Author Archives: louishoffmanphd

Violence in the United States: Standing in the Shadow of Our Greatest Lie

This blog was originally published on December 18, 2012, on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

“The citizens of a city are not guilty of the crimes committed in their city; but they are guilty as participants in the destiny of [humanity] as a whole and in the destiny of their city in particular; for their acts in which freedom was united with destiny have contributed to the destiny in which they participate. They are guilty, not of committing the crimes of which their group is accused, but of contributing to the destiny in which these crimes happened.”
~ Paul Tillich (1957)

“I call a lie: wanting not to see something one does see, wanting not to see something as one sees it…. The most common lie is the lie one tells to oneself; lying to others is relatively the exception.”
~ Nietzsche (1894/1990)

“Twenty seven dead in a Connecticut school.” Like many, I read with horror. I turned on the TV, my eyes filled with tears, and I considered picking my sons up early from school. But my sadness quickly turned to anger. In the United States, we love to talk about supposedly being the greatest country in the world. Yet, gun violence, mass killings, and our prison population are among the highest in the world. We are living in a dangerous delusion. I am not just angry at the shooter in Connecticut, but at our society for continuing to live in this mass delusion of our greatness while doing little to address the depth of our depravity.

What Existential Psychology Has to Say

One of the first things that drew me to existential psychology was its willingness to face evil without relegating evil to the other. Instead, it recognized that evil was a potential inherent in the human condition, a potential we all bear. For Rollo May (1969; 1982), the root of evil is in the daimonic, which he defines as, “any natural function that has the power to take over the whole person” (May, 1969, p. 65). Our emotional pain and suffering can easily become such a force. The daimonic, which bears conceptual similarity to Jung’s shadow, is not necessarily a destructive force. The daimonic can be a source of destruction and evil, but can also be a source for growth, creativity, and beauty.

What distinguishes whether the daimonic is used destructively or constructively is largely dependent upon our awareness and what we do with that awareness. When we repress, deny, or distort it, the daimonic becomes more powerful and the potential for evil grows (Hoffman, Warner, Gregory, & Fehl, 2011). This is why, from an existential perspective, the willingness to look at our dark side is so important. It is not just that such self-examination can lead to a more fulfilled life; it is also an ethical imperative.

For the betterment of ourselves and society, we must temper our belief in human potential with an honest accounting for our potential for evil. As William James (1902/1997) stated:

…there is no doubt that healthy mindedness is inadequate as a philosophical doctrine, because the evil facts which it refuses positively to account for are a genuine portion of reality; and they are after all be the best key to life’s significance, and possibly the only openers of our eyes to the deepest levels of truth. (p. 140)

The Exploitation of Tragedy

The tragedy of the school shootings is already transitioning to the search for answers. Yet, we will only find the answers we are willing to find. Religious leaders already ignorantly have proclaimed the cause was removing prayer from public schools while politicians have begun exploiting the tragedy with partisan politics. Blame is much easier to tolerate than self-reflection. Without doubt, the “mental illness” of the shooter will carelessly be blamed as the cause.

The tragedy of the school shootings is already transitioning to the search for answers. Yet, we will only find the answers we are willing to find. Religious leaders already ignorantly have proclaimed the cause was removing prayer from public schools while politicians have begun exploiting the tragedy with partisan politics. Blame is much easier to tolerate than self-reflection. Without doubt, the “mental illness” of the shooter will carelessly be blamed as the cause.

Most attempts to explain evil do so by identifying it outside of our individual and social identity. Evil is “them,” not “me” or “we.” If we can explain a school shooting through sin, political failure of the “other” party, or mental illness, we feel safer. If we can place the sole blame on the shooter, then we do not have to bear the brunt of the collective responsibility to which Tillich speaks. We ought hold the shooter responsible, but not in service of justifying our own irresponsibility. The etiology of violence is always more complicated than a single cause.

For instance, most people diagnosed with or meeting the criteria for mental illness are not violent. At most, mental illness may be a small contributing factor to violence, but never is it the sole cause. Violence is abnormal for those individuals diagnosed with mental illness and those who do not meet such criteria.

When we rush to diagnose these violent individuals, we quickly discount the other factors contributing to the violence. Whether perpetrated by someone diagnosable with a mental illness or not, there are always many factors that come together leading up to the act of violence.

It is tragic that we do not consider the impact of the millions of people in the nonviolent majority diagnosed with mental illness when we rush to diagnose the shooter with some type of psychiatric disorder. Many of these clients feel ashamed to be categorized with the perpetrator, further intensifying the stigmatization of mental illness.

We do not consider that many will readily lump all people diagnosed with mental disorders into the category of “dangerous,” thus further isolating these individuals. Ironically, it is such isolation that often plays a major role in causing and maintaining the psychological suffering that is diagnosed as “mental illness.” Furthermore, it is likely that isolation often is a contributing factor to violence.

Collective Responsibility

The world will not become a safer place as long as we only look to the shooter for answers. It will not be a safer place until we are willing to look inside on a personal level, and a collective level. We need to honestly examine why more mass shootings happen in the United States than any other country in the world. We need to consider why our prison population dwarfs most other countries. We need to consider why other countries, such as China, are experiencing a rise in violence as they become more influenced by the West. Though not as prominent in the news media, the same day as the school shooting in Connecticut occurred, there was a mass stabbing in China in which 22 children were stabbed. Such occurrences that once were unheard of in China are becoming increasingly common.

An honest look at contributing factors of violence in the United States means considering what we hold precious, what comforts us, what entertains us, and what we enjoy, with an openness to acknowledge that these, too, may be factors contributing to violence. A few examples may help illustrate.

First, in the United States, many enjoy violent movies, television, video games, and music, but are these worth protecting if they contribute to violence and serve as a threat to our children’s safety? Yet, not all violence is equal. Violent shows tend to impact children more than adults and violence in which the individual identifies with the perpetrator of violence is more likely to contribute to violence (Huesmann, MoiseTitus, Podolski & Eron, 2003).

Furthermore, when parents can limit exposure to violence as well as talking with children about the realistic consequences of violence and empathy for the victims, the impact may be lessoned or even reversed (Hughes & Hasbrouck, 1996). In general, moderate exposure to violence that portrays the emotional consequences for victims (as opposed to the graphic portrayal of consequences) combined with discussion of the consequences and responses to violence are less likely to be harmful. However, rarely is exposure to violence managed in this way.

