This is a response to the recent post about Torah and Psychology. It is very concise but covers most of the issues raised. Read it slowly and carefully.
I. Partial list of potential relationships between Torah and psychology/psychiatry.
1. Torah and/or Psychology i.e. a relationship between equals – compare and contrast these separate entities2. Torah versus Psychology i.e. a relationship based on adversity or competition (between equals)3. Torah analyzes Psychology i.e. Torah as the superior entity determines the value of all things in our world – including psychology.4. Psychology of Torah i.e. Psychology analyzes Torah from a superior position- found often in academic frameworks5. Using psychology to ‘prove Torah as relevant or ‘true’ i.e. psychology being the gold standard and paradoxically superior.6. Psychology as religion the standard to define goals, means and standards of ‘good living’ and ‘health’.
II. Different types of therapist
I have encountered all of these relationships in my many years of working and teaching mental health professionals. I went through some of them myself before finding a home. I have categorized my colleagues and students into three very different groups:
1. Secular therapists - #6 His or her training determines what language and techniques can and should be used. Religious issues are ‘just content’.2. A therapist who is religious - #1 His or her primary identification is with ‘psyc theory and interventions’. Psyc will determine health and goals. Religion is a person value not to be allowed to contaminate therapy.3. A religious therapist -#3 - I use Torah language and goals supplementing my Torah work with people using secular instruments for measuring outcome and on occasion some medication.
III. Two Basic Tenents of all modern Psychotherapy.
All of modern psychotherapy is predicated on two basic tenets: the use of talking to develop a ‘clients’ ability to productively decide and carry out his goals in life. All of the divergent theories and systems of psychotherapy have seemingly contradictory vocabularies: Gestalt – emotional expression
Cognitive – thoughts and ideas patterns of decision making
Psychodynamic – early childhood memories and emotions
Jungian – dreams and symbolism
Family therapy – structure, boundaries, relationships
Solution oriented – identifying strengths planning future activities
This all too short summary does not do justice to the depth and vastness of these theories and descriptions of the helping processes. It does though show that there is no one acceptable theory is recognized or ‘proven’ to be effective or efficient. All are based on human dreams, ideas, theories, or attractive nonsense.
All of these, and many more other therapies, have two things in common: a central tool is ‘talking or speech’. The second common element is the goal to influence who I am talking with – to help him ‘get better, healthier, happier, more in control of his or her life.’
Talking and helping the person to ultimately be more in control of some part of his or her life.
Thousands of pages, books, and training seminars. Each approach claims to be the ‘one’ way to help.
IV. My personal Torah based approach
The Torah approach I use is based on 16 words:
Genesis II, 7
Then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.[1]
We were given two gifts: the power of speech and freedom to choose. I work only with these two gifts.
The non-Jews were on to something when the developed “psychology”. Like many things from Torah they didn’t understand the depth – they got only the outer covering, they were moving in the right direction, but stopped too soon .
We have the whole ‘thing’ – Adam body and soul.
I believe the ongoing discussion of about ‘psychology’: “Kosher or not” is at best misplaced.
These two gifts are enough to carry out a fully effective and efficient helping process plus they come from a trusted source.
Baruch Shulem
I am an Orthodox psychodynamic therapist. It has been my experience that many religious therapists not only use their religion in treatment, but more alarmingly, impose their values on their patients. I think this is detrimental and professionally negligent.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated the honesty of this post, and I'm sure the writer knows when to bracket his religious beliefs to foster his patients' personal growth. I would caution therapists, however, to consider their religious beliefs somehow different than other forms of counter transference. That is, it's effect upon the patient is the most important quality in the therapeutic context.
I think that M. Scott Peck's "The Road Less Travelled" series does an excellent job integrating the spiritual and psychoanalytic aspects of therapy.
I feel like something is missing here.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens in cases where a) the underlying theories of a specific psychological approach are verifiable (as indeed they usually are, by reading the research devoted to that approach, especially from its originators), and found to be based on an interpretation of a certain phenomenon, and...
b) authoritative sources in Chazal (however the word "authoritative" is defined, by agreement of all parties involved) are found to clearly deal with same phenomenon as psychology does, using very different interpretations that clearly contradict the interpretation that psychology offers, with major ramifications.
The question would now be, can a psychologist who self identifies as an Orthodox Jew continue to use the psychological approach that contravenes the authoritative Chazal approach in his practice, and still maintain that his orientation is anything besides #2 stated above? I'd think that he runs afoul of ethics violations that require Cultural Competence if he does so without a waiver from his Orthodox client. Is there another way of looking at it?
Mr. Ploni wrote,
ReplyDelete"What happens in cases where a) the underlying theories of a specific psychological approach are verifiable" ?
The observations and facts of psychology, are not pure facts, like the observations of an astronomer, chemist, botanist or geologist. The observations of psychologists are human behaviour, and human behaviour is a product of people's values and bechirah. The "verifiable" "facts" of psychology are not the same as planets, chemicals, plants and rocks respectively.
Sigmund wrote, "I think that M. Scott Peck's "The Road Less Travelled" series does an excellent job integrating the spiritual and psychoanalytic aspects of therapy."
ReplyDeleteBut Scott Peck is a Christian writer!! Do we want that schlepped into psychotherapy? (As if psychotherapy itself were totally pure in the first place.)
I googled "Scott Peck" and found the wikipedia article where he says, " "After many years of vague identification with Buddhist and Islamic mysticism, I ultimately made a firm Christian commitment – signified by my non-denominational baptism on the ninth of March 1980..." (Peck, 1983/1988,[7]" !! Besides that he still schleps in all the other questionable psychology like Jung for example.
Of course there are some strange mystical thinkers who hold by the ridiculous idea that they can "Add Jewish Values" to the whole of Goyishkeit and so doing, "elevate it into a higher spiritual plane". This is twisting the idea, that if you eat a chicken and make a brachah and bentsch over it, you "elevate it into a higher spiritual plane", forgetting that the chicken still had to be kosher in the first place!
Mr. Ploni wrote,
ReplyDelete"What happens in cases where a) the underlying theories of a specific psychological approach are verifiable" ?
The observations and facts of psychology, are not pure facts, like the observations of an astronomer, chemist, botanist or geologist. The observations of psychologists are human behaviour, and human behaviour is a product of people's values and bechirah. The "verifiable" "facts" of psychology are not the same as the observed facts of planets, chemicals, plants and rocks respectively.
Without getting into his theories, I think Peck is a terrible role model. His book might have spent 10+ years on the NYT bestseller's list, but Peck himself hardly practiced what he preached. I'd think an Orthodox therapist could and should use theories that actually WORKED for their authors. This is the kind of thing I was alluding to in my last comment
ReplyDelete"Dr. Peck wrote eloquently about love, marital fidelity
and serf-discipline, yet he engaged in multiple infidelities during his
40-year marriage to Lily Ho Peck. (She filed for divorce in 2003, and
the next year he married Kathleen Kline Yeates, With whom he had
maintained a long-term relationship.) Mr. Jones explains that Dr. Peck
rationalized his infidelities by publicly admitting them. "He lived
as if admitting a wrong or a fault of itself brought forgiveness, that
the admission obviated the need to express remorse, make amends and seek
a genuine reconciliation." Ironically, this emotionally scarred man
would inspire millions of people to "move on more boldly with their
lives."
source: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/M.+Scott+Peck's+turbulent+life.-a0164422037
I used a poor choice of words here. What I meant was that the theory itself can be ascertained, not that it is empirically verified. IOW, we can figure out the theory behind the practice.
ReplyDeleteIn part two I was saying that we know from authoritative Torah sources that the theory is WRONG.
... so my question (which of course remained unanswered) was if a frum therapist can still claim to practice "Jewishly" although the theory on which his practice is based clearly contradicts authoritative Torah sources.
Dr. Shulem:
ReplyDeleteyou seem to be using a collaborative approach to case conceptualization. There's a lot of backing to such an approach.
Did you ever see: Assessing Competence in Collaborative Case
Conceptualization: Development and Preliminary Psychometric Properties of the Collaborative Case Conceptualization Rating Scale (CCC-RS) Kuyken, Beshai, Dudley, Abel, et al.
Published online: 28 January 2015
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1352465814000691
Jonathan:
ReplyDeleteI didn't have the time yet to read your whole comment, but this caught
my eye:
"much of the blame must lie at the door of Freud, the father of psychotherapy, who emphasized a sexual approach. A core concept
of Freudian psychology is ‘Repression’, and it is clear that Freud wanted to ease people out of their past religious restrictions and not the other way around."
Not so clear that Freud held that in theory (in practice you're surely right). He actually left room for sublimation, which could correlate with Chazal and דרך הבעל שם טוב. i think they all didn't practice what they preached (including Freud who it seems had a long-time adulterous relationship during his marriage) because they where not מחשיב the אמת. see רבינו יונה משלי ג-ג.
Here's what Freud said in a lecture. This from The Ethical Dimension of Psychoanalysis, A Dialogue By W. W. Meissner:
" The charge of sexual libertinism, leveled against Freud on the basis of his tolerance for sensual and sexual wishes and criticism of restrictive and punitive attitudes toward instinctual derivatives, seems to misread his position. He took up the challenge in his lectures at Clark University (1909b), arguing that the alternative was not simply acting out sexual impulses without restraint, but rather that neurotic restraints imposed through repression or other defenses could be replaced with conscious moral restraints:
If what was repressed is brought back again into conscious mental activity . . . the resulting psychical conflict, which the patient had tried to avoid, can, under the physician’s guidance, reach a better outcome than was offered by repression. There are a number of such opportune solutions, which may bring the conflict and the neurosis to a happy end, and which may in certain instances be combined. The patient’s personality may be convinced that it has been wrong in rejecting the
pathogenic wish and may be led into accepting it wholly or in part; or the wish itself may be directed to a higher and consequently unobjectionable aim (this is what we call its “sublimation”); or the rejection of the wish may be recognized as a justifiable one, but the automatic and therefore inefficient mechanism of repression may be replaced by a condemning judgement with the help of the highest human mental functions— conscious control of the wish is
attained. (pp. 27–28)
As practitioners, we are undoubtedly utilizing theories and modalities that we believe work for our patients. The fact that M. Scott Peck couldn't keep his life together does not in any way diminish the theoretical and clinical significance of his practice. Whether or not it worked for HIS patients is a subjective conclusion that one can come to, but it is by no means a clear cut one.
ReplyDeleteMy answer is similar to my response to Ploni. Look at his clinical and theoretical point of view and see if it fits with yours. The specific religion he practiced is not the point. Rather, utilizing spirituality (whatever yours may be) for the benefit of your patients is very well addressed in his books.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, if Christian thought has something to offer us as clinicians, so long as it does not conflict with your Weltanschauung, use it by all means! That amount of open mindedness comes with the territory for a psychotherapist.
What about the plight of Jewish girls in secular psychiatric institutions in chutz leAretz-Diasporah? Are they still eligible to marry a Kohen?
ReplyDeleteDear Sigmund;
ReplyDeleteWhere do I start?
Would it be reasonable to entertain the thought that there may be certain underlying assumptions in Peck's work that might have been the cause of why he had such a hard time practicing what he preaches ... why he had to claim that he was a "prophet" and not a "saint"?
Perhaps, since we are both Orthodox Jews, and Judaism values religious behaviors and not just religious feelings, it would be fair to seek an explanation for Peck's failure based on our religious sensibilities, before counseling clients to follow Peck's theories.
Peck advocates for a theory of four stages of development. We have no reason to assume that he was less than candid in his self assessment, according to which he says that he himself reached
stage # four (source: http://www.equip.org/article/m-scott-peck-traveling-down-the-wrong-road/ taken from The Different Drum pg. 188).
Peck's obvious incongruities and chronic alcoholism and adultery should therefore make us wonder: if it's true that his four stages of development have clinical utility for fostering religious BEHAVIORS and , then shouldn't that have given him the positive valence required to overcome his vices?
Remember, we're not talking of momentary weakness of the flesh, as his issues where chronic any well known.
Yes, good statisticians know that correlation does not automatically imply causation. However, they also know that when a plausible causal effect is present causation DOES imply causation.
Here's what might perhaps be the "plausible causal effect": Peck failed to master the art of eudaimonia, where an intrinsic and STABLE sense of wellbeing is usually obtainable regardless of external factors and where human attachments are given their proper due - as an adjunct to ATG (Attachment To G-d), a concept well known in Christian and Mormon therapy, yet held in disdain in our own frum community.
Even from a utilitarian viewpoint, ATG is just plain common sense:
A cursory look and the numbers shows that single households in the USA represent the most common of all types of households, numbering more than 31 million and representing roughly 27% of all households. Countless attached couples are experienced unhappy relationships. Add to that statistic the low number of emotionally distressed people who actually find solace in effective therapeutic relationships. Shouldn't people who weren't "lucky" enough in their dating and mating pursuits have a robust alternative?
(source: U.S. Census Bureau. “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2007, Hobbs, Frank. 2005. “Examining American Household Composition: 1990 and 2000.” U.S. Census Bureau.)
I humbly posit that section 1.05(b) of the APA's Code of ethics(which you earlier categorized as "imposing" the therapist's values upon a client) is being totally misconstrued. I'd be happy to elaborate why if you'd like to continue the conversation.
What do you think?
