Existential psychology

Post Reply New Topic

The other day, I was helping a friend who is doing her MA in clinical psychology with an outline for a paper that compares the existential and analytical (Jungian) branches. While I was doing it, it occurred to me that some ideas of the neurodiversity movement are very similar to the key ideas in existential psychology.

Consider the following:

- There is no "normal". Everybody is different, and everybody without exception has issues of one sort or another.

- There is no such thing as mental illness (and, consequently, no such thing as sanity). There are only different ways of being, i.e., different ways in which people see the world and live their lives, and the different choices they make throughout the course of their lifetime which may make things more or less difficult for them.

- Therapy is about restoring a sense of authenticity and value to the client's life, and helping them become truly who they are. It is supposed to teach one to be honest with oneself, to realize and admit one's failures or shortcomings, to take advantage of one's positive traits and turn the negative ones into something useful, and to face emotional crises and suffering more boldly.

- It is useless and impossible to try to "normalize" the client (since there is no normal in the first place). However, the therapist can help them stop engaging in self-deception and learn to see themselves for who they are; they should also be made aware of the vast variety of choices they could make in the future, from which they are free to select any that will match their personality best. As a result, their life will become much more joyful and fulfilling.

- Each person is unique, and this uniqueness is to be cherished.

- Diagnosing is just another variety of "label-sticking", and should be avoided. It reduces a person to a single "broken" function or a set of such functions, and, as a result, disregards every person's innate uniqueness and the fact that their personality is a harmonious, indivisible whole. Also, any person is broader than any single definition, like one offered by a diagnosis.

- During therapy, the therapist and client should be on equal terms, and should strive for establishing an I-Thou relationship (that is, the therapist should respect and accept the client for who they are, and try and empathize with their experience, "walk in their shoes" as it were). It is unacceptable for the therapist to try and interpret the client's experience from her or hwe own standpoint, to make judgments, or, above all, to pressure or force the client into doing anything they do not want to do.

Etc.

This is a widely acclaimed and respected branch of psychology, and, while not everybody may agree with its ideas, nobody attacks its proponents for daring to suggest that people should be accepted for who they are. Nobody goes hysterical over the way it suggests that people should try to find their own path rather than try and be "normal". I have a hard time imagining a Kit Weintraub saying how afraid she is of it, since it might, Heaven forbid, teach her son that he is fine just the way he is.

Still, those who support the neurodiversity movement constantly get attacked and insulted for voicing the very same ideas. I wonder why.

(I'm not even speaking about the fact that these ideas have a universal ethical feel to them, and should have been self-evident by their very nature).

By the way, all this made me curious about what is meant by existential therapy of developmental disroders. I have a feeling that it might actually be a useful thing.

Here is my take on it:

Existentialists (Kierkegaard, Sartre, etc.) focus on the individual's search for meaning. Most refer to an existential crisis (like angst or anxiety) which leads a person on a quest to discover or create meaning in their lives. Similarly, existential therapies (like gestalt therapy and logotherapy) attempt to help the patient or client find or construct meaning in their lives.

Although existentialism was one of the movements which influenced postmodernism (e.g. Jean-François Lyotard) and poststructuralism (e.g., Michel Foucault), I would not myself refer to existentialism as a postmodern philosophy.

The term neurodiversity was apparently coined by Judy Singer:

"The rise of Neurodiversity takes postmodern fragmentation one step further. Just as the postmodern era sees every once too solid belief melt into air, even our most taken-for granted assumptions: that we all more or less see, feel, touch, hear, smell, and sort information, in more or less the same way, (unless visibly disabled) are being dissolved."
http://www.neurodiversity.com.au/whypolitics.htm

There is, in the above quotation, no existential assumption regarding a search for meaning. Singer is simply observing what Lyotard called, "an incredulity toward metanarratives." In other words, rather than regarding only a limited neurological range as acceptable (these days often referred to as the "neurotypical"), Singer would like us to view all neurologies, including of those on the autism spectrum, as acceptable.

If there is a therapeutic modality close to the notion of neurodiversity, I would suggest it is narrative therapy (not the existential therapies). For instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_Therapy

Frankly, I fail to see anything "postmodern" about the idea underlying neurodiversity. It is a HUMANE idea first and foremost, and that's about it.

There is nothing "postmodern" about cherishing and loving people for who they are. Jesus was saying that we should do the same two thousand years ago, and so have many wise people throughout history. So will any more or less kind person nowadays. It is an age-old and fairly obvious value.

Yes, I do. I should probably have said that, Freudian psychology usually being referred to as psychoanalytical.