When scientists were polled recently about the greatest discovery in science, the majority chose Darwin’s Evolution. It explained so much in so many fields of scientific endeavor. That includes psychotherapy. In my opinion evolution is essential in the treatment of emotional problems. To put it differently, no one can make significant progress in psychotherapy when evolution is not central to its process. The brain developed in three major cycles, first described by Paul MacLean. I describe them as instinct/energy, feeling and then thinking. Each evolved and has many connections to higher levels. If we do a therapy with only the last evolved; that is, cognitive/insight therapy, we have neglected a great deal of our evolution. It is tantamount to neglecting most of our ancient history and, of course, most of our early personal history. When we ignore two thirds of our brain how can we possibly get well? I think that the thinkers (the cognitive/insight therapists) “cure” their patients so that they think they are better. This leaves out physiology and feeling.
Therefore, we need to systematically measure physiologic changes in our psychotherapy. Otherwise, we can have great new attitudes but our bodies may be degenerating.
I have often called my therapy, “evolution in reverse.” It includes evolution as its kernel. And it is that sense of evolution that makes it revolutionary. Because it overturns most current thinking about the value of thinking, particularly in terms of measuring progress in psychotherapy. What we feel is what we feel no matter what exhortations take place. And those often buried feelings determine our actions. Feelings can be deviated but there is always a home for them in the brain. They cannot be changed; though we can change our thinking about them, denying or projecting them.
Thoughts, bereft of feelings are, in essence, homeless; they have no roots. So any proper psychotherapy must adhere to the laws of biology and evolution; we need to find our roots, the basis of some many of our thoughts and beliefs. The history of mankind is found in us today, and the history of man/us is found in us, as well. When we follow our history in reverse it again must adhere to the natural order of things. In therapy if we do rebirthing it defies evolutionary principles by attacking the most remote and early imprints first. We must start in the present, give ourselves a good foundation in regard to our current lives and associated feelings and then finally arrive at the reptilian/instinctive brain a long time later. These are biologic laws that cannot be disregarded. Thus it is clear that rebirthing cannot ever work; indeed it most likely creates damage; and I have seen and treated the damage it does.
Any ploy or mechanism by a therapist that defies evolution will end in failure because evolution is merciless and unrelenting; it is how we survived. It will not allow us to cheat on its principles. If evolution is neglected it will perforce end in abreaction; the release of feeling without connection and resolution. Bioenergetics, focusing the body and muscles violates that law. Focusing on bodily release (the Gestalt Therapy, “act like an ape!” is inadequate). LSD and hallucinogens completely disregard the neurologic order of the nervous system, and spray feelings everywhere with no possible connection. A primal will teach us evolution because it will follow the neuraxis precisely and tell us where and how evolution took place.
Grettings Arthur,
ReplyDeleteI was in PT in LA way back in the 70's. It's especially nice to see Evolution discussed in relation to psychotherapy. There is plenty of good evidence from the developmentalists such as Piaget in this area which backs up the connections you make. Ken Wilber has pointed out that the sequence of evolution, both in the species, and in the individual is that each stage "transcends but includes" it's predescessor, as can be readily seen in the human organism, i.e we still have the lower 'reptillian' levels in our biology. Right down at the cellular level, our bodies reflect the earliest origins of life itself.
However, as Wilber says, sometimes "transcend and include" becomes "transcend and repress", and that's when conflict arises. The interesting thing to me is that this kind of patterning is discernible both in individuals and in larger 'holons' (Arthur Koestler's word) such as social groups and cultures. 'Transcend and include' will always tend to alllow energy to flow freely throughout a given system. 'Transcend and repress' will inevitably lead to pressure and tension from whatever is denied or distorted, be that 'lower brain' , 'lower class' etc. etc. Arguably though, this very tension may constitute one of the drivers of the evolutionary process. Harry Stack Sullivan was onto this with his three stage model back in the 40's; unfortunately the language was a little obtuse, Protaxic, Parataxic, and Syntaxic, I prefer your terminology, but he had the right idea, and he also described how traumas can cause one level to impact on the next, e.g. "Parataxic Distortion" of the Syntaxic (i.e.cognitive) thinking processes. The important thing is that the levels need to become conciously and clearly differentiated within a holistic framework. Having said that, all 'abberations' thus generated are arguably no more or less 'natural' than anything else, no way of being more 'normal' than any other, because repression is itself evidently adaptive and a product of evolution.
A key point I feel though is that all psychotherapies, including Primal, are themselves also recent products of evolution. How could they possibly be anything else? Presumably we evolved repression, the ability to shunt pain and trauma temporarily out of conciousness, out of absolute necessity so that the species might survive. It would now appear that, as a species, we are perhaps attempting to evolve ways of repairing some of the damage that was done on our long and painful evolutionary journey, psychotherapy being one possible response to that species-wide 'primal need'. In this larger context, local disputes about what is 'normal', who has the 'right way' can seem trivial. To quote Wilber again, "No one is 100% wrong. We are all touching part of the elephant". The challenge for all is to create Holarchies (transcend and include) rather than Heirarchies (transcend and repress). Psychotherapists of whatever persuasion do not somehow stand outside evolution itself.
