Some Thoughts as Inside Out Closes

Ger Murphy

I was involved in the beginning of Inside Out ten years ago. This being the last
 edition, it felt timely to reflect on how psychotherapy has changed during the life 
of the journal.

Inside Out was formed from a multiplicity of intentions and much like any action,
 it seems futile to look for a single cause. However, some important motivators

1. To offer a vehicle for the emergent specialism of Humanistic and Integrative
 Psychotherapy within the broader field of psychotherapy;

2. To create publicity relating to the organisation of the profession of 
psychotherapy in the light of emerging realities from a wider European context;

3. To go some way to meet the demand in the general public for psychotherapy
 writing which was accessible and not driven solely by standards of academic 
rigour, while maintaining a good standard of thought and experience sharing. This
 spoke to the growth of interest in psychotherapy.

The first question related to a particular kind of psychotherapy, the second to issues
 about psychotherapy in general, and the third concerns attitudes to psychotherapy 
in the wider public arena.

I will address these questions, beginning with a few thoughts about the emergent 
specialism of Humanistic and Integrative Psychotherapy. Ten years ago, the label
 of Humanistic and Integrative Psychotherapy was just beginning to be spoken of in
 Ireland. It was a designation of a particular branch of psychotherapy that had been
 coined in the UK, forming a section of the UK Council for Psychotherapy (then the 
Rugby Standing Conference). It was a useful designation as it described a
 transition from a split position which had arisen between humanistic 
psychotherapy and psychoanalytic psychotherapy. Humanistic psychotherapy had
 its roots in the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s, arising in large part as a reaction to 
psychoanalytic thinking which was seen as more steeped in biological and medical 
models of thinking (eg ‘patient’ vs ‘client’). Humanistic psychotherapy brought a
 stronger focus on the co-creation of relationship and on the expression of feeling,
 as against understanding alone. While these are but very broad brush-strokes (and
 a more adequate perspective can be found in John Rowan’s The Reality Game and
 Carl Rogers’ On Becoming a Person) I hope that I can convey something of the
 split which appeared between the two areas of psychotherapy. I saw the addition
 of the term ‘Integrative’ to ‘Humanistic’ in the mid-1980s as conveying a
 movement towards holding this split in a new way, rather than using the primitive 
defence mechanism of splitting as had emerged prior to that time. (For ‘splitting’ 
see Melanie Klein in Hanna Segal.) In Klein’s view, the earliest, most primitive 
way the baby deals with pain is to split into good/bad. She calls this ‘the schizoid
 position’. A later development she describes as ‘the depressive position’, where both good and bad can begin to be tolerated both in self and other. One could see
 the emergence of the title of ‘Integrative’ as a move towards such a more maturing 
position within psychotherapy. Elements of this integration were also emerging in
 Group Analytic thinking which, while strongly influenced by psychoanalytic 
thinking, was beginning to be influenced by Systems thinking and Complexity Theory (see Waldorf). Such an integration title was being made more possible by 
the growth of Object Relations Theory, a branch of psychoanalysis which 
abandoned the drive-structure model of pure psychoanalysis. Humanistic
 psychotherapy, I believe, drew much of its early strength from contesting the 
biological model of psychoanalysis which saw the individual seeking to discharge
 psychic energy to maintain an equilibrium. This view was seen to focus entirely 
on the internal world of the individual, his/her instinctual urges and their control.
 The Object Relations view saw the individual motivated by the urge for
 relationship and saw that it is the network of human relations an individual is
 embedded in that structures their psyche. This view as expressed by Fairbairn and
 others, had gradually gained increasing adherents and their influence moved 
outside psychoanalysis itself by the 1980s (see Lavinia Gomez’ Introduction to 
Object Relations). Such a shift had allowed some humanistic psychotherapists to 
re-consider psychoanalytic concepts and begin to explore an integration of the
 more active processes from Body Oriented Psychotherapy and Gestalt 
Psychotherapy with Object Relations perspective. I think that this development
 has now moved further by the end of the 1990s where Integrative Psychotherapy is 
an entity in itself, separate both from Humanistic and Psychoanalytic
 Psychotherapy. This move to an Integrative approach to psychotherapy is gaining
 strong ground in many countries. Norcross says:

“A metamorphosis is occurring in mental health: the integration of the 
psychotherapies. This movement has experienced dramatic and unprecedented 
growth in the past decade.”

This ‘metamorphosis’ has now, I believe, produced a new ‘creature’, the
 Integrative Psychotherapist. This move is seen by the development of the
 European Association for Integrative Psychotherapy, which is consolidating with 
others the identity of the new grouping. I think that the clarifying of the essence
 of the Integrative style is still being developed and needs to be articulated. Perhaps 
a new journal of Integrative Psychotherapy in Ireland is needed.
 I now hear some of us who espouse an Integrative perspective struggling to 
articulate our differences from both a Humanistic and a Psychoanalytic 
perspective. An example may help. The Humanistic mode of involvement in a
 session with a client might involve the congruent naming of one’s own experience.
 The Psychoanalytic mode might involve reflecting silently on one’s own
 experience and offering an interpretation of what may be happening in the client
 informed by the counter-transference. The Integrative mode we might call an 
embodied interpretation which would name the interpretation but would 
congruently locate the issue in the therapist’s own experience. In this way, the 
therapist’s feelings are not only experienced but named, not only named but related
 to client material, and in the process of holding struggling energies in one’s own 
body, containment is offered which is both empowering and holding for the client, 
one’s self and the process. I believe in the view that you cannot offer what you haven’t experienced. I see more psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapists 
embracing body oriented psychotherapy for themselves, thereby experiencing their somatic processes at depth. This process precedes judgement and interpretation 
and enables a deep witnessing of the other through one’s own experience. An 
example here might be the well-known Jungian analyst and author, Marian 
Woodman, who now incorporates movement, dance and deep bodywork in her 
work. On the other hand, humanistic psychotherapists arc now experiencing 
therapeutic experiences which make strong use of the transference relationship. 
The difference here is often one where there is not a premature move towards the 
equality of relationship which can disallow the depth experience of primitive 
relationships as they are re-experienced in the psychotherapy. These moves on the 
part of diverse sections of the psychotherapy profession allow a growing momentum for integration in the profession.

I wonder if the time for a Humanistic and Integrative Psychotherapy type of 
therapy is reaching its end; was this a valuable but transitory form now giving way 
through a dialectical process to a newly emergent form, Integrative Psychotherapy?

The second question I raised relates to the development of psychotherapy over the 
past decade in Ireland. When Inside Out started, psychotherapy was still not seen 
fully as a profession in its own right – a position attested
 to in the Strasbourg Declaration of 1990 (See appendix). Now I see psychotherapy firmly established 
as a profession, separate and distinct from psychology, psychiatry, etc. This is 
evidenced by the Dept of Health now recruiting for psychotherapy posts in the 
health service. It is also apparent that a general standard of training for 
psychotherapy is being agreed – training to be of 7 years duration with an undergraduate degree in human/social sciences followed by four years specific 
psychotherapy training. This is embodied in the European Training standard 
agreed by the European Association for Psychotherapy in 1997. Thus it is fair to 
say that the profession of psychotherapy has moved on considerably in a decade. 
One image can suffice to portray the movement. Ten years ago, a group of 
psychotherapists from Holland came to Dublin to present their view for a
 psychotherapy which needed psychology or psychiatry as a basis for entry to the 
profession (the so-called core profession model) – now we have a European Annual
 Conference of Psychotherapy to be held in Dublin in June 2000, celebrating a 
grouping coming of age as a separate independent profession without reference to 
the other professions.

Of course issues still abound around professionalisation. For example. recently we 
have begun to hear calls for statutory regulation of psychotherapy,  following some 
outcry about counselling in relation to adoption. We have also heard psychiatrists 
such as Prof Patricia Casey of UCD expressing concern for psychotherapy 
and counselling standards. While such concerns arc well founded, it is worth clarifying 
that a subtext may be the battle still being waged as to which professional grouping 
will receive expenses cover (from the health service insurance groups, VHI, BUPA,
 etc.). The winners of such contests will mould much of the future of psychotherapy 
in Ireland.

The third question is in relation to the unprecedented growth of interest in issues
 related to psychotherapy in the general public, which was also a motivator in the
 pitching of the level of conversation in Inside Out ten years ago. The decade has
 seen an unparalleled growth in interest in personal development and therapy. This 
growth is probably not unrelated to the dramatic decline in the place of religion in 
Irish culture over the similar period. As the population gets more sophisticated, we 
are no longer confusing psychotherapy with a spiritual search. We are coming to 
see more it appropriately as a set of valuable techniques to help the ego function
 more effectively with less internal conflict. (See Murphy, Ger – Psychotherapy and
 Spirituality – Eisteact, IACT Journal, spring 1999.) While such a shift has been 
of value in rebalancing a society where guilt was far too strong a motivator for 
behaviour, the move to a more individualistic endeavour has also had its 
difficulties. One dilemma has been that in the movement to replace religion with
 therapy as the primary meaning making structure, guilt may be abandoned, but so
 may remorse. Remorse is a sensitivity which holds us in relationship and sensitises
 us to our effect on the other, without which we grow narcissistic and eventually 
lose our capacity to live in community – a hellishly lonely experience – maybe we 
can see such a mentality in the Celtic Tiger. It is important to distinguish between 
such narcissistic individualism and a mature self-contained self. It is becoming
 increasingly clear that individual psychotherapy needs to end in the latter maturity
 and not in the egoistic over- indulgence that can eschew the holding of appropriate 
boundaries and limits. (See my article, ‘Psychotherapy and Loneliness’, Winter
1997, which attempts to address questions relating to the end of psychotherapy.)

One potent force that I believe is helping to withdraw energy from individual 
psychotherapy is the pursuit of emotional growth and agility that is gaining 
momentum outside of the confines of psychotherapy. While psychotherapy is an 
invaluable tool in the treatment of emotional pathology, it is no longer the prime 
medium for intentionally emotional engagement. For example, over recent years
 we have seen the phenomenal success of Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence 
and Robert Cooper and Ayman Sawaf’s Executive Emotional Intelligence. These 
works have emphasised the potential for individuals to develop their emotional 
literacy, fitness and depth. Such development is now not being seen simply as a 
means of overcoming pathology or as necessary for one’s intimate relationships, 
but as requirements for optimum functioning and productivity in work and social 
relationships. This shift to centre staging emotion in our lives is, I think, partly the
 result of the impact of a century of psychotherapy, but it opens the focus more on
 optimal functioning rather than pathology – a focus which Abraham Maslow 
pioneered forty years ago.

However I wonder if a change is arising in this aspect also. There may be a shift 
from the modernist and individualistic perspective to the post-modernist one where 
the ego is decentred and the individual is seen as no longer bounded clearly by
 a skin, but created in relation to the other in a continual process of co-creation. This
 view acknowledges the fractured nature of identity which Lacan speaks of. It is
 also a perspective that begins to recognise the inherent fragility and possibly
 mirage-like quality of the individual ego. In this the concerns with group, 
community, organisation, may well overtake the obsession with the individual and 
may herald a decrease in our societal compulsion to ‘self-develop’ in favour of 
exploration of sustainable group, community and organisation activities. Such 
may be the concerns which occupy the successor journal to Inside Out.

Thus I see it as a timely death for the journal – the concerns which stirred its birth 
have moved on and the changes will throw up another suitable organ to express the
 appropriate twenty-first century concerns.

[Ger Murphy works as a trainer and psychotherapist with the Institute for Creative
 Counselling and Psychotherapy in Dun Laoghaire and works with groups, teams
 and organizations applying insights from psychotherapy to the area of work.]


1. The Strasbourg Declaration on Psychotherapy 1990

The Strasbourg Declaration on psychotherapy is the bedrock of the European
 Association of Psychotherapy’s commitment to establishing a compatible and
 independent profession of psychotherapy across Europe.

1.1 Psychotherapy is an independent scientific discipline, the practice of which
 amounts to an independent and free profession.

1.2 Training in psychotherapy takes place at an advanced, qualified and scientific 

1.3 The multiplicity of methods of psychotherapy is assured and guaranteed.

1.4 In a process of psychotherapy, training is carried out in full and includes 
theory, self-experience and practice under supervision. Adequate knowledge is
 gained of further processes of psychotherapy.

1.5 Access to training is through various preliminary qualifications, in particular
 human and social sciences.


Rowan, John: The Reality Game, 1983

Rogers, Carl: On Becoming a Person, 1961

Segal, Hanna: An Introduction to the Work of Melanie Klein, 1979

Waldorp, M.M.: Complexity – The Emerging Science at the Edge of Chaos, 1992

Fairbaim, W.R.D.: Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality, 1952

Gomez, Lavinia: An introduction to Object Relations, 1997

Norcross, J.: Eclecticism and Integration in Counselling & Psychotherapy, 1990

Lacan, J.: Ecrits, 1975

Goleman. D.: Emotional Intelligence, 1996

Cooper & Sawaf: Executive Emotional Intelligence, 1997