior within the family context it is the family that provides the child with a microcosm of society. According to Adler the birth order also has an impact on the individual behavior as an adult. Adler suggests also looking at other aspects of the child’s family life including how the child is treated, how the parents interact with the siblings, how siblings treat each other and a child’s abilities or disabilities. Other factors that Adler felt where important included parental role models, the family’s socio-cultural background and parenting styles which proved to be of particular interest to Constructivists. Both Adler and the Constructivists were influenced by Marxist theory.

Adler suggested that the child’s vulnerability leads to a sense of inferiority and if this is subsequently internalized in adulthood Adler believes that this may lead to a superiority complex. As an adult there is a need to compensate for this perceived inferiority, if this is exaggerated it evolves into a “superiority complex”. Adler was influenced by Nietzsche and this fits in with Nietzsche’s “Will to power” the need for the individual to assert themselves over others. However unlike Nietzsche, Adler believes that this is not always a conscious process and maintains “[…] a general goal of man […]. This goal of complete superiority, with its strange appearance at times, does not come from the world of reality. Inherently we must place it under “fictions” and “imaginations.” (Adler1973:32). The final goal of this process according to Adler is a “better adaptation”.

The “fictions” and “imaginations” are central to Adlerian theory, according to Adler the ultimate truth will always be beyond the individual, and because of this individuals formulate partial truths or constructs to make sense of their lives, reality for Adler is subjective and the individual acts in the present whilst looking at the future. Adler developed the theory of “finalism”, a teleological process, in that the fiction is projected into the future, yet despite this it influences the individual’s present, Adler’s influence on Viktor Frankl is quite apparent. Frankl a student of Adler had developed Logotherapy an essentially existential approach to a future orientated psychotherapy whereby the individual establishes meanings that are to be fulfilled in the future. Adler suggests we are unable to understand the individual without understanding that person’s fictional finalism. These ideals are of an existential nature in that they, the concept of fictional finalism according to Adler is a guiding principle as such people arrange their lives in order to justify and enable their fictional, final goal. Individuals who are healthy change their final fictions according to their circumstances, neurotic individuals however cling to the same fictional ideal. Adler writes (1925:2/3) “The essential point to be grasped psychologically and the one which interests us exclusively and practically and psychologically more than all others, is the path followed. Let me observe that if I know the goal of a person I know in a general way what will happen. […] We must remember that the person under observation would not know what to do with himself were he not oriented toward some goal. If we look at the matter more closely, we shall find the following law holding in the development of all psychic happenings: we cannot think, feel, will, or act without the perception of some goal”.

Adler’s teleological approach allowed him unburden himself of Freudian determinism and the cause and effect dyad preferred by the canonical psycho analytical approach cultivated by Freud, in so doing Adler empowered the individual, making the individual responsible for their own fate and their own choices and not the victims of quasi biological deterministic drives preferred by Freud. It is at this point that Adler shows himself as being phenomenological in approach primarily influenced by philosophers Vaihinger and Husserl the phenomenological approach is also shared by the existentialist, person centered and Gestalt approaches.

The Adlerian approach is concerned with the individuals “creative self” a process by which the individual is able to work upon their background and environment and establish themselves in society, this approach is diametrically the opposite of Freud’s determinism and can also be found in Gestalt psychotherapy. Adler, unshackled from the Freudian deterministic drives, perceives the individual as an essentially social creature who wishes to live harmoniously with his fellow man. According to Adler we all have an innate “social interest”, however it is not always cultivated or realized. Adler’s theory of social interest was to influence approaches as diverse Erich Fromm, Viktor Frankl and William Glasser. Adler suggests that if an individual consummates their innate social interest they will be emotionally successful individuals. Adler suggests individuals face three major obstacles during their life- times that require a well -developed social interest, these include occupational tasks, where the individual contributes to society, societal tasks, which includes working together with other people to benefit mankind and love and marriage which requires emotional commitment and cohabitation as a family unit. Social interest is essentially a process by which the individual is able to integrate into society. Adler’s influence therefore is clearly evident in the work of William Glasser, despite the latter being predominately cognitive-behavioural in approach. It is also visible in the neo Adlerian Erich Fromm who developed his own theories which he defined as assimilation and socialization.

Adler’s definition of “social interest” has its roots in Marxist social theory which appealed to Adler’s egalitarian approach. Adler’s theory of social interest is intrinsically connected to an individual’s style of life in that an individual’s identity evolves from their choice of life style. An individual’s life style in turn influences how the individual solves life’s problems and what aspirations they wish to achieve. A healthy style of life allows the individual to be an integrated member of society whereas a poor choice of life style usually inspired by an internalized inherent inferiority complex or by a superiority complex is according to Adler doomed to fail. This aspect of Adler’s theory was later developed by William Glasser and can also be seen in the work of Carl Rogers.

