You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
FENICHEL (1945) ONCE SAID THAT there are many ways to treat neuroses, but there should be only one theory which explains all their effects. While we all likely agree with him, we differ widely on how the theory should look.
What is preventing the development of a theory capable of unifying psychotherapies, ranging from psychoanalysis to group, family, and behavior therapy? In this space it is impossible for me to deal with the hundreds of possible reasons. Even one subcategory —the use of ambiguous language, ill-defined concepts, and pseudodichotomies—is too large. Therefore, I will address myself to only one item of this subcategory, the intrapsychic—interpersonal dichotomy, using it as a starting point for theoretical considerations which could possibly contribute to the unification of our field. In this, an interdisciplinary approach is necessary, and I will draw on recent developments, ranging from perceptual and social psychology, to systems theory and the philosophy of science. I also have drawn from unification attempts as diverse as those of H. G. Mead, Brunswick, Masserman, N. Cameron, Skinner, and others.
The intrapsychic—interpersonal dichotomy is a sleeping volcano erupting only from time to time. In a relatively recent discussion between Arieti and Mullahy, Arieti (1967) writes:
The fundamental weakness of Sullivan's theoretical position is in his basic premise that psychiatry is the science of interpersonal relations. Although adding the gigantic dimension of the interpersonal is an enormous contribution, it