EMDR FORUM ARCHIVE, 2000
Re:Science and Pseudoscience
Barbara · 12/23/02 at 3:54 PM ET
Actually, according to the way that I read the McNally quote, he isn't necessarily suggesting that EMDR is bad, but merely that it, like mesmerism, was/is considered to have developed at the fringe of psychotherapy. That is neither good nor bad. From my understanding, mesmerism is different because it developed simultaneously with what has become mainstream psychotherapy. Spiritualism, mesmerism, and pyschoanalysis arose in similar social roots in the nineteenth century. Pyschoanalyis survived to become mainstream because it purged itself of the spiritual and mystical, basing itself rather firmly in scientific principles at least in theory, which shaped the collective mind of the past 100 years. In short, science was the Christianity of the last century or so. We are now revisiting concepts rooted in religion and mysticism in many was, but strikingly so in psychology. There's a renewed interest in the unconscious mystical mind (don't want to give Freud all the credit). So we see the emergence of EMDR and other forms of therapy that attempt to access what was once the domain of religion and spirituality. It comes from the fringe. All striking social change comes from that place that in the beginning is considered odd and/or dangerous. This doesn't mean that EMDR is correct or effective. It only means that it is an attempt, successful or not, to bring back a piece of what has been known to heal universally in all cultures, spirit. But, I bet, because those in the mainstream EMDR tradition want validation from the scientific community, this will be refuted. However, as I see it, a big part of EMDR is a sort of meditation, and meditation is a from of spiritual healing.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
