Catharsis

Please fill out all required fields to submit your message.

Invalid Email Address.

Please confirm that you are human.

• Abid

  November 19th, 2018 at 8:59 AM

  I think there are many benefits of catharsis. Catharsis is the purification of soul and internal body for peace.

  Reply

• Jeffrey Von G.

  January 9th, 2019 at 8:01 AM

  The historical problem with catharsis – though I prefer my term “therapeutic catharsis” – is that there has been no distinction between a therapeutic and a non-therapeutic cathartic/emotional release. My criterion for the difference is that catharsis is therapeutic when it arises coincident with the client receiving sufficient support for what he/she has been experiencing. At first, that may not seem to be the case because the client becomes more emotionally upset. That is because the support provided by the therapist has allowed unresolved hurtful experiences to emerge, and to do so in a way that is determined by the clien’t nervous system. Here, the client is experiencing a delayed fight or flight reaction, which mainstream thought has misinterpreted as retraumatization. Despite appearances, that is not the case. With continuing support from the therapist, this reaction reaches an intensity at which point it spontaneously transitions to a healing, or parasympathetic, phase, characterized by crying, indignation (preferred over anger) for objectively unfair/unjust treatment, and the person arriving at their own insight into how they were affected by the adverse experience. The forced activation of emotional experiencing occurs typically outside of session when an unexpected stimulus, even though objectively not hurtful, activates unresolved hurt but in a way that triggers too much of it and the pain processing mechanisms are overloaded. My concept of therapeutic catharsis is based on the presumption that there exists a natural healing process for psychological injuries; i.e., problems that cannot be significantly altered by a conscious act.

  Reply

• Dr. Thomas

  October 23rd, 2024 at 6:48 PM

  I consider that this article is incomplete
  Yes, as the author indicated, the concept of catharsis was introduced by the Greek, Aristotle. Catharsis, according to Aristotle, is the process of releasing strong or pent-up emotions through art. Aristotle coined the term catharsis—which comes from the Greek kathairein meaning “to cleanse or purge”—to describe the release of emotional tension that he believed spectators experienced while watching dramatic tragedy.
  In the late nineteenth century Anna O. (real name, Bertha Pappenheim) was a patient of physician Josef Breuer’s, one of Sigmund Freud’s colleagues and collaborators. She was responsible for coining the phrase “talking cure” to describe the talk therapy process that Breuer used to treat her condition. she had initially sought Breuer’s help with a series of symptoms that included visual disturbances, hallucinations, partial paralysis, and speech problems. Breuer diagnosed the young women with “hysteria” (AKA, “Conversion Hysteria” or “Psychosomatic disease), and later discussed her case with Freud, who developed his own ideas of what lay at the root of Anna O.’s condition.
  In those early days, patients were hypnotized, then encouraged to reenact traumatic events (i.e., repressed content). According to Breuer, when clients were able to freely express the emotions associated with repressed traumatic events, they had a catharsis. Catharsis seemed to frequently result in an end to (or amelioration of) symptoms of mental illness, particularly “hysteria.”
  Incidentally, Freud denied that hypnosis was no longer employed during psychoanalytic work, but one could argue that–during a session–an “altered state” would naturally arise for the patient (whether one deems this hypnosis or “transference” or whatever)!!
  Some of the terminology can be confusing. Others who were part of the Psychoanalytic movement (otherwise known as “Analytic Psychology,” “Depth Psychology” or “Psycho-dynamic Psychology”) were more apt to use the term “complex” when dealing with the phenomenon of disturbing neurotic material related to early traumatic events (which may or may not manifest in physical symptoms), figures like Carl Jung and Alfred Adler.
  Parenthetically, I will mention that Scientologists call essentially the same “entity” the “engram, and the “collective content” of this stuff the “reactive mind” or “the bank.’ Engrams are considered “aberrant patterns,” which can be resolved via counseling (which they call “auditing”), and the process involves “blowing off of charge,” (which is about the same as catharsis). I consider it unfortunate that Scientology and Psychology have long refused to acknowledge the contributions of each other.
  In my practice, I’ve found that working on these “complexes” (which are essentially “psych. lesions”) can be potently therapeutic. Yet, there is a side to this which some seem to have failed to recognize. Some therapists, like those in the “Primal Therapy” movement, were concerned–MERELY–to “blow off” (i.e., release) emotions. Others have been intent on actual “working” on the underlying material, which–often–would result in a similar “release” (often accompanied by insights), yet result in more permanent change (“therapeutic movement”)(or “resolution” of the neurotic material), while the “other approach” (arguably dealing on a more superficial level) might result in some short-term relief, but not much in the way of permanent (or more profoundly fundamental) change. Then, some therapists have borrowed tools from various traditions, to use along with this basic approach, such as role-playing (from Gestalt Psychology).
  I’d like to emphasize that this work is essentially a process. During Cognitive Therapy (essentially an intellectual/cognitive approach), catharsis does not particularly occur. Also, that “Exposure Therapy,” used for treatment of phobias has much in common with the process we’re discussing, as both represent confronting problematic historical (repressed) material, which can be terribly disturbing, and one is wont to avoid. In my experience, tools from “Emotional Freedom Technique” (“EFT”), and, EMDR are often dramatically effective in treating such things as phobias, addictions and PTSD. In TV and motion pictures (and even in news-stories) people are often portrayed as suffering from decades-long patterns of this kind, and there seems to be a widespread assumption that there is no way out of these terrible afflictions, when–OFTEN–this is NOT the case.

  Reply

• Dr. Thomas

  October 23rd, 2024 at 7:03 PM

  “The diagnosis of hysteria has been replaced by dissociative and somatoform disorders, and mental health professionals no longer diagnose clients with hysteria. Thus they have little incentive to provide treatment for “hysterical symptoms.”
  I’d like to take issue with this statement. People STILL do suffer from psychosomatic conditions (earlier known as “conversion hysteria”), and psychotherapy can often help. At the same time, I’ve come to see that chronic (and “difficult to diagnose”) conditions like headaches and fibromyalgia are often associated with chronic spinal problems, which DCs call “subluxations,” and DOs have called “osteopathic lesions” (and more recently “somatic dysfunctions”). These “functional lesions” of the spine can have a significant impact on the spinal cord (and brain), and–ultimately– have a PROFOUND effect on virtually all of the body’s organs and organ-systems (and may mimic psychogenic effects).. See, e.g., “Craniosacral Therapy” by Upledger.

  Reply