Adler suggested four types of individual according to the way they associate to social interest. These included the dominant type, who wishes to dominate others, the leaning type who expects everything from others, the avoiding type, those who fear failure and therefore do not act and finally the socially useful type a well- integrated, who is able to live in harmony with others, contributes to society and lives a productive life. Karen Horney a neo Adlerian developed this theory further by suggesting ten neurotic needs that can be manifested in the individual. By 1945, Karen Horney was able to identify ten neurotic needs in three categories in her book Our Inner Conflicts. Horney proposed a series of strategies used by neurotics to cope with other people “Horney saw these three neurotic “solutions” to basic anxiety and hostility as ideal types. As concepts, each one forms a pure configuration of motives, feelings, and behaviours uncontaminated by the others. The dependent and domineering types, for example, are diametric opposites, and the detached type opposes them both. As extremes they represent analytical concepts, not actual people, who display greater variety, complexity, and intermeshing of characteristics than the types suggest. But the analytic purity of the types permits greater theoretical insight and development” (Westkott: 1986:81). Horney like Adler also believed that the root of tension was sociocultural and not sexual as it had been for Freud. (Myers, 2007). Karen Horney in turn influenced Erich Fromm who also developed a similar theory which he developed in several works including Man for Himself and later To Have or to Be? The personality types developed by Adler and his followers prove especially interesting when viewed within the Adlerian holistic dynamic.

The term Individual Psychology (Adler, 1932) is often misinterpreted. Adler’s theory highlights the holistic nature of the individual. As such Adler employed the term “individual” to highlight the integrity of the individual when others like Freud, were promoting the fragmented and conflictual nature of the individual in the form of id, ego and superego. Adler postulated a holistic theory that proposed the individual as a product of their family unit and cultural up-bringing that influences the goal that an individual works towards (Ferguson, 2000a). With Adler we begin to notice a move from the intrapsychic (within the psyche) to the interpsychic (interpersonal) relations.

Who was Lev Vygotsky?

Theorists such as Lev Vygotsky and Jean Piaget developed ideas that focussed primarily on the cognitive development of the individual. Vygotsky and Piaget were to heavily influence later theories in particular, Information Processing and Constructivism.

Lev Vygotsky’s theory can be succinctly summed up in his own words as he believed that:

“Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological).  This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of ideas.  All the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals” (Vygotsky, 1978:57).

Vygotsky’s approach is essentially sociocultural in that he believed individuals evolve by accommodating and responding to the culture that surrounds them, in this way children learn from elders in particular parents and family members. Vygotsky's theories underscore the basic role of social interaction in the development of cognition (Vygotsky, 1978), Vygotsky felt that the community plays a significant aspect in what he described as "making meaning." Piaget conversely suggested that a child’s development anticipated learning but Vygotsky inverted the process and argued, "learning is a necessary and universal aspect of the process of developing culturally organized, specifically human psychological function" (1978: 90).  Therefore according to Vygotsky social learning anticipates development.

Writing in post-revolutionary Russia, Vygotsky was essentially a Marxist and this is reflected in his theory of human development. As a Marxist, Vygotsky believed strongly in the concepts of collective co-operation. Vygotsky suggested that an individual’s development evolved directly from the culture they were born in, an idea essentially distilled from the Marxist theory of history and the concept of dialectical materialism, Vygotsky suggested “To study something historically means to study it in the process of change; that is the dialectical method's basic demand. To encompass in research the process of a given thing's development in all its phases and changes—from birth to death—fundamentally means to discover its nature, its essence, for it is only in movement that a body shows what it is. Thus the historical study of behaviour is not an auxiliary aspect of theoretical study, but rather forms its very base”. (1978:64–65). A parent’s behaviour therefore can be seen as distilling thousands of years of culture in the way the child is reared, a similar approach is echoed by Bowlby.

Vygotsky´s theory concentrates primarily on how thought and reasoning evolve. Vygotsky suggested that these skills evolve as a result of social interactions with other individuals, especially parents and to a lesser extent peers. Vygotsky suggested that a child’s parents reify the surrounding culture. 

Vygotsky (1978) maintains that the parent/pedagogue teaches behaviours and provides verbal guidance for the child, Vygotsky defines this as a co-operative or collaborative dialogue. The child therefore seeks to comprehend the data that the parent/pedagogue provides, processing the information in order to qualify their own behaviour. Vygotsky suggested “Learning awakens a variety of internal developmental processes that are able to operate only when the child is interacting with people in his environment and with his peers […] learning is not development; however, properly organized learning results in mental development and sets in motion a variety of developmental processes that would be impossible apart from learning. Thus learning is a necessary and universal aspect of the process of developing culturally organized, specifically human, psychological functions.” (1978: 90)

Vygotsky suggested that human development is intrinsically linked its sociocultural dimension.  Vygotsky maintains “The child begins to practice with respect to himself the same forms of behaviour that others formerly practiced with respect to him […] Hence, we may say that we become ourselves through others and that this rule applies not only to the personality as a whole, but also to the history of every individual function” (1966:39-43).

If we consider that Vygotsky’s theory is essentially concerned with psychological development within a cultural and a cognitive matrix, Vygotsky can be considered amongst the founders of cultural psychology as his approach is essentially sociocultural.