In response to Discussion 1, which finds that the Object Relations Therapy is the appropriate intervention method for dealing with a client exhibiting guilt feelings towards his mother, I find the presented arguments valuable, yet incomplete. The object relations therapy can be an effective method for dealing with the client’s problems, because, as it is mentioned in Discussion 1, the object is the internal idea, memory or experience with which the client associates the relationship with his mother.
However, another psychodynamic theory can also address this issue. The client’s therapy method could be the Adlerian therapy, as it connects the individual with his environment, for understanding how he fits in his world. This approach could have been used both in assessing and in treating the client, because, as the therapist Jon Carlson indicates, clients’ treatments should be tailored specifically on the treated persons (Carlson, 2008).
Furthermore, in Discussion 1 there is no mentioning or argument on why the author rejects eliminates the Adlerian theory as appropriate for answering the examined case. The author response that the object relations theory examines the past for analyzing the present addresses the analysis part of the therapy, but not the intervention. I consider that the intervention part of the therapy is better addressed through Adlerian theory, because this therapy method comprises the non – determinism philosophy. According to the non – determinism dimension of the Adlerian therapy, people’s lives are not determined, but they can change through learning (Carlson, 2008, 1:26:40).
Furthermore, the goal oriented approach specific to Adlerian theory would have been useful in the case of the examined patient. Although a goal oriented approach is often rigid, as the author of Discussion 1 observed, the Adlerian theory implies a humanistic approach, customized on the client’s personality (Corey, 2008).
Regarding Discussion 2, I agree with the writer that connections are very important in life, and I find valid the argument of studying the object relations theory for better understanding this therapy approach. However, therapy needs to go into deeper analysis that simply focusing on connections. An analysis of the personal consciousness (Finn in Capuzzi & Gross, 2011) or personal identity as reported to the birth order (Carlson, 2008) are several approaches for applying a deeper analysis for therapy interventions. Extracted from the psychoanalytical field, aspects such as unconsciousness, psychosexuality or coping mechanisms could also inform approaches to the therapy analysis and intervention for the examined client (Johnson in Capuzzi & Gross, 2011).
The observations of this author regarding the appropriateness of Dr. Scharff’s intervention because it implied pointing out to the client his responsibilities are unsupported and not aligned with the connectivity dimension (Scharff, 2008). The client’s case is more related with personal consciousness, unconsciousness and coping mechanisms, rather than with connectivity, as it is mentioned in Discussion 2. Furthermore, approaches from the Adlerian theory could have better addressed the problems of the analyzed client, through the encouragement approach, which gives patients courage to identify personal strengths where there are no strengths, changing their perspectives about their selves (Carlson, 2008). For a patient like the one Dr. Scharff cared, the encouragement approach might be more effective than the confrontation approach, because the latter could be perceived as an attack towards the client, further feeding his weaknesses.
Overall, the object relations theory is not sensitive to the inferiority complex that clients in need of therapy might possess and foster across various personal experiences (Dufrene in Capuzzi & Gross, 2011). Moreover, the Adlerian theory better addresses the self-consciousness and the focus on the present, and it better integrates the encouragement, non – determinism, learning and coping mechanism than Scharff’s method.
Both Discussion 1 and Discussion 2 focus on a static therapy, more entrenched in the past of the clients, which cannot produce coping mechanisms for the client to overcome the difficulties in the present life. Instead, the Adlerian theory includes learning approaches, specifically for helping clients to find a new path for a sustainable development.
References
Carlson, J. (2008) Adlerian Therapy. California: Psychotherapy.net.
Corey, G. (2009) theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy. (8th ed.). California: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Dufrene, R.L. in Capuzzi, D. & Gross, D.R. (2011) “Chapter 5 Adlerian theory” Counseling and psychotherapy: Theories and interventions (5th ed.). Alexandria: American Counseling Association.
Finn, A in Capuzzi, D. & Gross, D.R. (2011) “Chapter 4 Jungian analytical theory” Counseling and psychotherapy: Theories and interventions (5th ed.). Alexandria: American Counseling Association.
Johnson, A.L. in Capuzzi, D. & Gross, D.R. (2011) “Chapter 3 Psychoanalytic theory” Counseling and psychotherapy: Theories and interventions (5th ed.). Alexandria: American Counseling Association.
Scharff, J. (2008) Psychotherapy with the experts. California: Psychotherapy.net.
