Rejoinder to NYT April 5th “Change Doesn’t Happen the Way You think” by Benoit Denizel- Lewis

‘Change doesn’t happen the way you think’. Or so argues Benoit Denizet-Lewis in his April 5th Opinion Guest Essay in in the NYT. I concur and take it a step further.     While it may be true that there are many roads that lead to Rome, the shortest ones aren’t necessarily the best ways to get there. Clearly, ‘change your brain’ roads are faster than the psychoanalytic roads; but are they the more effective and longer lasting ones?                                                                                            In his article,” Therapy Wars: “The revenge of Freud” Oliver Burkeman presents data that suggest that they are not. He concludes that changes that result from ‘change your brain’ therapies tend to dissipate over time while changes as a result psychoanalytic treatment tend to last.   Further, in the classic work. “The Structure of Scientific of Revolutions”, by Thomas Kuhn, he argues that the validity of any scientific theory, or paradigm as he calls them, is as much dependent on religious, social and scientific politics as it is on science.  Kuhn says it all depends on which group or groups, have the power to decide reality at any time and place.  The Church’s repudiation of Galileo’s observation about movement in heavens is a classic example. In our current world, there is a societal pressure for quick fixes to complex emotional issues.              Although much of Freud’s theories are in disrepute these days, I believe that at least one belief is unassailable. In his brilliant work, “The Psychopathology of Everyday Life”, Freud shows that all behavior is motivated; and that motivation may not be out of conscious awareness, ie., the existence of the unconscious mind.                                              If one is to believe Freud’s theory, as I do, then ‘change your brain’ theory is both hubris and naïve. The notion that we change behavior by a simple force of will alone is an illusion, a reflection of a philosophical zeitgeist of an earlier era. I believe the road to change is a bumpy one, and that nothing of real value in life comes easily.                            There are at least two scientific theories that support my position on the relationship between psychoanalytic theory and human motivation and behavior; but at first glance, they may seem to be counterintuitive: 1. Newton’s third law of motion: That for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In this case, growth is uneven, two steps forward, one, two or three steps back. As Esther Perl, the famous couples’ expert says, growth is not linear 2, Einstein’s theory of the conservation of energy. That is, energy can neither created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed. In case of human motivation and behavior and psychoanalytic theory, where emotions are thought of as energy, they can be put into actions, into symptoms or into words.                             The goal of therapy, of course, is to help patients become adept at doing the last one. Here’s where I take Mr. Denizet-Lewis’s argument up a notch or two. I believe that psychoanalytic group therapy, as a complement to individual treatment, is the best highway of all.                           In individual therapy, patients tell the story of their life. In psychoanalytic group therapy, the group members act out their life stories. In a secure frame group, in which members are anonymous to each other, known only by first names, and where there is not any outside the group contact, the group can act as a mirror, members begin to see how they come across in relationships.  Naturally there’s always some resistance to seeing this, for taking personal responsibility. It takes courage and time to see it. At first, the member may try to blame others for it.                                                                                                                 However, the theory is that if the entire group sees it, then there’s greater validity that the group’s perception takes precedence over an individual’s perception. Over time, many group members begin to see the part that they have played in creating their own unhappiness in relationships.          Then and only then, are they in the psychological position to make changes. . It takes a good while before members start recognizing their own contribution, but when they do, it can be life altering.