Psychodynamic Theory

 I realized when reading that I am not as attracted to the psychodynamic approach as I thought I would be. Coming into grad school, I figured I would use a more psychodynamic approach because I felt more aligned with it naturally. For example, I read a book in college that used writing from C.S. Lewis (a famous writer and theologian) and Freud to debate several topics including, love, sex, and the meaning of life. I found myself agreeing with and feeling more connected to Freud's argument than C.L. Lewis's. However, the more I have learned, the more I have realized that I don't think my instincts are based on this theory (what are they based on I still don't know for sure, but I know it is not this). Not to say that the psychodynamic approach has no utility or I would never use it. There are components of the theory that make sense to me and I can see their utility. For example, the idea of dream analysis is not a far-off concept for me. I grew up in the Pentecostal Christian church that promoted the idea that God speaks to us all the time, everywhere- even in our dreams. In fact, Joseph (a local guy who becomes a Pharoh in the Bible) is considered to be a dream interpreter and people would travel miles to see him. Many still believe that dream interpretation can be a special gift from God. Though I do not consider myself Pentecostal now, it has still impacted my degree of openness to things that seem weird. In my experience, analyzing dreams can reveal insecurities, boundaries, ways you protect yourself, and your perspective of specific people. I don't think they reveal anything that would surprise someone, but they do expose vulnerable parts of someone that they may or may not have intended to talk about. I don't know if I would use this within sessions myself, but I wouldn't be against other people using it. It goes back to the principle- is it helpful for the client? 

This is actually a pretty decent video that demonstrates Gestalt dream analysis - https://youtu.be/XRMiy1MUB2o?si=R3JcHOFxWq6WHALF

I noted several times throughout the readings that psychodynamic theory may be useful for specific disorders and/or specific clients. I think it requires a lot of mental flexibility so a client needs to be willing to engage in abstract thinking. I also don't know how this approach would do against clients that are anti-social or manipulative. Individuals with ASPD or narcissism love to control their environment, so would it be theraputic to control the therapy session more than they would already try to? I also wonder how the direct, very confrontational, approach from the therapist would go over. The psychodynamic approach may be helpful in conceptualization, but I would be interested in learning how it works in session. Some of the readings also point out that a psychodynamic approach may be useful after the primary symptoms have reduced. I had not really thought of the lasting impact a disorder may have. Say a client gets treatment for depression and comes out with significant symptom reduction. We like to think that now they are living their best, happiest life, but how have they been impacted by years of depression? It is like they are adjusting to a new world so should the therapy have a new approach as well? Maybe you start with an intervention focused on symptom reduction (say CBT) and then transition into psychodynamic during the maintenance phase.  

Overall, I found these readings very interesting as they provided a good glimpse into the psychodynamic approach and not just the theory behind it. I can see the utility of the approach and I think it can be useful if the therapist and the client believe in it. It may be a longer road to the same outcome, but it is still going in the right direction. Personally, I will likely integrate pieces of the theory into my conceptualization and theraputic process (e.g. the defense mechanisms, rooted in childhood experiences), but I do not see myself as a psychodynamic clinician. 

25/25