Second, many people in the United States enjoy gun ownership and are responsible with their guns. However, gun ownership is higher in the United States than anywhere in the world, and we have more gun violence than anywhere in the world. Rarely does gun ownership save anyone’s life in the United States, and never has it been necessary to protect us from a tyrannical leader. However, guns regularly and frequently are used for violent crime. It may not be necessary to completely eliminate gun ownership to decrease violent crime; stricter laws on what guns can be owned, who has access to them, and how guns need to be stored may suffice. It seems evident that something, however, needs to change with gun control in the United States.

Lastly, economic disparity has regularly been connected to violent crime (Elgar & Aitken, 2011; Hsieh, 1993). At the same time, economic disparity in the United States continues at extreme levels. Are we willing to cash in an American dream that focuses on individual material success for one that places greater concern on social harmony and concern for others if it leads to significantly fewer victims of violent crime? In stating this, I am not advocating for socialism, but rather a more balanced capitalism.

Conclusion

Our first priority in response to the tragedy of the school shooting in Connecticut needs to be individual and collective grieving for the children and their families. However, we also must not allow another tragedy like this to occur without us seeking to learn from it. Our grieving ought lead to a collective, honest reflection upon the causes of violence in the United States. From this reflection, we are called to make difficult decisions about what truths we are willing to accept and what choices we will make based upon these truths. My hope is that this time we, collectively, will be wiser in how we choose to respond to tragedy.

References

Elgar, F. J. & Aitken, N. (2011). Income inequality, trust, and homicide in 33 countries. European Journal of Public Health, 21, 241246.

Hsieh, C. (1993). Poverty, income inequality, and violent crime: A meta-analysis of recent
aggregate data studies. Criminal Justice Reviews, 18, 182202.

Hoffman, L., Warner, H. J., Gregory, C., & Fehl, S. (2011). Existential-integrative perspectives
on the psychology of evil. In J. H. Ellens (Ed.), Explaining evil (Vol. 3: Approaches, responses, solutions; pp. 263286). Praeger.

Huesmann, L. F., MoiseTitus, J., Podolski, C., & Eron, L. D. (2003). Longitudinal relations between children’s exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977–1992. Developmental Psychology, 39, 201221.

Hughes, J. N. & Hasbrouck, J. E. (1996). Television violence: Implication for violence prevention. School Psychology Review, 25, 134151.

James, W. (1997). The varieties of religious experience. Touchstone (Original work published in 1902)

May, R. (1969). Love and will. Delta.

May, R. (1982). The problem of evil: An open letter to Carl Rogers. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 22, 1021.

Nietzsche, F. (1990). The antichrist. In R. J. Hollingsdale (Ed. & Trans.). Twilight of the idols/The antichrist. Penguin Books. (Original work published in 1894)

Tillich, P. (1957). Systematic theology (Vol. 2). University of Chicago Press.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.

What the Zimmerman Verdict Means to Me

This Blog was originally published July 15, 2013 on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

I was surprised by the intensity of my emotions when I heard the news of the Zimmerman verdict earlier this evening. George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed African American youth. After a highly publicized trial, he was found not guilty. As I read the news alert, I immediately responded in anger. The next several minutes my emotions quickly shifted back and forth between anger and sadness while my thoughts were continually drawn to my sons. As I write this, I feel much less safe in the world, particularly in regard to my children.

Being a Father

I am the father of three biracial children. I am a white male, born of privilege. My wife is black; any privilege she has now was hard won. Our three sons will be labeled as black, African American, and biracial. I always knew that I had much to learn about raising biracial children, but I clearly remember a series of events that really brought this home to me. Shortly after the birth of my first son, I went to hear Derald Wing Sue speak at a conference. Although I had been familiar with Sue’s work, it was on this day that I came to admire him much more deeply. His presentation not only reflected impressive scholarship, but it was honest, vulnerable, and powerful. He shared about his reaction to a shooting of an unarmed black man in New York City. Although I no longer remember specifically, I believe the story was the shooting of Amadou Diallo, the same incident that inspired Bruce Springsteen’s powerful song,
“American Skin (41 Shots).” Sue shared about how he did not know what it was like for the mother of an African American son to have to teach him to keep his hands in sight if pulled over by the police. This is not because of anything negative about the police, and it is not intended to suggest the police are more racist than the general population. Rather, it is asserting that they are no different than everyone else. At that moment of Sue’s story, I realized some of the very painful lessons that I would have to teach my sons. As I sat there, I just wanted to weep.

A few weeks later, I was pulled over for speeding. I was acutely aware of my privilege at that moment. I have never had to think twice about reaching for my wallet or reaching to the glove compartment for my insurance. I never kept my hands on the wheel as the officer approached. I never felt I had to be nice for purpose of my safety, just general courtesy. I tried to envision what it would be like in several years when I would have to tell my son that he could not do the things I can—that if he was pulled over by the police, he should not reach for his wallet or insurance, and that he should be extra nice. Again, I just wanted to weep.

Tonight, as I read the verdict, I thought of my sons, so innocent and loving. I thought of my freedoms that they won’t have; I thought of their safety and the lessons they would some day need to learn. Once more, I just wanted to weep.

Racial Profiling

As a white male, I often hear talk of racial profiling. I hear what everyone hears, and I hear what my wife and sons will never hear because it is only said in groups that look very much like me. In a conversation about neighborhood safety, I hear talk of “people who don’t belong around here,” knowing that the implicit part of the message is often about the color of their skin. I hear how the color of skin is emphasized when a crime is perpetrated by a Black or Latino individual, but inconspicuously unmentioned when the person is White. Like microaggressions, it is easy to deny any racial profiling is occurring, and it easy to ridicule those who would dare suggest such a thing.

I get that it is difficult to be accused of racial profiling. At times, people are falsely accused of racial profiling and this is unfortunate. Yet, how much more difficult is it to be accused of a crime and placed in jail for the color of your skin? How much more difficult is it to fear for your life because of racial profiling? How much more difficult is it to grieve for one’s innocent son, and to do so while his murderer goes free.

The same week that Zimmerman was found not guilty in Florida, CNN reported that Marissa Alexander, a Black woman, was sentenced to 20 years in Florida for firing warning shots when her husband, against whom she had a obtained a restraining order, was coming after her. CNN also reported that Zimmerman’s lawyer, O’Mara, shortly after the verdict, made the audacious claim that Zimmerman would never had been charged with a crime if he was a Black man. And I have to think, would Zimmerman have been found not guilty had he killed an unarmed White teenager. We are not all equal in the United States; it doesn’t take much honesty to admit that.

