Dr. Sergio Romano, Psychology Psychotherapy, Psychodrama

Models and Psychotherapy

Models and Psychotherapy

Models and Psychotherapy

di Sergio Romano and Elena important

Francesco Remotti, anthropologist at the University of Turin and a deep knowledge of the culture Banande, a population of Congo, explains how during an initiation ceremony that Olusumba, during which the young people of the village are taken in the forest, they turn their application to the:

“Omundu niki?” "A man what?”

For its part Pontalti, Psychiatrist, reminds us that the Enlightenment forward, we have seen a gradual emergence of the individual and how Western philosophers nineteenth now rethinking the question guide, have come to place it so: What it means to be a Human Being?

Any type of culture, addresses this question. The forms through which tries to give answers are of course many and also reflect the complexity of society itself.

In the culture Banande what young people are asking for is essentially to become good Abakonde, ie cutters trees. We can say that the question is simple, clear and somehow orients, helps and guides the young man in his individuation process. So it is not for us, where the society in which we are immersed and of which we are a part, offers a number of models for which to strive very often confused and superficial, often the result of astute as unscrupulous marketing policies, that make the individuation process, in itself a long and tiring, extremely complicated.

Individuals are continuously subjected to a real media bombardment where even those who possess high critical capacities, are in difficulty.

We promote un'antropopoiesi anonymous and continuous, while in so-called "primitive" is un'antropopoiesi explicit type and programmed. At the base of both considerations antropopoietiche, there is the assumption that human beings are "facts, redone and built "by the culture in which they are immersed. Men like beings in the making.

If you accept this premise, need to put a lot of emphasis on the use of words such as model and certainly is totally inconsistent to interpret the various models as "higher-level entity with exhaustive epistemological", especially when there is a tendency to equate the theoretical constructs that underlie the models with their application, not to proceed with more continuous evaluation.

The concept of "Model" is intended, according to the definition given by Galimberti in his "Dictionary of Psychology", in two meanings:

1) as a model of a theory, where to theory is defined as a conceptual framework that is expressed in a formalized language in which, , each meaning is assigned a certain linguistic expression that, together with the other, is able to name all of the data offered by the experience.

2) as a model of a phenomenon or a set of phenomena by which is meant a construction more or less abstract that mimics the structural characteristics of the phenomenon observed.

Although these definitions provide a starting point for reflection on the difficulty of reconciling the continuous changes that characterize the human being with the need to refer to theories and practices static, often considered as usable "regardless".

Our culture is based on habits and conventions whose values ​​modeling are mostly implicit and unconscious. These values ​​lead to massive mergers that do not always have adequate space for reflection.

The scientific world, which psychotherapy refers, does not always know diverge from that attitude.

If the "scientific models" on one side can orient, channeling and guiding practices from theoretical considerations based, other, their application tout court reduces the possibility of grasping the many facets and complexity of which the phenomenal field consists.

If the phenomenal field is located in the "social", in which they also co-build the mandate of psychologists, we can not but reflect on the questions that the new social, in flux, come to us.

The complexity of social phenomena, always puts us more in touch with the suffering associated with relational fields of life: This raises the need to "create the space for a plurality of interlocutors can exist in the proposed therapeutic and managed by psychologist"(Pontalti).

The direct comparison with our experience suggests that this should also result in a mental space of the therapist (e / o dell'équipe) capable of containing, to "stay" in the complexity without producing simplifications that have as their real purpose is to reduce the discomfort, and sometimes suffering, that the management of this complexity generates in the therapist.

The complexity of the changing contexts of life, in its cultural dimension, involving both patients and their "worlds", both the therapist / team and its "worlds".

Although this statement may seem obvious, our personal experience suggests how much is difficult to have the knowledge and tools needed to manage computing "double complex" resulting.

We refer here to the complexity of which are included in the therapist, concerning his private life subject placed in a context, probably very similar to that of the patient and the complexity arising from enlargement of the "network physician" that the therapist, precisely because it is facing an increasing complexity, is having to activate; local services, different professionals etc..

Each of the figures involved in the therapeutic project, will therefore be the bearer of a complexity that will add to the others in the game.

In light of this, we often see in step from complex to complex, stage that determines a state of confusion and great difficulty in proceeding, at the expense of the quality and effectiveness of care intervention.

If the therapist / team is not sufficiently aware of happening, or does not possess the tools to cope with this situation, it is possible that the situation lose the characteristics of time and place of treatment to become a place not to care, ideal crucible for the birth of chronicity.

Leave a Reply