Hymanistic Versus Psychodynamic Approaches - Essay Example

?Humanistic Versus Psychodynamic Approaches Introduction Each of us project differences in self, and this could be informed by a wide range of factors. One can define self as the being that gives distinct differences between one person and others (Baumeister 1999, p.1-3). Essentially, the elements of introspection, identity, abilities and approach towards life are the key issues that define self. Other definition is one’s worth and personality that they portray in their social life (Stevens 1996, p.1-6). It is important to note that self will determine how well we are able to socialize in life. In this case, people relate differently, with some showing ability to socialize more that others. However, there are others who will portray inability to socialize and will behave in a different way from what is socially acceptable. A psychologist is able to give them therapy to correct their behavior and help them grow in their social life (Wetherell and Maybin 1996, p.220-275.) Every professional psychologist giving therapy to any individual is informed by different schools of thought (Miller 2006, p. 5-13). Ways of defining self may be as different as the approach used by a therapist. There are different types of approaches to defining self. These include psychodynamic, humanistic, cognitive-behavior therapy and transpersonal approaches. So far, these approaches have been mainly used in therapy, with the last two being the least used in therapy. Research is continually being done in psychology to come with new and better approaches of defining self and hence giving the necessary therapy. This is only done with the consideration that human beings are complex and interpretation of behavior is not an easy task. However, most of the new approaches only build on the foundation that has already been laid in the past research. In most of these approaches, there are common points that can be established which help reduce conflicts in therapy. Some of the common elements are that regardless of the approach, the outcome is positive at most. Nevertheless, there are obvious differences in some of approaches. It is not very easy to point out at a specific therapeutic approach and conclude that it is the best of all. Psychodynamic and humanistic approaches exhibit distinct differences, with some common points of similarities (Wetherell and Maybin 1996, p.220-275.). The psychodynamic approach is defined to as the view of human behavior as that which is directly related to the genetic composition of a person and its relation to the surroundings or the individual’s environment. On the other hand, humanistic approach is defined to as the approach to human behavior as that which is informed by deviations from the natural tendencies of being good (Spurling 2009, p.20-37). The social and the mental problems bring about the deviations in humanistic approach. The humanistic approach is a build up from the psychodynamic approach, but that is completely different in approach to self. Both of the approaches are still used by most therapists in the world today. Their vast differences may give different outcomes and approach in giving therapy to an individual. It is therefore important to look at the approaches in details and compare them to each other. The points of cohesion, if there be any, may give a good foundation of coming up with a better approach to therapy in future. In this paper, we focus on the two distinct approaches; the psychodynamic approach and the humanistic approach. Psychodynamic Approach The approach is mostly credited to Sigmund Freud, who founded modern psychology (Spurling 2009, p.20-37). The approaches are varied and many, the reason behind the name psychodynamic approach. Common terms coming from this approach are conflict, superego, libido, attachments, among others. The categories are further traced depending on the person who founded them. These are: psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud, analytical psychotherapy by Carl Jung, Alderian psychotherapy by Alfred Adler and self psychology by Heinz Kohut. The other category, object relations, is by numerous psychologists who include Fairbaim, Klein, and Mahler among others. Sigmund Freud, the father of these theories based his arguments on the conflicts that he believed to exist in a human being (Wetherell and Maybin 1996, p.220-275.). He argued that every human being has conflicts that are sourced from the attempts to bring cohesion between our biological make up and social interactions. He classified human beings into three classes, the id, the ego and the super ego. Each of the classes exhibit different personalities in life. The three classes will have varied levels of aggressions and thus, their achievements will also differ. Further, the growth of a human being is divided into levels, where in every certain changes take place. The human being is endlessly trying to resolve conflicts within themselves (Payne 2005, p. 5-18). The approach suggests that those people social issues would mostly have problems because of what they have for long repressed in their unconscious self. The process of development may have caused this problem and as such, the approach recommends that people get chances to express themselves. One way of expression is through sex and other aggressive ways. The approach therefore looks at a human being as one who will unconsciously act and behave depending on their biological makeup (Passer et al 2009, p 1-35). Therefore, our behavior and self is not anything that one may choose. Any therapist using this approach will be trying to relate the person with their unconscious self. This will work to open up the understanding of the person on who they are and as such, help them to have control over their actions. It helps an individual to understand how each of these conflicts affect them, and as such move with caution in the social self. Adlerian psychotherapy encourages individuals to overcome the negative feelings of insecurity and instead adopt feelings of significance to improve their social