We must not forget the potential implications of this verdict. This can be interpreted as saying that it is legal to shoot and kill an unarmed Black man, or even a teenager, for appearing suspicious or out of place if the shooter feels threatened by them, even if there is no evidence the victim was doing anything wrong. For many, just the presence of a Black man or teenager in many settings will bring the feeling of being threatened. Rarely, however, is there discussion of where that fear comes from. We need a more thorough examination and discussion of the phenomenology of this fear. It is often has little, if anything, to do with the individual who is feared.

Conclusion

We don’t all have the same freedoms. If, as existential psychologists, we don’t recognize this reality, we don’t really understand what freedom means politically or existentially. This is a painful recognition that is all too present in my life. I can’t help but believe that tonight, in the Zimmerman verdict, freedom was cheapened. As I sat down to write this piece and process my own emotions at the verdict, I just wanted to weep. Yet, I knew that, instead, I needed to scream.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Work-Life Balance, Authenticity, and Existential Values

This was originally published on the New Existentialist Blog on March 4, 2014. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

I deeply believe that one of our greatest crises in the United States, as well as much of the world, is our inability to achieve work-life balance. Although “crisis” may sound dramatic, I believe there is a case for it. The psychological and physical health costs are quite significant, despite the difficulty in calculating them. These costs are hidden under personal and family stress, fast food and other poor eating habits, and habitual stress.

I come from a family of workaholics. Early in my career, 80 hour workweeks were not unusual for me and 60 hour plus work weeks were the norm. I would often hear, “I don’t know how you do it all,” and would appreciate this as a compliment. It was not until later that I began realizing this was an indictment of a problem. My personal change came through love, relationships, and reflection upon existential values.

While I spent many of my days talking about the importance of love, compassion, and relationships, I had trouble authentically living these because by all accounts, what was driving my life, or my ultimate concern, had become work and the development of existential psychology. Yet, the existential psychology I adhere to drives us to something beyond existential psychology; its ultimate concern is love and relationship. Yet, paradoxically, my commitment to existential psychology and work was interfering with my ability to authentically live it. This parallels what I’ve routinely witnessed in advocates of self-care: frequently, the individuals who teach and advocate for self-care are those who are the poorest at it and need it the most.

As I recognized my inauthentic lifestyle, I reflected upon what were the deepest values I wanted to live in my life. The top priority was easy: my sons, my wife, and my family. Next in line were my friendships. The third value in my big three was living a life of passionate compassion, which included direct expressions of compassion and concern along with advocacy and activism. I recognized that until I began living these values, I had no right to teach and train people in existential psychology as I could not do it authentically.

The shift is not easy. One of my first commitments in this change was that I began rarely working in the evenings or weekends, including appointments, phone calls, or emails. When I began implementing this, I would often have frustrated and angry emails on Monday because I had not responded to emails from Friday or the weekend. Over time, as I made my commitments to balance clear to colleagues and students, this boundary began to be respected. Yet, the volume of emails I have on Monday often still feels overwhelming. Frequently, all day Monday is nothing but catching up on email. I am also less efficient and responding to emails and everyone’s demands of me, including semi-frequently
missing an email. While I feel bad for aspects of this trend, knowing that it comes out of a commitment to balance helps me accept this personal limitation. In a world where receiving 50 or more emails a day is common, a commitment to balance sometimes means that things will fall through the cracks.

Challenges

Trying to live a balanced life in an unbalanced world is not easy. I recognize that my ability to achieve some semblance of it is connected to my privilege. It is less easy for many, including my students who have to work, often full-time, to be able to go to school, and my colleagues who have to work two or more jobs to make ends meet. This is a sign of a broken system. We need a cultural change.

The economy in the United States is one of the biggest challenges. Many individuals have to work multiple part-time jobs, or add part-time employment onto their full-time job, to make ends meet. Many employers are asking their employees to work more hours, take on more tasks, and be more efficient for the good of the company or to protect their jobs. Some fear that they will not have a job without working excessive hours. Furthermore, the willingness to put in many hours often seems more prized by employers than the ability to do good work. Yet, if the only way a company can survive is by exploiting its employees and putting their psychological and physical health at risk, then it should be asked whether it should survive. This is particularly true in mental health agencies where often therapists and other providers are worked to the point of severe costs to their own psychological and even physical health.

For many, like myself, the love of what one does is a challenge. I love teaching, writing, and providing psychotherapy and supervision. They are not just things that I do for a paycheck— they are things I do out of love for these tasks and recognition of their meaning. If I were independently wealthy so that I never needed to work again and was not allowed to take a paycheck, I would still want to do this work for free. But I must recognize that I am better at this work when I live a balanced life. It negatively impacts myself, my students, my clients, and even my employer when I do too much.

Conclusion

I am often not as efficient as I used to be and not as productive. For those used to my prior levels of productivity, they are sometimes frustrated with me for not doing as much or responding as quickly as they are used to. While I wish this wasn’t true, I am glad the reason for these limitations is that love of family and friends, concern for myself, and an authentic commitment to my existential values have taken over as my lived ultimate concerns.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Would the True Existential Therapy Please Stand Up? Eclectic, Antagonistic, or Integrative?

Originally published on the New Existentialist Blog on September 5, 2013. Republished after the New Existential Blog was discontinued.

One of the interesting aspects of being an existential therapist is learning the perceptions that others have about what it means to be existential. After having taught about existential psychology at seven universities, I have heard quite a few different perspectives. However, the diversity within existential psychology is maybe as diverse as the perceptions from outside.

I have advocated that there is no one existential psychology, and that to advocate for a single or pure existential psychology is actually quite unexistential (Hoffman, 2009). In many ways, it is better to see existential psychology as a mosaic in which there are a number of different values and positions that most existential therapist ascribe to; however, there are not any essential ideas or values that serve as a litmus test to identify a true existential therapist.

The Relationship of Existential Psychology to Other Therapy Orientations

Although there may not be a singular existential approach, it is important to consider the relationship of existential psychology to other approaches. Existential and humanistic psychology has a reputation of being antagonistic to other approaches to therapy. It is often pointed out that humanistic and existential psychology began as a reaction against behavioral and psychoanalytic approaches and has always had a bit of a rebellious flair.

Certainly, there is some truth in this characteristic of existential psychology. However, as Grogan (2013) points out, this was not the intent of many of the early founders of the third force movement. Maslow and Rogers did not see humanistic psychology as opposed to mainstream approaches (i.e., behavioral and psychoanalytic, at that time), but rather as building from them while addressing some of their limitations. Similarly, May (as cited in Grogan, 2013) said,

“…if humanistic psychology is only a protest, we can be sure that its demise will be assured” (p. 291).

While humanistic and existential psychology always intended to provide a critique of the mainstream, we must keep in mind what the best critiques are all about. It seems that in contemporary times, many associate critical thinking or offering a critique as simply finding the weaknesses, being critical, and maybe even attacking the position being considered. However, this is often the exact opposite—the lack of critical thinking! To critique or provide critical thinking means to think deeply and consider the strengths, weaknesses, limitations, and applications—not merely to be critical. At times, the best critiques are quite positive. If existential and humanistic psychology are nothing but critical of mainstream psychology and other approaches then our credibility ought to be called into question. When we rebel, it is vital that we have a cause and that we offer an alternative. We must, particularly given our reputation, make sure that our critiques are well grounded and balanced, lest we not be taken seriously by anyone but ourselves.

At the same time, it is important to stand for something. My concern about eclectic approaches to therapy is that they often have no foundation from which to stand. The idea of eclectic is essentially,
“we use what works,” but often insufficiently considers what it means to work. Additionally, it does not consider whether what is deemed to works fits with the values of those for whom it is purported to work. As C. S. Lewis stated:

Of all the tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.… To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. (as cited in Szasz, 1997).

It is dangerous to proclaim a cure without ever discussing with the client what the cure looks like or if they want it.

Toward Integration

We must stand for something, but in doing so, it is important that we do not stand against everything else. In moving toward an integrative perspective, existential therapists are able to maintain a solid grounding in existential psychology while considering, dialoging, and integrating other approaches. It is important that this is done with thoughtful consideration and critique. If one tries to integrate what does not fit with one’s foundation, then the therapist is likely to confuse the client while working against oneself.

Schneider’s (2008) existential-­integrative approach is not only a solid model for existential therapy, but it is also an important model of integration at its best. Some approaches to integrative therapy really are nothing more than eclectic approaches in a dressed-up language. Other times, the integrations have so many internal contradictions that they are no longer intelligible as a consistent approach to therapy.

Integration, when done right, combines the strength of having a consistent foundation for clinical practice with the adaptability that comes from drawing upon the strengths of different therapeutic approaches. Yet, it avoids the problems inherent with eclectic approaches or sloppy integrations.

Conclusion

Existential therapy is a natural integrative approach. From the early origins of existential thought, it has always been opposed to rigidity and fundamentalisms. Furthermore, integrative approaches avoid the errors of antagonism and being overly rebellious on one hand, while avoiding the groundlessness of eclectic approaches. Additionally, the focus on integration provides a corrective to some of the problems of extremes that has been associated with existential psychology in the past, regardless of whether these problems were based upon reality or not.

References

Grogan, J. (2013). Encountering America: Humanistic psychology, sixties culture, and the shaping of the modern self. HarperPerennial.

Hoffman, L. (2009). Introduction to existential psychotherapy in a cross-cultural context: An East-­West dialogue. In L. Hoffman, M. Yang, F. J. Kaklauskas, & A. Chan (Eds.), Existential psychology-East ­West (pp. 1­67). University of the Rockies Press.

Schneider, K. J. (2008). Existential integrative psychotherapy: Guideposts to the core of practice. Routledge.

Szasz, T. (1997). Mental illness is still a myth. Review of Existential Psychology and Psychiatry, 23, 70­-80.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.

The Wiley World Handbook of Existential Therapy

The Wiley World Handbook of Existential Therapy (2019), edited by Emmy Van Deurzen, Erik Craig, Alfred Längle, Kirk J. Schneider, Digby Tantum, and Simon du Plock, is likely the most important book on existential therapy published since Existence by May, Angel, and Ellenberger in 1958. The book emerged from the First World Congress of Existential Therapy held in London in 2015, and was released at the Second World Congress of Existential Therapy in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 2019. The book provides an overview of the four primary approaches to existential therapy — 1) Daesinanalysis, 2) Existential-Phenomenological Therapy, 3) Existential-Humanistic and Existential-Integrative Therapy, and 4) Existential Analysis (including Logotherapy). For each of these approaches, there are chapters on the history, theory, practice, case illustration, key texts, and future directions. The chapters are written by the leading contemporary figures in each of these approaches to therapy. Additionally, the book provides an overview of existential approaches to group therapy, international developments, and research on existential therapy’s effectiveness.

This book is a must-read for any student considering existential therapy as well as for current practitioners. The authors strove to utilize an accessible language, which makes the volume easier to read than some other introductions to these approaches. Although the book is over 600-pages in length, it is well worth the time investment.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Privilege, Existential Guilt, and Responsibility

Nanjing Masacre Museum. Photo taken by Louis Hoffman

Note: This is an update of a blog published on the New Existentialist Blog on July 23, 2013. This version contains minor changes. The blog was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

As I write this, it has been 12-years since I obtained my PhD in clinical psychology. In many ways, I feel quite proud of what was accomplished during this year; in other ways I struggle with the existential guilt associated with the privilege that allowed for that success. I write this as I near the end of my term as president of the Society for Humanistic Psychology. The focus of my presidency was on multiculturalism and diversity. Yet, this piece was inspired in part by an email I received recently confronting me on my own mistake when, in a recent article I wrote, I easily focused on the accomplishments and status of two White males instead of choosing to be more inclusive in the people I identified. I am very appreciative of that feedback. Even though diversity is one of the primary passions of my career, I am regularly humbled by my mistakes and how much I have yet to learn.

Existential Guilt
Existential guilt can be thought of as referring to when one lives inauthentically, or fails to seek out achieving one’s potential. However, it can also be understood as something connected deeply to human nature (i.e., something ontological) or who one is as a person. Tillich (1957) distinguishes between a more particular guilt and the guilt not from particular acts, but one’s participation in a larger system:

The citizens of a city are not guilty of the crimes committed in their city; but they are guilty as participants in the destiny of [humanity] as a whole and in the destiny of their city in particular…. They are guilty, not of committing the crimes of which their group is accused, but of contributing to the destiny in which these crimes happened. (p. 58)

May (1961), however, cautions that one should not be too judgmental about deserving this guilt:

…because of this interplay of conscious and unconscious factors in guilt and the impossibility of legalistic blame, we are forced into an attitude of acceptance of the universal human situation and a recognition of the participation of every one of us in man’s [sic] inhumanity to man [sic]. (p. 50).

