The therapeutic approach of Depth Psychology is psychodynamic in its nature. That is, it takes into account the interaction of both conscious and unconscious factors in human experience. In many circles, psychodynamic approaches are seen as relics of the past. They have been replaced by quicker, cheaper, and presumably more effective "evidence based treatments," such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
When I began taking psychology courses, Freud and his work were mentioned as having primarily historical interest, while Jung was treated as little more than a footnote to Freud. Carl Rogers' humanistic approach was the current trend at the time, but even that has been replaced with the rise of the medical model of psychiatric disorders and the supposed efficiency of DSM diagnoses.
Jonathan Shedler, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, is the author of a much discussed paper on The Efficacy of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy. In it he argues that not only is a psychodynamic approach effective, but there is a great deal of evidence that this is so. The conclusion he comes to in his research is that the psychodynamic approach exhibits an effectiveness that is comparable to other therapies but which seems to last longer over time. Where the effects of other treatments tend to erode, those of psychodynamic psychotherapy exhibit a greater stability. Furthermore, he suggests that where other therapies are effective may be due to the extent to which they make use--often unconsciously--of psychodynamic methodologies.
Image courtesy of Ambro / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Shedler was recently interviewed by The Carlat Psychiatry Report about his research and his findings. Throughout he emphasizes the value that the psychodyanamic approach places on understanding the meaning of a person's symptoms, as well as the value placed on the relationship between therapist and patient. The interview is well worth reading, but there are several great quotes that I can't resist excerpting here:
"DSM assumes it is helpful to view emotional suffering in terms of 'disease,' like influenza or diabetes or ringworm. It fosters the fiction that you can treat emotional pain as some kind of encapsulated disease entity that has little to do with the person who is having the pain. However, most of the problems that bring patients to our offices are woven into the fabric of their lives. It is not so much a question of what the person 'has,' but rather of who they are—their way of being in the world."
"It is rarely helpful to move from a DSM diagnosis to a treatment decision—as many practitioners are now trained to do—without understanding the meaning of the person’s difficulties and the larger psychological context that gives rise to them."
"This is one problem with a 'diagnose and prescribe' approach to patient care. We never learn who our patients are or what they need. It is likewise a problem with the brief manualized therapies ... Many patients require time before they can begin to reveal themselves to us—or for that matter, reveal certain things to themselves. So doctor and patient have the illusion that they have completed therapy when often, real therapy never even started."
And finally a reminder that what we are concerned with in Depth Psychology is the care of the soul:
"If we view ourselves merely as 'providers' whose role is simply to dispense interventions or medications, we cut ourselves off from the things that make this work rich and rewarding—the opportunity to create meaningful relationships, to truly know our patients, to play a role in their lives. The work is no longer a calling, it’s just a job. I think that’s bad for the soul—the patient’s, and the doctor’s as well."