X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 10:35:36 PDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Rick Adams <adamsr@NETCOM.COM>
Subject:      Re: Anima
              92 4:54 pm

==> Speaking of meaningful, what do you mean by "meaningful"?  From my
==> understanding of your position it sounds like the words exotic or
==> esoteric could easily be put in the place of your "meaningful".  Since
==> my primary language is English, I'd like to couch the formulation of my
==> clients in English too.

	The concept I'm trying to convey (perhaps badly) is that by using
standard psychological terms (affiliation, social bonds, etc.), the
therapist limits the client's understanding to the dictionary definitions of
those terms. This _explains_ but does not encourage exploration.

	In some cases, this is sufficient, in others it may not be.

	By using terms the client is less familiar with, yet which still
have a precise meaning to the therapist and the profession, it is possible
to involve the client more fully in the therapeutic process - in cases where
that is appropriate.

	For example, by using Jungian archetypal symbols to discuss the
experiences the client is undergoing, the therapist encourages the client to
gain a greater understanding of various aspects of themself than might
otherwise be the case. Through an exploration of the internal concept of the
archetypes, the client is led to see parallels between themself and others,
and therefore led to understand the solutions which appear for them.

	The best example I can think of for this process is the type of
relationship which is presented so clearly in Joseph Campbell's "The Power
of Myth" series on PBS.

==> Buzz-words?  What's more buzzy than a German translation of some
==> obscure Latin word with a little ancient Greek and Sanskrit thrown in?

	Perhaps jargon?

==> Why take the client on a history lesson?  S/he probably has a personal
==> history that could use sorting out.  Let them be their own archetype.
==>
	Why do you insist that only a single approach is valid?

	I'm perfectly willing to admit (and have admitted frequently) that
different approaches are appropriate to different clients. For some, a
Jungian approach is ideal, for others cognitive, behavioral, or Freudian
approaches are more appropriate.

	Most therapists are willing to admit that not all problems are
amenable to any one approach. Is there a reason you are unwilling to include
Jung's approach among those you consider "acceptable?" Certainly by any
valid measurement it is as successful (in the appropriate cases) as any
other form of therapy.

==> This point seems irrelevent to me, not that I deny this "internal state"
==> Rather, I refute your assertion that only your insight-oriented,
==> psychodynamic therapy is capable of affecting a wholesale change in an
==> individual.  Frankly, it's a haughty position to imply with little
==> credible research to back it up.  (on several outcome measures:
==> residivism, time in treatment, etc.)
==>
	Now I'm totally puzzled.

	Since in every message I've posted I've argued the position that the
therapist should choose the therapeutic approach to fit the client, that
cognitive and behavioral approaches were appropriate in some cases while
psychodynamic ones were appropriate in others, and that I myself made use of
a variety of approaches, including behaviorism - I fail to see where your
statement has any validity. You have attacked a legitimate form of therapy
practiced by a great many sincere and dedicated professionals as though it
were both unscientific and valueless, then accused me of being haughty when
I defend that therapeutic approach as having reasonable validity.

	Clearly this conversation has reached the point at which further
debate is both pointless and would serve no valid purpose for the list. For
that reason I will withdraw from it before others become annoyed with the
discussion.

	Peace.

	Rick
--
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\  Reliable and affordable public access to
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \  telecommunications services is the
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  first step toward a global community.
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  Send Email for files on GEnie and Netcom.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU