An Experientially Oriented Critique of Conventional Psychotherapy

Far-reaching criticisms of a conventional analytic-type of psychotherapy have been stated or implied by therapists who emphasize the primary importance of evoking emotional experiences in therapy. Reacting to the shortcomings of an analytic approach, these therapists have been successful in developing techniques which often can intensify the emotional dimension of their patients' therapeutic work. This paper presents some criticisms of conventional psychotherapy from an experiential perspective. These ideas derive from my synthesis of the points of view of such experiential approaches as bio-energetics, encounter, gestalt, primal, psychomotor, and others. These criticisms are directed primarily toward the limitations which are inherent in the conventional mode of talking psychotherapy. My thesis is that even when a therapist is a skilled practitioner, therapeutic work which is limited to an exchange of ordinary verbal communications often restricts what could be accomplished in psychotherapy. Of course, experiential and analytic styles both have their strengths and weaknesses. Experiential therapists may be more effective in exposing the repressed emotions of their patients, while analytical therapists may be more proficient in understanding the complexity of their patients' psychodynamics. My primary aim in this paper is to describe, in effect, the worst aspects of conventional therapy in contrast with the best aspects of experiential therapies. This contrast is made in order to highlight some of the advantages of an experiential approach.

Freud once wrote that the main handicap of psychotherapy was that it did not mobilize sufficient energy to produce behavioral changes. He hoped that the future would bring advances in endocrinology