"The statement that perhaps psychotherapy could not exist without abuse is somewhat discomforting. Could you define "abuse," or would one need to read one of the books mentioned?" It is of course very helpful to read these books in order to understand ALL of what I am referrng to. In general what I mean by the PARTICULAR statement that psychotherapy could not exist without abuse is that the profession of psychotherapy exists to protect itself as a profession as much or more so than it exists to serve its patients. Like the parent who uses his/her children to be the parents' parent, and thus disregards the child's developmental needs, the psychotherapist AS A PROFESSIONAL exist to be served financially by his/her patients. What results then is that the persons most in need of psychotherapy help can't get it because they can't afford it, and persons who can afford psychotheapy can get it but are never taught to examine the means by which they earn their living--since their income IS the source of the therapist's income, too. In effect, then, psychotherapy as a profession exists to serve the profession of psychotherapy much more than it exists to serve its clients--because it either refuses to serve the neediest (poor) clients or it serves the privileged clients whose priviledge is often paid for by others' hardship---for such is the nature of wealth in a socially and economically unjust world such as ours. You cannot have a profession of psychotherapy that honestly addresses the moral dimension of human life--which is what psychological disturbance is all about, the moral dimension of life--unless the profession is also concernd with issues of social justice such as an equitable distribution of wealth and its means of acquisition. Psychotherapy could exist without abusivenss, but a profession of psychotherapy that is an elite profession that pays well cannot exist without the profession being a tacit instrument to fortify the status quo, and the status quo is one of social and economic injustice galore. You asked: "Is abuse too multifaceted to define in this forum?" I don't think so. It is simply too painful to consider in its many dimensions. It is always easier to look at how others are abusive, and this what theapists do best...look at others' abusiveness. This makes them poor critics of their own abusiveness. You asked: "For example, is it abusive for a therapist to probe in areas that the client is clearly reluctant to discuss? Is it abusive for the therapist to seek to satisy his/her own curiosity? These are not the kinds of things I have in mind with the statement you found disconcerting. Sometimes these reactions you cite may be therapeutic blunders and sometimes they may be helpful to clients. The kinds of abusses I had in mind when I referred to the statement that the profession could not exist without abusiveness is something beyond the matter of these microanalyses of technique. My particular comment is about whether PSYCHOtheapy should be done at all in many cases where what is really needed is social activism and much more citizen responsiblity designed to make our world more tolerable for so many psychologically afflicted persons who find the social world they live in to be unloving, exploitative, or frankly inhumane. Psychotherapy that proceeds apace even with the good intentions of professional psychotheapists is likely to be tacitly abusvie as it goes on its way ignoring social realities having to do with social and economic injustices. Such fundemantal neglect of our common human-social nature is an abuse of a patient's human dignity--and it is a misplaced emphasis on personal problems that are actually soical problems, a misplaced emphasis that makes the profession of psychotherapists rich by acting as the servant of an unjust status quo.
Replies:
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.