self (Leiper and Maltby 2004, p. 23-25). The individual is encouraged at the world differently. They are given a different view of optimism and shedding away of assumption that may interfere with the way they relate with people. The individual will therefore have positive outcomes after therapy, with a wave of confidence, optimism and ready to socialize with others. The ultimate end is that the individual is able to replace all the negative approaches to the social self with a positive need to relate with others in a better way. The other category was developed by a student to Freud and is known as analytical psychology (Spurling 2009, p.20-37). He still acknowledged the need to relate the unconscious and the conscious. However he included other factors such as culture, the spiritual background of a person and the influence of myths on one’s behavior. He stressed that an individual must spend the best part of his or her life in achieving harmony and peace between the unconscious and the conscious. Object relations concentrates on the how we internalize self in childhood (Leiper and Maltby 2004, p. 23-25). This will normally inform how we behave in our social self in future. The childhood experiences and the current relations are therefore intertwined in this approach. Some of the experiences could have been destructive, and normally therapists will be trying to resolve some of these issues. The individual is encouraged to get past these experiences and mature up to a level where they can relate with others in a better way. Heinz Kohut differs from this approach by recognizing that people need to help to grow and develop in their relationships (Payne 2005, p 5-18). This, he suggests should be done by providing the essential experiences to nurture relationships. These experiences are therefore known as self-object experiences. The child should be nurtured and matured in the way that they relate with people in the society, and as such, the experiences are of great importance. This will further shape their character and personality. Contribution to social welfare In this kind of approach, an individual is encouraged to bring out their suppressed feelings into the point of discussion (Leiper and Maltby 2004, p. 23-25). The anger, disappointments, fears are expressed at the point of therapy. This enables the individual to be at their best in the society. The social ills, psychology explains, are developed as a result of feelings and emotions that were never expressed before. The feelings, in the extremes will come out as the very issues that bring conflict within the society. By giving this kind of therapy closure to the society, individuals have the chance to avoid getting to the extremes of the suppressed emotions. The society will therefore benefit from such an approach in the psychology. Less conflict is experienced and cohesion is boosted within the society. Humanistic Psychotherapy The perceived limitations of the psychodynamic theories gave birth to humanistic approaches (Payne 2005, p. 35-79). In the wake of fifties, several psychologists felt that the approach to self was pessimistic, and that it left several factors undefined. Several meetings were held and several themes were agreed upon. These included: self actualization, individuality and creativity among other related themes. The approach was a total shift from the former theories, as therapists tried to explain growth and behavior in an individual. The main emphases of these theories are that self is subjective to several factors in human growth. These approaches attempt to look at a person as a whole. They include the beings of mind, body and soul. Every method in these approaches agrees to one fact; an individual is able to heal by themselves. The psychologists behind this approach are Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers and Fritz Perls (Leiper and Maltby 2004, p. 23-25) Abraham Maslow is known for these approaches, while the rest build on his foundation with minor differences (Miller 2006, p. 5-13). Other categories include client centered psychotherapy and gestalt therapy (Payne 2005, p. 55-79). Abraham Maslow came up with the theory of the hierarchy of needs, expressing that people are oriented towards achievement of specific goals at different stages of life. He approaches goals as achievable and that every individual is at a different level in their social self. He is also known to define the approach as the third force in psychology, the first and the second coming from the previous approaches. Further development of the theory is the modern approach known as human existential theory. The foundation and the perspectives are similar (Payne 2005, p. 38-9). This approach will encourage an individual to be ready to face the challenges that they face in their daily life. The individual is encouraged to express those things that inform their distressful self and the bits of anxiety in their life. The value system is also studied. This is all done in the process of identifying how these factors are related to the social life of the individual. Therefore, what an individual has experienced in the past and the current experience are given equal chance to explain ones personality. Generally, the approach is informed by four key elements: death, isolation, worthlessness and freedom to express oneself. Contribution to Social Welfare Humanistic approach has been used in most social circles for example in schools, in health care and in many other areas (Miller 2006, p. 5-13). The emphasis on responsibility of an individual in the society has helped many people take steps into improving not only themselves, but also the society. A successful society is a make up of individuals who fully recognize their role and take responsibility for their behavior. Therefore, this approach helps build a healthy society (Passer et al 2009, p 1-35). The individuals are empowered more to be creative and improve the society. This approach has also enabled the society to view therapy differently. Therapy has for a long time been as something for the sickly and the criminal