Existential Guilt and Responsibility

The notion of ambiguity must not be confused with that of absurdity. To declare that existence is absurd is to deny that it can ever be given a meaning; to say that it is ambiguous is to assert that its meaning is never fixed, that it must be constantly won. Absurdity challenges every ethics; but also the finished rationalization of the real would leave no room for ethics; it is because man’s [sic] condition is ambiguous that he [sic] seeks, through failure and outrageousness, to save his [sic] existence.  (de Beauvior, 1948, p. 129)

If, as Tillich points out, one cannot escape being existentially guilty and, as May points out, one should not be too harsh on oneself about this, what does this mean? It seems the easiest choice would be to become cynical, apathetic, or both. Yet, from an existential perspective, this is seen as a call to live more responsibility in the face of one’s guilt. Existential thinkers are often creating meaning out of paradox, and it is often from the tension of these seeming contradictions that the deepest forms of meaning emerge.

Tom Greening addresses this beautifully:

I finally went to a concentration camp for the first time in my life last August… I wanted to do that, and am glad I did. It was a very powerful experience. It sort of felt like paying one’s existential dues… if you are going to be alive in the 20th or 21st century, that you are going to claim to be alive and had lived in that time, then what should you be aware of, or in touch with?… There are a whole bunch of existential facts that one ought to really… embrace, or acknowledge, even feel existential guilt about. (as cited in Claypool, 2010, p. 110)

One’s guilt is not their final condemnation, but rather it is what frees one to respond authentically and responsibly to the inevitability of failure in one’s limited, finite state. When the redemptive purpose of guilt is embraced, it is possible to no longer experience this as a burden, but rather a positive element of responsibility.

Existential Responsibility and Privilege
My life has been one of privilege, and for this, I gladly experience existential guilt. Guilt can be a healthier alternative to the other possibilities of shame or fear. Many people of privilege, when recognizing how their privilege has benefitted them and harmed others, feel a sense a shame. This can be a normal and even healthy phase in one’s cultural identity development. However, if stuck in shame, it can lead to defensiveness or an inability to respond. Similarly, many people of privilege live in fear of being identified as a “racist” or “sexist.” However, as Granger (2013) point out, fear is often the root of many forms of racism, particularly microaggressions. When one’s fear and guilt is embraced, they are freed to become part of a powerful personal transformation.

Guilt has the potential to be redemptive in the context of privilege. If guilt is embraced it can motivate individuals to live responsibly with the reality of privilege.

Conclusion

What we experience as an essential quality of authenticity is humility, of allowing ourselves to not know and be humbled by the not knowing for others and ourselves. (Heery, 2009)

I could never identify, let alone reject, all of my privilege. Privilege is such a thing that one has it, even when it is not recognized. If individuals can face their prilivege directly (i.e., zhi mian), then they can be empowered to use their existential guilt in a way to counteract their privilege. Thus, the calling is to reduce and eliminate privilege where one can and, when one cannot, to use it honestly, responsibly, and authentically.

References
Claypool, T. (2010). On becoming an existential psychologist: Journeys of contemporary leaders. ProQuest, UMI Dissertation Publishing (3412340).

Beauvior, S. d. (1948). The ethics of ambiguity (B. Frechtmsn, Trans.). Citadel Press.

Granger, N. , Jr., (2013, February 21). The future of existential psychology: Fear the boogie man, not the negro. Retrieved from https://www.saybrook.edu/newexistentialists/posts/02-21-13.

Heery, M. (2009). Global authenticity. In L. Hoffman, M. Yang, F. J. Kaklauskas, & A. Chan (Eds.), Existential psychology east-west (pp. 205-219). University of the Rockies Press.

May, R. (1961). The meaning of the Oedipus myth. Review of Existential Psychology and Psychiatry, 1, 44-52.

Tillich, P. (1957). Systematic theology (Vol. 2). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.

The Proper Use of Tradition and Scholarly Authority

This blog was originally published June 1, 2014, the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existential Blog was discontinued.

Lu Xun

Quick to kindle, quick to calm down, an even quick to grow decadent, men of letters [i.e., a type of scholar] can always find reasons and precedents from the classics to justify their shifts of allegiance. (Lu Xun, 1931/2003)

One repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil. (Nietzsche, 1892/1966)

The impulse in contemporary times, and really through all of history, is to either vilify or idealize history, tradition, and the scholars of old. We see this in our classroom, our political debates, our movies, and our books and journals. Yet, whether the impulse is to vilify or glorify, such simplistic ways of engaging tradition and history are problematic and potentially destructive.

I have long appreciated the approach of Lu Xun, an influential Chinese literary figure of the early to mid-20th century, in regard to this issue. However, as I have been working through a four-volume collection of his works, this appreciation has deepened. Lu Xun was known as a powerful critic of the cultural problems of China during his life, but this really only touches the surface of Lu Xun’s thought and work.

Lu Xun (1931/2003) wrote, “The sole hope of development for our literature lies in understanding the old and seeing the new, in comprehending the past and deducing the future” (pp. 138139). Similarly, he was highly critical of those who were critical or defensive of tradition without understanding its history. Before we can critique any period and any scholarship or tradition from the beginning of recorded history through contemporary times, we must first seek to understand. This, too often, is missing. We are quick to debate and assert a correct position, slow to ask questions and seek to understand. And even our questions, when they are asked, are really just trickery, pretending to seek understanding while seeking to find a weakness in the position of the other. Such processes serve no constructive purposes; they only tear down and reinforce what we believe we know to be truth.

The Use of Idols

All those from ancient times till now who hold no definitive views and have no guiding principle for the changes they advocate, but make use of the arguments of different schools, deserve to be called hooligans. Take a Shanghai hooligan. If he sees a man and a woman from the country walking together, he calls out, “Hey! You’re immoral—you’ve broken the law!” Here he uses Chinese law. If a peasant makes water by the roadside he shouts, “Hey! That’s not allowed. You’ve broken the law, and deserve to be locked up!” Here he is using foreign law. But in the end the law can go by the board—if you grease his palm he will let the matter drop. (Lu Xun, 1931/2003, pp. 134-135)

I grew up in a conservative religious environment, and my early studies of psychology, philosophy, and theology began in this context. From early on, I learned the law well. Yet, I also quickly became troubled by it. I remember watching it being used to harm others and justify oneself, which to me seemed inconsistent with the deeper messages of grace. It seemed there were many ways to condemn, but few routes to understanding and forgiveness. While I believe hypocrisy to be a given for all people, as no human being can live up to what they profess or even develop a complete and coherent belief system, this hypocrisy for me was too great. It was not so much the hypocrisy, but the way the hypocrisy was used and the hurt it caused.

Yet, I’ve seen these patterns recreated in each new spiritual and intellectual home that I have found, even my beloved existential and humanistic psychology. In my own approach to existential psychology, I see love, compassion, and relationship as essential foundations. Yet, too often, I have seen “humanistic” and “existential” used as a weapon. Most often, this occurs when certain important figures in the history of our movement become elevated to the level of becoming idols. I have seen this occur with Heidegger, Rollo May, James Bugental, and other leaders in our field. I have seen our students and early career professionals fearful to present or even speak up at conferences because they fear they will be harshly criticized for not having the orthodox interpretation of one of these figures.

This is a tragedy worthy of one of Nietzsche’s tirades. We dishonor those early influential thinkers in our movement when we turn them into idols. We distort the message they were bringing to us and the message they lived in their lives. I believe (and hope) that if these figures were around today their harshest critiques would be of the way we over-revere their contributions. We love and honor our heroes when we recognize their humanity. To be revered as an idol or infallible scholar is much less of an honor than to be revered as a human who within all the limitations of being human rose to contribute a unique voice and make an important, though imperfect, contribution worthy of a lasting influence on the history of humankind. When we look closely, the heroes of existential and humanistic psychology certainly were “human, all too human.”

Conclusion

I have long found it interesting that many outside of existential and humanistic psychology view them as outdated and label them as “dead theories” because they believe they have not changed since their inception. Too often, there is some truth to this; we often use historical ideas and figures as the measure or standard of truth. Yet, arguably more than any other major school of psychology, such a belief or process contradicts our theory.

Our history, tradition, and influential early voices are an essential foundation to the contemporary humanistic and existential psychology movement. Yet, if we treat them like idols or view their ideas as beyond reproach, they become our greatest and most powerful adversary. Even our good values hold the potential of evil when we become bound to them and cling to them so closely that we can no longer properly see them.

Lu Xun is a good model for us. Although he is known more for his critiquing of the culture and ideas of his time, a closer reading shows that he greatly values history and tradition. He honored and revered his culture and the people of China. Yet, he was very critical when people became bound to their ideas. There must be balance. We must revere, but not over-revere; we must honor, but not create idols; we must critique, but not destroy; we must preserve, but not stagnate. This honors history and tradition. Yet, many who seek to preserve tradition destroy it by holding on too tightly. We must let our history be freer than this.

References

Lu Xun (2003). A glance at Shanghai literature. In Y. Xianyia & G. Yang, Ed. & Trans.), Lu Xun: Selected works (Vol. 3; pp. 127-141).  Foreign Language Press.

Nietzsche, F. (1966). Thus spoke Zarathustra: A work for none and all (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). Penguin. (Original work published in 1892)

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.

Finding Oneself and Creating Oneself: Implications of the Psychotherapy Folklore

This blog was originally published October 1, 2014, on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued. 

“Perhaps, as we say in America, I wanted to find myself. This is an interesting phrase, not current as far as I know in the language of any other people, which certainly does not mean what it says but betrays a nagging suspicion that something has been misplaced.”
~ James Baldwin (Giovanni’s Room, 1956/1984)

“I am going to therapy [or on a spiritual quest] to find myself.” Phrases of this sort are common in the folklore and history of psychotherapy, particularly humanistic, existential, and other depth psychotherapies. I have even heard many therapists say this is a good reason for entering therapy as well as others who use the idea of “finding oneself” as a way of distinguishing depth psychotherapy from solution-focused therapies. While the idea of going to therapy to find oneself may not be as popular as it was in the 60s and 70s, this idea continues through contemporary times. Given it is sometimes associated with existential and humanistic psychology, it is good to consider its implications.

The Meaning of “Finding Oneself”

The idea of trying to find oneself suggests that there is some essential self that lies outside of one’s awareness or, at the very least, some essential nature that one is trying to discover. I consider both options below. Finding One’s Essential Self The essential self in this context is a typically an idealized self that, by the very idealization, remains elusive if not a burden through serving as a constant reminder of one’s inability to measure up to this ideal. Yet, the vision of the search and journey toward finding oneself is often highly romanticized. Once this self is found, it is assumed that peace and happiness will come with it.

If considered in the context of humanistic psychology, it is often purported that the self is essentially good. Some humanistic perspectives can contribute to this idealization; however, this tends more common with “pop psychology” versions of humanistic psychology (see Hoffman & Rubin, 2013). Existential psychology tends to place more of an emphasis upon the paradoxical nature of being human, including the potential for good as well as the potential for evil (Hoffman, Lopez, & Moats, 2013). This suggests that any self would likely be different from the idealized self that may initiate or inspire the search.

Deeper issues lie in the assumption that there is some essential self to be found. At quick glance, it may seem that much of existential and humanistic psychology is based upon the idea of an essential self. After all, we often talk about the idea of authenticity, which is sometimes conceived of being connected to an essential self. Sometimes we talk of soul, and soul is frequently conceived of as that essential self, though not necessarily so. The soul, in particular, can be conceived as an essential self that may go beyond the bounds of biology in some spiritual, religious, and/or transpersonal perspectives.

The self, and whether there is an essential self, also has important religious, spiritual, and cultural implications. Hoffman, Stewart, Warren, and Meek (2014) maintain that the idea of the self is socially constructed with different constructions in different theories, religions, and cultures. We refer to different “myths of self” to reflect these different conceptions and maintain that there is no one understanding of the self that is “healthiest” for all people. While the nature of the self and existence of an essential self may long be debated by philosophers, theologians, and psychologists, in the more practical, lived experience, different understandings of the self have a place.

Hoffman and colleagues (2014) further suggest that there can be problems with imposing a view of the self upon people. For example, it can be very problematic and counterproductive from a mental health perspective to impose a Western conception of the self upon someone from an Eastern culture, particularly individuals holding certain spiritual perspectives about the self.

Although it may be prudent to be cautious about imposing a particular view of self, it may at the same time be wise to be skeptical about seeking an essential self. As a therapist, I have had clients begin therapy saying that they want to find themselves. When this occurs, I believe it is important for me to be upfront with them in saying that I am not sure that this is a realistic therapy goal. Even if such a self exists, I am not sure it can be found. Furthermore, I worry that seeking an essential self that is believed to innately exist can, at times, work against a client’s agency and taking responsibility for themselves and who they become.

When clients present with the desire to find oneself, I will say that I do believe gaining a better understanding of oneself is important and something for which I can offer help. I also will typically add that I believe that there are aspects of oneself that can be changed or are under the influence of the individual. It is not necessary that the client and I agree about the nature or definition of the self or engage in a philosophical discussion about this; however, I think it is important that we be honest in our conversations relevant to this topic, especially if it is connected to their reason for entering therapy. At times, if beliefs are held rigidly enough, it may signify that we are not a good fit to work together. However, I find most of the time that there are ways we can work together while honoring these differences.

Finding One’s Nature

Seeking to discover one’s nature is different than seeking an essential self. It is not searching for something as specific. Instead, it could be conceived as seeking an understanding of the human condition as well as how one personally relates to or situates oneself in connection with the human condition. This weaves together the social and person with the nature of being human. I believe this is part of what Baldwin is getting at when he states in the quote from the beginning of this article that finding oneself, “does not mean what it says but betrays a nagging suspicion that something has been misplaced.” This suggests that there is something missing in one’s awareness or experience that is being sought rather than seeking the discovery of some essential self.

Existential and humanistic psychology both tend to purport that human nature is connected to potential and an innate growth orientation. In other words, there is something good in human nature. However, existential in particular as well as many humanistic viewpoints also acknowledge that there is innate limitation (i.e., finiteness) that is part of being human, or even the potential for destructiveness and/or evil. Awareness of both potentials can be understood as an important aspect of living in the fullness of responsibility (Hoffman, Lopez, & Moats, 2013).

The search to find how one is situated in connection to their human nature is a journey that most likely does not have a definitive destination. Yet, the search can still be valuable, and maybe more valuable, if one recognizes that one may never reach the end, or, if one does, they may not realize it.

Creating Oneself

An existential perspective is better represented as a dual process of seeking self-understanding or self-awareness and creating oneself. This is part of what Rollo May (1981) was pointing toward with his conception of freedom and destiny. There are aspects of what it means to be human (i.e., human nature) and what it means to be oneself (our personal nature, including our genes, our family, our culture, etc.) that cannot be controlled. These comprise our destiny that we cannot choose. However, we are also free. May believed that even if our freedom was minuscule in comparison to our destiny, it still makes things quite interesting. In this conception, finding oneself is also, at least to some degree, creating oneself. No matter how small the creating aspect may be, it is the one for which we have the most responsibility and the one that makes the journey to “finding” oneself the most interesting. May’s conception could be integrated with the idea of myths of self. This would suggest that there are many different conceptions of the self that can be considered valid or healthy; however, within each of them there is some degree of freedom and destiny.

Conclusion

The idea of “finding oneself” has a long and complicated history in psychotherapy. It is a process often misunderstood, and it may even misrepresent what psychotherapy is about. This is particularly true within an existential and humanistic paradigm. Yet, the self-discovery process, especially when combined with the recognition that we also play a role in creating who we are to become, is an exhilarating and valuable journey.

References

Baldwin, J. (1984). Giovanni’s room. Vintage. (Original work published in 1956)

Hoffman, L., Lopez, A., & Moats, M. (2013). Humanistic psychology and selfacceptance. In M. Bernard (Ed.), The strength of self-acceptance: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 317). Springer.

Hoffman, L. & Rubin, S. (2013, December 25). Rediscovering humanistic psychology: Understanding its complicated history. [Review of Encountering America: Humanistic psychology, sixties culture, & the shaping of the modern self]. PsycCRITIQUESContemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books, 58(no. 50). doi 10.1037/a0034938.

Hoffman, L., Stewart, S., Warren, D., & Meek, L. (2014). Toward a sustainable myth of self: An existential response to the postmodern condition. In K. J. Schneider, J. F. Pierson & J. F. T. Bugental (Eds.), The handbook of humanistic psychology: Theory, research, and practice (2nd edition; pp. 105133). Sage.

May, R. (1981). Freedom and destiny. W. W. Norton.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.

Why Become an Existential Therapist?

As an existential therapist, I’ve frequently heard colleagues and students comment, “I’ve always liked existential theory, but I don’t know what to do with it in the therapy room.” Students considering taking a course on existential therapy have also asked questions such as, “Am I going to be able to understand this theory?,” “Are we going to have to read Kierkegaard and Sartre?,” and “Will this class be relevant to what I do in therapy?”

Existential psychotherapy seems to draw both intrigue and hesitation from students and professionals in the mental health field. This is not a surprise from a therapy approach embracing paradox and priding itself in being largely technique-less. However, the fear of existentialism is largely due to a lack of understanding. In this overview, I hope to demonstrate that existential therapy is less threatening than it first appears, but also much more exciting and powerful than is often realized.

Flexibility with Foundation

It is important to continually re-evaluate where you are at as a therapist, including where you are at in your theoretical development. For many years now I’ve considered myself an existential therapist, but continued to read broadly into other approaches to therapy. Through this process I’ve become heavily influenced by contemporary/relational psychoanalysis, humanistic therapy, and constructivist approaches. At times, I’ve wondered whether one of these approaches to therapy would be a better label for what I do on a day to day basis. However, as I’ve assessed this process I continue to realize existential is the best title from how I approach therapy.

One of the advantages of the existential approach is that it provides a framework from which other approaches can be integrated. Kirk Schneider and Rollo May (1995), two of the most influential existential therapists, outlined an existential integrative approach. This places existential therapy as the foundation, but allows for an integration of other theories. However, because of the emphasis on authenticity, genuineness, and critical thought, it also demands that approaches or aspects of approaches which are integrated remain consistent with the foundation.

The flexibility of existentialism comes from many sources. By its nature, existential therapy does not fit with the fundamentalism that develops within many other approaches. The most successful therapies adapt to the strengths of the individual therapist, but also to each client. As Yalom (2002) states, a new therapy is created with each client.

Existential psychotherapy also avoids the opposite problem of too much flexibility incurred in eclectic approaches. A weakness of many eclectic approaches is that they loose their foundation through their attempts to be adaptive and pragmatic. Pragmaticism often seeks to accomplish goals without taking into account the consequence of the process to or result of attaining the goals.

Central Tenets of Existential Thought

Yalom (1980) identified the four major themes of existential thought as death, freedom/responsibility, isolation/loneliness, and meaninglessness. While Yalom’s organization is generally agreed upon, it also reflects a significant point of distinction. Yalom states these themes in a manner which emphasizes their finality. Yalom does not believe there are ultimate answers to these questions. Rather, they are viewed as existential terrors with which we all much cope. Other existential thinkers disagree. May, Tillich, and many others state that while there may be ultimate answers to these issues, we are not able to fully attain these answers and the questions remain difficult.

