One continental view on Gallo, F. ed. "Energy Psychology in Psychotherapy"
(Norton, 2002) I guess that, next to the various discussions of side-effects and
(contra) indications of EP, another major theme in the Energy-Psychology field
will be a discussion of the monumental "Energy Psychotherapy" reader. And
rightly so. In my opinion, it is by far the most comprehensive and
professionally written publication on EP and its many cousins (to paraphrase
Gary) yet. And numerous approaches have been described and illustrated in a most
lucid way.The integrity, creativity and skills of the various contributors are
obvious.The book looks superb, too.And that there is such an openess
within EP about the various perspectives and practices, this is maybe one of the
very best illustrations of our real dedication for searching deeper realities
and transcending dogmatic thinking. It is something that makes me happy of being
part of this community.It will be obvious to any openminded reader of this book
that we're really most willing to learn. For all of that a standing ovation from
France... There is another issue for me (three in fact) that I want to
raise -that casts something of a shadow over this but doesn't intend to take
away anything of what I said above-.I offer these "shadow-remarks" in the hope
that they can contribute to the spirit of "debate and learn" in EP. 1)
In continental Europe, kinesiology is wide-spread.And "Energy
Psychotherapy", right from the first page, closely associates EP with
kinesiology.As far as I know, this is historically correct.But
I also have a problem with it, that relates to our search for recognition by our
professional colleagues. As far as I can tell, the muscle-test is frowned upon
(if not more) by a large majority of continental psychotherapy professionals (I
don't know how this is elsewhere).Most professionals over here that have heard
(vaguely, maybe) about muscle-testing, have heard about its abuses and the
unwarranted conclusions, often drawn from muscle-testing.Probably over
50% of my students in Germany are "Heilpraktiker" (naturopaths), and have as
part of their training worked a lot with MT. What I'm hearing is that most of
these give up MT after a few years, and some of them have become "loud" about
their negative impressions as to the reliability of MT and its potential
abuse.And, again as far as I know, there is as yet preciously little serious
research about the reliability of muscle-testing. Saying that the tester has to
remain "neutral" or "desinterested" is not seen by many as a helpful idea. In
fact, there is a lot of research on high-speed interpersonal signalling and
affecting that strongly suggests that being "neutral" or "desinterested" is not
possible. Just like the notion of "objective observation" has been seriously
challenged in modern physics. So, simply intending (or pretending?) to be
neutral or desinterested is something that at best is naive, for people who look
through life through a different filter: a filter based on the data of
non-verbal communication and unconscious influence.I think it is a sign of the
times that in modern psychoanalysis (partly based on micro-video analysis of
parent-infant interactions) the notion of objectivity is dropped, and that the
key word is not anymore "object-relationships", but affect-attunement and
intersubjectivity."Emotion-and-the-Brain researchers" and those who are
integrating the recent neurological findings with a growing mass of data from
infancy research, such as Allan Schore, are people I would highly recommend
studying. After all, we want to keep update with recent scientific findings,
don't we? I have contact with a number people who recently have been
introduced to diagnostic variations of meridian-therapy. Of course the people
that I meet, is a selective group. But one thing that does come up time and
again, next to all the appreciation and fascination of the effects of tapping,
is a doubt, dislike or even more about muscle-testing...And given the lack of
scientific validation of MT, what can I (we) can offer to counter the negative
reception of muscle-testing? The question: how much of MT is diagnosis, and how
much is suggestion? remains open, very much so, IMO. (As I suggested in a
previous post, MT can very well be seen as a (anti) therapuetic technique, maybe
more so than as a diagnostic technique, and I gave some arguments for that.)And
with that the questions: what are the data that MT makes EP more effective, and
to what degree? and: how can we know whether this difference is due to
suggestion of other potentially therapeutic effects of MT? And so, to
come back to the reception of the book: won't the apparently strong equation
between EP and muscle-testing lead to a more negative reception of EP in
continental Europe (where EP is still little known)? Won't it feed the bias that
many will have to a new approach which has such dramatic results? I maybe
haven't read the book carefully enough yet (but then, many psychotherapists will
probably look it through even less carefully, and with considerably less
knowledge about EP than I have), but I would have wanted that the controversy
about muscle-testing was made more visible, too.And I would have wanted that it
was made more visible that a lot of great "energy-work" is being done by
practitioners who, for whatever reasons, don't use MT.It would be
interesting to find out how the percentage between "MT-ing EP practitioners" and
"not MTing EP practitioners" is. Difficult to find out, probably! It will most
likely not come as a surprize that I don't use MT in my work (nor affirmations,
but that is another story).And so, the close association of EP and
muscle-testing, that I stumble upon so frequently in the book, puts people like
me in a difficult position, vis-à-vis my non-EP colleagues; and vis-à-vis my
place in EP-land. 2) The energy-model is described as "new".Well,
(neo)Reichian Therapy has been around for some time, now...In the European
Association for Psychotherapy (a rapidly growing umbrella organization of a
large number of different schools of psychotherapy), body-psychotherapy is a
recognized methodology. And a very large majority of body-psychotherapists work
or used to work from an energetic perspective. And work with chakra's, energetic
balance, flow and blocks are central here.The large majority of
professional psychotherapists are very critical towards to various branches of
neo-Reichian work. And a good part of that criticism is merited, IMO.Which is
yet another reason why I regret that the similarities and differences between
the neo-Reichian energy work and EP are not spelled out more carefully.So,
suggesting that the energy model is a new model risks to be received with the
question: how much do these EP folks know about what has been going on
before?From there to concluding that the "EP folks are amateurs" (or
worse) is not a big step, for those who are looking for "excuses" to make that
step...3) Another reaction that frequently comes up in discussions with
colleagues and students, when they hear about the various EP procedures: aren't
many of those techniques (one author in the book mentioned, with a
lovely self-mockery: "turning ourselves into pretzels, muscle-pumping, etc.")
mechanical solutions for relational problems?I wouldn't quite agree with that -
or not all the way.But still I find the question important enough to leave
it open. It merits a good discussion, I find. I hope that the above
is not taken as a "put-down".My intention here, as in all my posts, is to keep
the debate open and authentic. That's how I believe growth happens.And
if any of the above is misplaced: I'm open for "correction".Maarten
Aalberse, drs Clinical Psychology,
Maarten Aalberse, drs Clinical Psychology,
Body Oriented
Psychotherapist
27 rue d'EsblyF 77240
Cesson,
France
maalberse@wanadoo.fr
