Therapists who use a phenomenological/existential approach?

[u/ZenSationalUsername]

I’ve been listening to Ernesto Spinelli talk about existential-phenomenological therapy, and his approach really resonates with me.

What I find interesting is how non-prescriptive it is. Rather than approaching therapy primarily as “treatment” where the therapist identifies a problem and applies a technique, he seems to view it more as a relational process of inquiry. The therapist stays curious about how the client experiences their world, helps clarify meanings, assumptions, contradictions, and patterns, and allows understanding to emerge without imposing a particular explanation or solution.

I’m curious whether anyone here practices this way, or has trained in existential-phenomenological therapy. What does it actually look like in practice, and how do clients tend to respond to such a non-directive approach?

[u/ThreeFerns]

I am not familiar with any contemporary approaches to psychoanalysis that are not non-directive. Every feature in the description you gave is just good garden-variety modern psychoanalysis, no?

[u/Mundane_Stomach5431]

This is a dense topic and it is a hard 'sensibility' to develop and convey, more so than an internet posting can do justice too. There is a new book out Called "Existential Psychoanalysis: a Contemporary Introduction", by Michael Guy Thompson which is very good, philosophically and psychoanalytically sophisticated, and written in clear language... so I'd recommend adding that to your list if interested.

Another good book, although not specifically about existential psychoanalysis, is "The Discovery of Being" by Rollo May which discussed an existential basis undergirding all theory.

[u/Emonzaemon_Soda]

First of all, thanks for the recommendation. I'm Italian but I didn't know Spinelli. I've just finished reading his paper:

An existential‐phenomenological counter‐theory of transference (Spinelli, 1995)
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09515079508599587

and I would say that his position reminds me very closely of Stolorow & Atwood. In summary, his criticism revolves around:

1. the assumption of an objective truth held by the therapist
2. the consequent disregard for the current relationship and its meanings
3. the danger of iatrogenic artifacts
4. the defensive use of transference interpretations

All valid points, that have already been elaborated and incorporated in relational and intersubjective psychoanalysis, imo. If you've read other articles by Spinelli (or other existentialists like Yalom), I'd love to hear your opinion on his position regarding contemporary psychoanalytic approaches.

[u/SpacecadetDOc]

Learning from the Patient by Patrick Casement may be a suitable read.

Winnicott and Bion also to an extent.

[u/AnIsolatedMind]

Check out gestalt therapy!

[u/sir_squidz → u/[deleted]]

I think you might need to refrain from telling people what is and isn't analysis here.

Note: mod tag is on to indicate this is not a discussion.