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.
Psychoanalysis is being challenged by the emergence and rapid proliferation of a number of divergent psychotherapies. Active techniques loosely identified by the umbrella term “encounter,” together with neo-Reichian methods, primal therapies, and some offshoots of behavior modification (e.g. assertiveness training) appear to fall at one extreme of an activity-passivity continuum. Passive-receptive techniques; alpha biofeedback training, relaxation training, sensory awareness training, methods for inducing altered states of consciousness through alteration of sensory milieu, and the meditative techniques, fall at the other extreme.
In contrast to psychoanalysis, the active techniques conceive of the healing process as dependent on bodily and/or verbal behavior which is an end in itself. A direct-action relationship between therapist and patient, extensive catharsis, and an outward dramatization of the working through process so that conflicts are visibly resolved, typify these procedures which might, in general, be described as differing from psychoanalysis in that they seek to externalize intrapsychic conflict rather than observe and analyze it. Alongside the excitement and drama of these “externalizing” therapies, the relatively quiet, introspective approach of psychoanalysis seems sedate and passive.
There is, however, an equally strong and growing emphasis on forms of therapy more passive than psychoanalysis. The passivereceptive therapies seek to turn attention inward in a manner which excludes verbalization or conceptualization. Direct consideration of the patient's interpersonal role is also extraneous to these approaches which might be termed radically “internalizing.” The inward thrust of these therapies makes psychoanalysis seem verbal, conceptual, and intellectual by comparison.