Royal College of Psychiatrists Psychotherapy Faculty Newsletter Spring/Summer 2013
Many psychotherapists like to claim that we learn from our clinical experience but what we “see” in our patients is largely determined by a priori knowledge that structures our minds.
The origin of this a priori knowledge is multiple. We draw on the observations, or rather the conclusions, of other psychotherapists who wrote our professional literature but also borrow some concepts from other disciplines. Some approaches try to explain the human mind or its relationships: infant observation, attachment psychology, ethology, developmental theories, neurobiological approaches. These are fields we feel close to ours and with which we enrich our experience. Other fields might appear a bit more distant, like history, literature and philosophy but we also draw from them. The list of disciplines that contribute to our thinking is limitless since nothing human is alien to us… or is it?
Theology does not appear at first sight to be something that contributes much to our thinking but it might be a scotoma that once solved could greatly enhance our understanding of our patients. It needs to be noted that during a whole millennium most of the western thought was restricted to Christian Theology. . Do we really assume that our civilization did not produce anything of value in our study of the human mind and its vicissitudes?
I would like to propose a couple of examples in which I think that theological studies have something to offer as a token to show that this might be a field worth exploring.
At present, we are trying to tease out the place of verbal versus non-verbal psychotherapies, or the role of verbal and non verbal components of psychotherapy, apparently breaking new ground with the help of neuroimaging and pondering the value of the different brain hemispheres. In fact, the role of non verbal communication, at least in the field of monotheistic religions, has been questioned since the time of the Exodus. The contributions of Gregory of Nissa (c. 335-c. 395) in particular, were pivotal in the adoption of religious imagery by Christians as a way, among other things to transmit ideas to those who would not be reached in a written verbal form. Other theologians argued about the value of images in order to motivate or inspire. The long tradition of discussions on this topic is still alive and there are deep discrepancies between the positions of the Reformed and the Catholic churches to name two extreme positions. However, Psychotherapy as a field does not seem to be tapping into these arguments.
The problems of Grace and Salvation might be particularly relevant to psychotherapists trying to promote change. How is it that an external influence can lead to internal changes in thought, feeling and intention? Although psychotherapists´ influence is only human and not everything that has been said about the Holy Spirit affecting the soul can be directly translated to our work, there might be some mileage in exploring some of the arguments that have been used. Calvin considers that man is trapped in sin and his will is useless in leading him away from it, only external Grace can make a change in this situation. Arminius (1560-1609), on the contrary, considers that man´s will is essential in its use of Grace and eventual salvation. Berskeretuti Catholicism encompasses different positions, all of which support the importance of free will in the achievement of salvation. Is the patient trapped in his internal objects and unreachable to therapeutic efforts? What does an analysand´s will amount to in the therapeutic process?
The main point I am trying to make here is not in these examples, not even in the Theology itself, but in raising the question: what fields of knowledge are we neglecting as psychotherapists and to what extent our professional culture is biased by a selective approach to our sources?
Comentarios recientes