As a species, as you rightly say, we must "start in the present". Just as the individual needs a trustworthy 'cognitive life-raft' in place to safely access deep feelings without fragmenting, so does a society need a robust intellectual superstructure from which to access and integrate it's own collective demons. And the progression is as always, a dialectical one, breakdown, breakthrough, integrate and evolve, a constant churning and recycling of biological, emotional, ideological, psychic and spiritual processes. The dance of a Cosmos of which we are such an infinitessimal part. The 'fully functioning' human has perhaps yet to evolve on any wide scale. Psychotherapy holds the potential to be both revolutionary and truly evolutionary, but with just one caveat: I think it was Aurobindo who said something like "in order to truly see reality one must first remove oneself from the centre of the picture" .
best wishes
Jennifer Maidman (Musician, and Integrative Therapist, UK)
Dr. Janov,
ReplyDeleteThe title suggests an essay that treats both evolution and revolution, but it seems the revolution part is either implicit or postponed for a later chapter. Maybe the idea is that the revolutionary techniques fail because they are revolution instead of evolution; discontinuity instead of continuity. That would be a good point. I'm old enough, though, to remember the title of a book you authored called The Primal Revolution. I hope at least one of the next two blogs in this series will weave your reflections on that book into the current, modern perspective.
It could be I've anticipated your point about evolution/revolution incorrectly. I'm at a loss for a conjunction right now, but I'm thinking that sometimes the stage is correctly set for revolution, too. How do we know?
Always enjoy your essays. Best wishes,
Walden
Walden: The revolution is coming. art janov
ReplyDeleteI'm just reflecting on this evolution stuff, and evolution in reverse, as you call it. Shouldn't it be the same with the evolution of therapy? In other words, if there is going to be a spread of knowledge about how to treat the human condition in a deeper way, doesn't that mean that you have to first engage the cognitivists in a way that satisfies them (like feeling the third line fully before going deeper)? And if you don't do that, if you recruit "evolution" in your argument for why modern therapy is not good enough because it doesn't go deep, and then you make a showstopper issue out of agreement about that depth and what it means, then aren't you failing on your own terms to take evolution in reverse?
ReplyDeleteWalden
Dr. Janov
ReplyDelete”What we feel is what we feel no matter what exhortations take place.” How can we be true to what we feel, if we are constantly forced to ignore our feelings. There is a dominating, emotionless reality out there, even among professionals, we cannot avoid.
Sieglinde
Walden,
ReplyDeleteThe world needs a new paradigm for psychology.
Don't you see this isn't working? you can't convince the convinced.
The only thing to be done these days is research into the huge gap between neurology and psychology. When someone comes up with a complete picture of what a feeling is in pure scientific terms, and creates a theory showing the full scope of relations between "body and mind" (as the old philosophical debate calls it), only then will there be a foundation for change, and then it will probably take time for it to settle in, as is always the case with revolutions in science.
One must speak to people in their own language in order for them to understand, and once you offer a theory which can't be refuted, you unbalance the system, in hope that the new balance pivot will be yours.
Walden,
ReplyDeleteHow should you ask a question about what you do... when what you do makes the question impossible? This revolution must be done by surpassed by a number of people certifying primal therapy's effects... the cognitive must find its own way ... they are too strong in their faith through requirements on their "professional" training... but all what you do or try puts a seed to the revolution and hopefully you will bring some of the cognitive therapists to Janovs institute.
Sincerely
Frank Larsson
Take a look at Jaak Panksepp.
ReplyDeleteDelphi,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you at the start and at the end, but not in the middle.
You say a new paradigm is needed. I agree. You say "one must speak to people in their own language...". I agree.
In your middle part where you say "the only thing to be done..." I disagree before I read the end of the sentence. Any time you think there is only one possible solution, you should stop and think at least two more times. Putting the science in place so that no one could rationally disagree with it is just not ever going to work. Come on, folks, change doesn't happen like that. People don't accept change because they've been cornered into accepting it. You can be ahead of the curve, and right, and too demanding of those you wish to sway, and never make a dent. But there are other ways.
Walden
Frank,
ReplyDeleteI don't get your first point; too abstract for me.
"Cognitivists", what are those?
These days probably the majority of students interested in clinical psychology get pushed in the direction of the cognitive therapies because that's the current status quo. It's safe; it's what the universities teach.
But that doesn't mean that some of those students are not human and open to other ideas, and open to their own feelings when they see another person hurting and needing to express.
Narrow the gap; don't widen it.
Walden
Jennifer: THis is very bright stuff. Congratulations Jennifer. I enjoy letters of this caliber. art janov
ReplyDelete