The issue of death refers to the reality of a physical death, but is also symbolic of all human limitation. These two prongs of finiteness are difficult realities for many people to accept. Ernest Becker’s (1973) The Denial of Death, is often considered a classic in this discussion. Becker makes a penetrating analysis of our attempts to deny our finiteness. In Becker’s (1975) follow up, Escape from Evil, this argument is extended to the concept of evil. Becker purports the basis of evil is the denial of our finiteness.

Freedom is the next existential reality Yalom (1980) discusses. It is essential to connect freedom with responsibility. You cannot have one without the other. Yet, this is what many people seek and also can contribute to the problem which bring many individuals into therapy.

Isolation is the third existential reality (Yalom, 1980). Here, we are pushed to deal with the reality that everyone experiences isolation and loneliness. Yet, the desire for love, connection, and intimacy is arguably the strongest and most central human drive. Don’t let the odd placement of relationship as the third existential issue trick you. Many, maybe most, existential therapists place relationship is the primary issue of human existence.

Meaning, the final of the central existential issues, unites the three other theories. Humans are meaning seeking creatures. The attainment of meaning requires the facing of the three previous existential issues. This also returns us to relationship; many existentialists believe authentic relationship is the most powerful form of meaning a person can achieve.

How Therapy Heals

The common adage “it is the relationship that heals” is consistent with existential therapy. While it would be a mistake to claim any one theory on how change occurs according to existential theorists, the general tendency is toward a phenomenological, experiential, and relational perspective.

While the focus is on the relationship, there are many other aspects of therapy which contribute to the healing and growth process. First, insight is extremely important. Existential therapists may interpret aspects of the unconscious differently, but they still believe in the importance of the unconscious. Existential therapy also helps people make changes in their attitudes, decisions, behaviors, and thoughts through the awareness process. While the approach to accomplishing these changes is very different than brief therapy, existentialists agree they are part of healing.

A third component of healing is experience. Experience can be thought of in terms of experiencing a genuine relationship, but also is conducive to the idea of a corrective emotional experience talked about within many psychodynamic approaches to therapy.

As should be evident, healing occurs through a variety of processes in existential therapy. However, the therapy relationship remains a central component in all the various aspects of healing.

The Experience of the Therapist

The therapist takes a unique role in existential therapy. We are co-participants in a deeply rewarding, but sometimes painful process. While therapist and client sit facing each other, the process of therapy focuses their vision in the same direction. Existential therapy is, at its heart, a very collaborative approach.

Because of the focus on genuineness, authenticity, and awareness, it requires the therapist to be emotionally present and available. Additionally, it is vital that the existential therapist continue to keep their vision as clear as possible by doing their own work, continuing in the self-reflective process, and seeking out their own continued journey.

While it is often thought that depth therapists are passive in their way of relating with clients, this is a misnomer. Existential therapists are very actively engaged in the therapy process. However, their engagement is not in a directive manner. Rather, it’s an engagement in the relationship process as it unfolds and develops. Being passive is not genuine.

Advice for those Considering Becoming an Existential Therapist

If you are considering the pursuit of becoming an existential therapist, I would recommend beginning by reading three authors which will give you differing perspectives. Yalom is a good place to start because his reading is the most accessible. I recommend beginning with Love’s Executioner (1980) and Existential Psychotherapy (1989). The former begins with a brief overview of existential theory before offering 10 tales or case histories of existential therapy. The latter is the most comprehensive overview of existential therapy written to date.

Yalom was heavily influenced by Rollo May, who is generally considered the father of American Existential Psychotherapy. May, like Yalom, is an excellent writer who has an ability to make existentialism accessible. Love and Will (1969) and The Cry for Myth (1991) are two excellent places to start with Rollo May. The former has more clinical utility, while the latter is more abstract but an immensely important book.

Frankl provides a much different approach than May and Yalom. His book, Man’s Search for Meaning (1984), is a classic far beyond the realms of existential thought and psychotherapy. It begins with Frankl’s experience in the concentration camps during World War II and follows this with an overview of logotherapy (Frankl’s approach to existential therapy). However, for a better summary of Frankl’s approach to therapy, Man’s Search for UltimateMeaning (2000) is recommended.

Two other resources may help get a vision of the existential approach and deserve mentioning. First, are the many videos of James Bugental. Bugental was one of the early existential therapists strongly influenced by Rollo May and many humanistic psychologists. His legacy includes many brilliant therapy demonstration videos which do an excellent job of illustrating existential therapy. A second resource is Kirk Schneider’s Rediscovery of Awe. Using an existentially informed depth psychotherapy approach, Schneider gives a vision of how existential thought and depth psychotherapy can have an impact beyond the therapy room.

There are a growing number of other training opportunities in existential psychotherapy. If you remain interested after some initial reading on existential therapy, it may be beneficial to seek out one of these training opportunities and/or contact an experienced existential therapist to talk with them in more detail about what it like to be an existential therapist.

Conclusion

Being an existential therapist is an extremely exciting career. The experience of working with suffering people to help them find healing, new insight, and authentic relationship in itself is rewarding. An added benefit is the colleagues you will meet. It is a wonderful group of people that is drawn toward existential therapy and we are always happy to welcome new colleagues.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Review of The Beautiful Risk by James Olthuis

James Olthuis is an impressive therapist and writer. I was first introduced to this book when attending a presentation on Olthuis’s approach to therapy. I was so struck by the deep compassion and love that was evident in his presence. When providing a therapy demonstration, it was evident that Olthuis is truly gifted in his ability to connect with people and recognize their suffering.

The Beautiful Risk is an excellent book, but does not replace the power of attending one of Dr. Olthuis’s workshops. While Olthuis does not consider himself an existential therapist, the similarities abound in his relational approach which he describes as being strongly influenced by relational theory, feminism, and postmodernism. An important point of convergence between Olthuis and existential thought is in the valuing of the relationship. He demonstrates the power availed through a compassionate relationship between therapist and client. Some of the most powerful illustration in this book are the times when Olthuis talks about the power of crying with his “therapeuts.”

A central theme throughout this book is love. For Olthuis, the basis of this is his spiritual beliefs and convictions. The Beautiful Risk, in embracing this relational perspective, the concept of love, and spirituality provides a great example of a high quality integrative perspective. Yet, it is still a good read for those not interested in the more spiritual approach.

I highly recommend this book for therapists and those seeking to become a therapist, especially those who feel stifled by many of the ways therapy is practiced in today’s society.

Added 2004; Never been updated.

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.