Theoretical compatibility

This thread has made me think of some questions. Aren't different theoretical traditions more or less compatible with Erickson's approach? From my understanding, a psychoanalytical theoretical foundation would not be as compatible with Erickson's approach as a systemic/interactional view. Though both can potentially limit the therapist if followed blindly.

Erickson's approach seems to me to be the theory of a 'no-theory' in a Zen or Tao like way. To teach Erickson's approach from other theoretical perspectives, seems to me to be robbing it of its essence.

Comments would be much appreciated.

Regards,

Fredrik Haglund fred@myself.com

Replies:

Some more thoughts, by Larry Meisel, 6/5/98 Erickson evolved/changed , by Stephen Lankton, 6/11/98 reassociation of experiential life -- and (initial) association?, by David Cook, 7/20/98 Reassociation query, by Marķa Noel Berthet, 9/30/98 No analysis for Erickson, by Jeffrey K. Zeig, 6/11/98 Theory of change, by Stephen Lankton, 6/11/98 Erickson and Aikido, by Eric P. Simon, 6/11/98 Very congruent, by Stephen Lankton, 6/13/98

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.