ReplyDeletehi
ReplyDeletefacts are verifiable. theories of human behavior unfortunately are not. why not just use "another theory" called Torah. Rav Wolbe's book Kinyan Da'at is the best psyc book i have ever read in secular or religious literature. I highly recommend it. Rather then test the theory test the outcome of work with people I go that route and my average is about seven sessions per person without dealing with the presenting problem. that number is holding for the last year or so.
this whole discussion about theories is going on the wrong trail - the central question is how and what we actually talk to people about and does it bring effective or efficient outcomes.
a good point is Lashon Hara. we are forbiddento speak it but for purposes of treatment there seems to be permission to use it. I am suggesting a way that it is unnecessary to use it by focusing on the aspiration and not the problem.
ReplyDeletewhy not try the Malbim or R. Wolbe? the difference between spirituality and religiosity is the prior does not obligate anyone in any way. Religion obligates people. Spirituality is great fun in talking -but what about required behavior?
ReplyDeleteR' baruch shulem , " Lashon Hara. we are forbidden to speak it but for purposes of treatment there seems to be permission to use it."
ReplyDeleteI'm suggesting that No! The entire labeling process from the "therapist's" consulting room outwards into the community is full scale Lashon Hara, worse, it's Motzei Shem Ra! Where does it say that the new process of "psychotherapy" invented by Josef Breuer and Sigmund Freud in 1893 all of a sudden has a new Halachik status and now Lashon Hara is permitted? There is no Toelet. In fact the client did not benefit!
aside from your claims - what proof are your offering? Not only Freudian analysis uses negative information to provide guidance. Rabbis also solicit or listen to negative information about others. If the person benefits from communicating negative information then that is to'eles or do you have a new definition?
ReplyDeleteI'm not talking about communicating negative information
ReplyDeleteat all. I'm talking about the social labeling process, subsequent to the
questionable diagnosis.
Dr. Shulem referred to Lashon Hara, and I’m calling the
diagnosis/label/stigmatization process Lashon Hara.
Labeling theory was first applied to the term
"mentally ill" in 1966 when Thomas J. Scheff published Being Mentally
Ill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory
Furthermore,
I’m focusing on what Mr.Ploni and others have being, writing recently, on this
blog, regarding the DSM5 and Prof. Szasz.
As
far as Toelet goes, I’m not redefining it, but saying that if the interaction
between therapist and client was harmful, and the client not only did not
benefit from the encounter, but was actually damaged, both in therapy and in
the community and his social status and through stigmatization, and internally
through his own self labeling then there was no Toelet.
When
Dr. Shulem writes, “ Lashon Hara, We are forbidden to speak it but for purposes
of treatment there seems to be permission to use it.” I’m asking, How
does the context change the Halachah? Here is a Mashal, if a nude picture
appears in a cheap magazine it’s regarded as ‘pornography’, but if we change
the context, and a nude picture appears in a Renaissance work by Leonardo Da
Vinci costing $10,000,000:00 the secular world calls it ‘Art’ not ‘pornography’,
but I believe the Halacha would regard it as just the same thing, forbidden to
look at.
Similarly,
in the context of sitting at a Shabbos meal, two people, talking lashon hara, motsi
shem ra and onoas devarim, would be forbidden, why would changing the context
to therapy with questionable diagnosis, 9where there’s actually harm being done
not benefit) simply because of the change of context to therapy? A doctor can
do a melacha on Shabbos in therapy, not merely because of the mere change of
context to therapy, but, because the benefit pekuach nefesh allows the melacha.
Dr. Baruch Shulem wrote, "All of these, and many more other therapies, have two things in common: a central tool is ‘talking or speech’."
ReplyDeleteSo, if we have Halachos for ‘talking or speech’ and therapy is ‘talking or speech’ then, shouldn’t the same Halachos for ‘talking or speech’ also apply to therapy?
If Breuer, Freud and their followers took ‘talking’ which has been practiced by people for thousands of years, and simply renamed ‘talking’ as ‘therapy’, and
there are questions whether or not the ‘illnesses’ being treated are real ‘illnesses’ or not, and therefore whether or not the ‘therapy’ being practiced is real ‘therapy’ or not, then does the renaming of ‘talking’ to ‘therapy’, and the change of context of ‘talking’ to ‘therapy’ justify a change in Halachah?
If someone criticizes psychiatry or psychology,
ReplyDelete“But”, it is argued, “Psychologists do Chesed in the community!”
Chesed is not always a Mitzvah. Jews with great potential are transformed into shameful "chesed cases", like "social work cases" or "psychiatric cases. Chesed can turn a Jew into a lifelong guest at other people's Shabbos tables, instead of making his own Kiddush and blessing his own challahs in his own home.
Through their chesed they undermine, degrade, humiliate and compromise Jewish lives, and any objections or complaints will be indignantly resented as
"ingratitude", "lack of hakarot hatov" for the chesed.