persons. However, with this approach, more people within the society accept therapy, even though normal are ready to turn to therapy. This therefore brings the best out of the society, with more healthy individuals who are ready to contribute positively to it. Differences between Psychodynamic and Humanistic Approaches One major difference in the approaches is the goal that they accomplish (Passer et al 2009, p 1-35). The psychodynamic approach has a goal to resolve the conflicts that an individual has, thus helping them grow in their social self. On the other hand, humanistic approach has a goal to understand the perception people have about the world around them. Therefore, each therapist will be trying to achieve a different goal, which may bring forth different outcomes. The approaches also differ on the basis of personalities. The psychodynamic approach is more pessimistic as compared to the humanistic approach (Spurling 2009, p.20-37). The approach that behavior is already determined and that a human being cannot change anything, is pessimistic. This is what the psychodynamics explain. The aggressive being is one thing that the psychodynamics center on. This only means that an individual is negatively approached. Further, they believe that not every body is meant to attain to happiness (Stevens 1996, p. 45-67). On the other hand, the humanistic approach view people with simplicity, and that behavior can be changed. Here, they give a chance for people to choose who they are and the direction that they want to pursue in their social life. They are not rigid and they give a chance for people to change for the better. In general, they conclude that most people are good and the few who are not have a chance of becoming better. There is a major difference between the ways both approaches view development (Thomas 1996, p. 34-70). The psychodynamic approach views development in three stages. One stage is that of surviving, the other one on being trained on using a potty, while the last is on pride. All these will grow in different ages of an individual’s life. On the contrary, the humanistic approach views development from the experiences that a human being goes through from their childhood to adulthood. This, they say informs their development. In therapy, research has shown different tendencies between the two approaches (Hogg and Vaughan 2008, p.15-20). The therapist using the psychodynamic approach usually has the authority to determine the direction a discussion will go. They will often come up with conclusions and give definitive answers to problems. This differs from the humanistic therapists, who will take time to listen to the client’s issue, and it is possible for the client to guide the topics of discussion. Therefore, the therapists are very objective. Still, the therapists will leave the choice to improve on the given areas to the client. For them, they give direction and leave the rest to the client. Similarities between Psychodynamic Approaches and Humanistic Approaches There are several areas in which both approaches are similar (Nicolson and Owen 2006, p.17-23). The approaches both work towards the same aim; bringing the client to a better understanding of self. The client is always able to understand who they are and improve on their points of weakness. In the end, the society’s welfare is improved (Trevithick 2005, p.11-56). More so, the realization of self is achieved through common means. These are through dialogue between the client and the therapists. Therefore, the communication skills are enhanced so that the client understands their behavior tendencies. A relationship is built up between the therapists and the client in both the approaches (Miller 2006, p. 5-13). The effectiveness of each approach is mainly on the relationship that is developed in the course of the therapy. This means that emotions will be expressed as the relationship grows and develops. It is in such aspects that the client gets to the point of realizing the relationship between their self and behavior. Conclusion It is in the roots of formation that major differences are identified in the two approaches. The differences, though conspicuous are sometimes minimized by the end result. The means to the end will at most differ, but some of ways will meet in the process. This therefore gives a chance for improvement and cohesion in the future as far as therapy is concerned. There is therefore need to do further research to come up with a comprehensive approach in therapy. Both the strengths of the approaches could be combined to bring the best out of psychological approach to self. References Baumeister, R 1999, The Nature and Structure of the Self: An Overview, In R.F Baumeister edition The Self in Social Psychology, pp. 1-20, Hove Psychology Press. Hogg, M & Vaughan 2008, Social psychology, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow Leiper, R & Maltby, M 2004, The Psychodynamic Approach To Therapeutic Approach To Therapeutic Change, Sage Publications, London Miller, L, 2006, Counseling Skills for Social Work, Sage Publications, London Nicolson, P &Owen, J 2006, Applied Psychology for Social Workers Basingstoke, Palgrave Passer, M et al, 2009, ‘The Science of Psychology’, From Passer et al Psychology the Science of Mind and Behavior, pp. 1-36, McGraw Hill, London Payne, M, 2005, ‘Humanism, Existentialism and Spirituality’ From Payne Malcolm, Modern Social Work Theory, pp.181-207 Payne, M, 2005, Modern Social work Theory, 3rd Edition Macmillan, Basingstoke, Palgrave Spurling, L, 2009, An Introduction to Psychodynamic Counseling, Basingstoke, Palgrave Stevens, R, 1996, ‘Introduction: Making Sense of the Person in A Social World’, In R. Stevens Understanding the Self, Sage, London Thomas, K, 1996, ‘The Defensive Self: A Psychodynamic perspective’ In Stevens Edition Understanding the Self, pp. 220-275 Sage, London Trevithick, P, 2005, Social Work Skills 2nd Edition, McGraw Hill Wetherell, M & Maybin, J 1996, ‘The Distributed Self a Social constructionist perspective’ In R. Stevens Edition, Understanding the Self, pp. 220-275 Sage, London Read More