Individual Psychology and Logotherapy: Facing the Challenge of the 21st Century

Abstract

The evolution of dynamic psychology has been highly contradictory and uneven due in part to differences of emphasis and focus, and also due to philosophical and theoretical differences, which led to congruent and incongruent results between the respective schools. Now, especially with the new millennium, many are asking again whether in fact we should not go beyond the different schools towards a new sense of unity and purpose. Today there is a call for integration and a sense of common purpose, although how this is to be achieved is not clear. However, it has been argued that the introversion of a theory and the defence of its purity by its adherents will act as a brake on its growth and further development (John, 1998; Millar, 2000). The basis of any theory is always incomplete (Fromm, 1980) and consequently scientific progress must come as a result of open dialogue and debate for the benefit of all schools of psychology and psychotherapy. Classically, Adlerian psychology was founded upon a flexible and open-ended approach to the understanding of human nature. Orgler, for example, notes that Adler avoided offering a ‘rigid scheme’ that could easily be copied by physicians and therapists (Orgler, 1973, p.167). And, regarding training, Orgler writes that ‘Adler demanded a thorough knowledge of other psychological schools, of philosophy and of pedagogy’ (ibid, p.176).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 1 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.