Reflections on Psychodynamic Theory
I wrote this reflective essay for our theory and practice class at the University of Rochester. The professor asked us to reflect after learning about psychodynamic theoretical content. I have included my reflection below.
Reflective Essay 3
This essay critically reflects on my learnings from Module 3: A small taste of the psychoanalytic tradition, through readings of theory, class discussions, and personal experiences. It draws primarily from Chapters 2, 4, and 3 of Theoretical Models of Counseling and Psychotherapy (Fall, Holden, & Marquis, 2017), which look at, in order, Freud and his original ideas of Psychoanalysis, Adler and his Individual Psychology, and finally contemporary schools, with a focus on Kohut's Self psychology.
Freud believed our psyche emerges during childhood as energy from the interplay between innate disposition and our environment. Freud defined the purpose of life as to satisfy our innate biological needs; he called this the pleasure principle. Individuals use drives to satisfy needs by pursuing objects (via a process of cathexis). Freud also provides us with a topological map of the psyche, defining the conscious, preconscious, and unconscious, and a structural model of the psyche, defining the id, ego, and superego. Freud developed free association as a technique to gain insight and invented the concept of defense mechanisms. Freud also provided us with a psychosexual stage-based development model.
Upon reflection, Freud’s model seems to focus on the individual. If I view Freud's theories from a Kantian perspective, drive theory seems to treat others as means to an end, not ends in themselves. Does Freud's theory strip away the dignity of others by seeing them as something to dominate, to satisfy our biological needs? I also notice that Freud's psychoanalysis has a focus on the past, compared to the more here-and-now focus of Humanism and Cognitive Behavioral schools. This past focus, along with tools like free association and interpretation, could facilitate profound change. However, it also makes me wonder if Freud’s psychoanalysis is so subjective and broadly expansive that one could spend hours a week in analysis for their entire life. When is therapy enough therapy?
In class, we discussed that many of Freud's ideas are not universal as he claimed, while some still hold validity, many have been disproven, for example, his claims about the sexual origins of neurosis, gender development, and dream function. How harmful is applying these discredited ideas today? Psychoanalysis places such subjective power in the hands of an analyst. How do we prevent interpretations from being oppressive? What about the analyst who dogmatically insists your dream is about sexual urges, and that you are resistant, when it has nothing to do with that? Feminist thinkers, such as Kamber, have called psychoanalytic theory a reproductive engine of patriarchy (Kamber, 2016, p. 2). Tummala-Narra emphasizes how Freud's theories also discard social context and are limited to a particular cultural milieu (Tummala-Narra, 2013, p. 476). From a metacognitive perspective, I see myself realizing how important it is never to insist on any ideas on behalf of my client, to make the client's perspective central, including their culture and, seeing the role of society.
After Freud, Adler developed Individual Psychology after departing from the Vienna Circle. For Adler, the goal of life was not the pleasure principle, but to achieve self-mastery and belonging in society, making Individual Psychology relationally oriented. Adler believed the psyche structures itself around a "lifestyle," which is a way of social being in the world. A lifestyle will usually have an unconscious long-term goal, and "fictions" which are idealistic beliefs about how one should be to achieve their goal. Adler believed there were five major tasks of life that we strive to meet within society: love, work, friendship, Self, and spirituality.
Reflecting on Individual Psychology, it feels like a more optimistic and relational development of Freud’s Hobbesian ideas, emphasizing cooperation and pro-social integration rather than competition. However, Adler still inherits many problems from Freud, such as a fixed cultural viewpoint. Alder is future oriented, unlike Freud, yet the idea of having a single personal goal (telos) is still highly individualistic. I wonder, despite being relational, would Adler's theory get off the ground in more collectivist cultures found in say, Asia or Africa? Adler also waters down the depth work we see in Freud's unconscious; is he throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Moreover, to what extent is Adler's positivity toxic? Discarding the darker parts of human existence? Adler's optimism comes across in some ways as spiritual. Is Adler attempting to create a style of religiosity?
Building on both Freud and Adler, contemporary psychodynamic approaches have further diversified. Today the field includes four major approaches: drive theory, Ego psychology, Object relations, and Self psychology. Self psychology, developed by Kohut, inverted Freud's drive theory, stating the meaning of life is not to fulfill biological needs, but rather to connect with other things (usually humans) called "selfobjects" to develop a Self. Kohut created a stage model of how the Self develops, which focuses on relational empathy by primary caregivers. Therapy, for Kohut, was a process of "reparenting" and providing a context where a therapist could build an alliance, but then make healthy mistakes with the client, where the client then learns to recover and repair from relational imperfections independently.
Reflecting on Kohut’s Self psychology, I sensed a shift away from Freud’s individual, competitive drive model and Adler’s cooperative social model toward a fully relational understanding of the psyche - one in which the Self emerges through empathic responses from others. Does Kohut still place too much emphasis on early childhood relations? What about the role of society and our ability to change outside of our caregivers' influence? Not to mention the role of genetics, which, from class discussion, I believe, contributes about 60% towards outcomes? Does Kohut fall into the trap of idealizing empathy as the primary mechanism of development? I also question the power dynamics involved in this model. Is Self psychology's "reparenting" creating dependence between the client and analyst?
Overall, this module left me energized but cautious. Seeing the vision of Freud inspired me; however, I recognize mistakes he made. Adler, Kohut, and other thinkers have developed Freud's ideas, and it appears that psychodynamic theory is alive and thriving, atop a larger legacy of ideas than the Humanist and Cognitive Behavioral schools. This legacy is a double-edged sword; it adds depth, but also baggage, and creates risk of improper handling. I want to use psychodynamic theory, but cautiously and responsibly, and alongside humanistic and CBT techniques within this larger legacy.
References
Fall, K. A., Holden, J. M., & Marquis, A. (2017). Theoretical models of counseling and psychotherapy (4th ed.). Routledge.
Kamber, N. K. (2016). Feminism and psychoanalysis. In N. A. Naples (Ed.), The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of gender and sexuality studies (pp. 1–3). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss471
Tummala-Narra, P. (2013). Psychoanalytic applications in a diverse society. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 30(3), 471–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031375
