by Aimon Tanvir Malghani

What Critics Argue about Psychotherapy

6 years ago | Posted in: Articles | 568 Views

Three types of illness are known to exist in human societies: relating to body; relating to mind; and relating to soul. First type of illness is physical disorder for the treatment of which people go to physicians. Third type of illness is the disorders of soul that draw a person towards religion and attaining spirituality; purifies his beliefs; and he tends to stay close to god. The second one is much more complex and disorders related to it are termed as Psychological disorders.

Psychological illness is getting much common these days owing to the situations that the human civilization is confronting. The enigma of today’s civilization is causing agony to human minds. Wars, civil disturbances, social issues, politics, unemployment, poverty and several other factors contribute in creating a state of depression that leads to psychological disorders.

Psychological disorders may be treated via medication or proper psychotherapy. According to Wikipedia, Psychotherapy is a general term which refers to therapeutic interface or handling contracted between a trained professional and a client, patient, family, couple, or group. The problems addressed are psychological in nature and can vary in terms of their causes, influences, elicits, and potential resolutions. Accurate assessment of these and other variables depends on the practitioner’s capability and can change or evolve as the practitioner acquires experience, knowledge, and insight.

In society like ours, emotional stresses and psychological disorders are though getting common day by day but there exists a paradox about their treatment. If I tell someone that I am seeing a psychiatrist, people think of me as stupid who is not capable of dealing with her own emotions; or in other case they may call me mad or insane. Critics of psychotherapy are unconvinced of the healing power of a psychotherapeutic association. Because any involvement takes time, critics note that the passage of time alone, without therapeutic intervention, often results in psycho-social healing. Social contact with others is universally seen as beneficial for all humans.

Many resources available to a person experiencing emotional distress—the friendly support of friends, peers, family members, clergy contacts, personal reading, healthy exercise, research, and independent coping—all present considerable value. Critics note that humans have been dealing with crises, navigating severe social problems and finding solutions to life problems long before the advent of psychotherapy. Of course, it may well be something in the patient that does not develop these “natural” supports that requires therapy.

Further evaluations have emerged from feminist, constructionist and conversational sources. Key to these is the issue of power. In this regard there is a concern that clients are persuaded—both inside and outside the consulting room—to understand themselves and their difficulties in ways that are consistent with therapeutic ideas. This means that substitute ideas (e.g., feminist, economic, spiritual) are sometimes indirectlydestabilized. Critics suggest that we idealize the situation when we think of therapy only as a helping relation, that it is fundamentally a political practice, in that some cultural ideas and practices are supported while others are undermined or disqualified, and while it is seldom intended, the therapist-client relationship always participates in society’s power relations and political dynamics.

Whatever critics may say, psychotherapy provides a way to bridge the gap between the person’s potentials and his actions. It no doubt can have a great impact on personality and may bring about positive changes among the individuals of the society.

 

source: Aimon Malghani

Tags: ,

Share it.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts