Why do you have to commit yourself to a type of psychology to follow? If you ask any psychologist of any kind what type of psychologist (s)he is, they will be able to answer you. You will recieve any number of responses "I'm a Marxist Lacanian psychologist with an interest in discourse" or "I'm a critical social psychologist" or "I'm a Freudian/Jungian/Eriksonian/Kleinian psychoanalyst"... The list goes on...
Why do you have to be anything? Can't you just be an open-minded psychologist? There's worth in every area of psychology. I disagree almost wholly with Jungian psychoanalysis, but I think his theory on dreams is more comprehensive than Freud's. Everyone has something to offer, so why must we commit ourselves to one type? I was thinking this after my therapy today... My therapist is a "person centered" therapist (technically a counsellor, since I only see her 1x a week) but she's never said that's what she is, and she just seems open-minded to me. I want to be like her. She uses Gestalt techniques, person-centered techniques, she's willing to discuss things in relation to the past (which a person-centered person would normally reject any relevence of) and as a result, I feel she's a great therapist.
I was thinking about this because I'm suppose dto be writing an essay:
"Discuss the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Person Centred Approach to Counselling in Comparison to the Psychodynamic Approach"
And I was thinking about these two approaches. Although they seem very different, they might actually be very very similar. And I was thinking about this and I decided that once I'm fully qualified, I'll not stick to a particular framework, I'll be fluid and build the therapeutic setting depending on the needs of the patient... Shouldn't that be what it's all about anyway??
Bah! Psychologists!!! lol
Labels: life, psychoanalysis, rants, university, work