Researching rebirthing in the context of the Mankind Project, I ran into an article by social psychologist, Carol Tavris titled, Mind Games: Psychological warfare betwen therapists and scientists. Tavris mentions rebirthing as a process for which there is no evidence, but her reasoning could be applied to other approaches as well (e.g., holding therapy, bioenergetics, etc.).
Here a couple of excerpts:
Our society runs on the advice of mental-health professionals, who are often called upon in legal settings to determine whether a child has been molested, a prisoner up for parole is still dangerous, a defendant is lying or insane, a mother is fit to have custody of her children, and on and on. Yet while the public assumes, vaguely, that therapists must be “scientists” of some sort, many of the widely accepted claims promulgated by therapists are based on subjective clinical opinions and have been resoundingly disproved by empirical research conducted by psychological scientists. Here are a few examples that have been shown to be false:
• Low self-esteem causes aggressiveness, drug use, prejudice, and low achievement.
• Abused children almost inevitably become abusive parents, causing a “cycle of abuse.”
• Therapy is beneficial for most survivors of disasters, especially if intervention is rapid.
• Memory works like a tape recorder, clicking on at the moment of birth; memories can be accurately retrieved through hypnosis, dream analysis, or other therapeutic methods.
• Traumatic experiences, particularly of a sexual nature, are typically “repressed” from memory, or split off from consciousness through “dissociation.”
• The way that parents treat a child in the first five years (three years) (one year) (five minutes) of life is crucial to the child’s later intellectual and emotional success.
Indeed, the split between the research and practice wings of psychology has grown so wide that many psychologists now speak glumly of the “scientist-practitioner gap,” although that is like saying there is an “Arab-Israeli gap” in the Middle East. It is a war, involving deeply held beliefs, political passions, views of human nature and the nature of knowledge, and — as all wars ultimately do — money and livelihoods. The war spilled out of academic labs and therapists’ offices and into the public arena in the 1980s and ’90s, when three epidemics of hysteria caught fire across the country: the rise of claims of “repressed memories” of childhood sexual abuse; the growing number of cases of “multiple-personality disorder” (MPD), from a handful before 1980 to tens of thousands by 1995; and the proliferation of day-care sex-abuse scandals, which put hundreds of nursery-school teachers in prison on the “testimony” of 3 and 4-year-old children.
She continues…
But psychotherapeutic nonsense is a Hydra: Slay one set of mistaken ideas, and others take their place. Recovered-memory therapy may be on the wane, but “rebirthing” techniques and forms of “restraint therapy” — physically abusive practices that supposedly help adopted or troubled children form attachments to their parents — are on the rise. In Colorado, 10-year-old Candace Newmaker was smothered to death during rebirthing, a procedure in which she was expected to fight her way through a “birth canal” of suffocating blankets and pillows. The two therapists convicted in Candace’s death are now serving time in prison, but efforts in Colorado to prohibit all forms of “restraint therapy” were defeated by protests from “attachment therapists” in the state and throughout the country. After Candace’s death, one member of the Colorado Mental Health Grievance Board noted with dismay that her hairdresser’s training took 1,500 hours, whereas anyone could take a two-week course and become “certified” in rebirthing. Yet the basic premise — that children can recover from trauma, insecure attachment, or other psychological problems by “reliving” their births or being subjected to punitive and coercive restraints — has no scientific validity whatsoever.
In the rest of the article, Tavris calls practitioners to base our interventions on research and to take a skeptical stance toward our work in order to avoid confirmation bias.
Zeke,
I was raised a liberal and my family supported my lesbian life. I am ex gay and don’t want to return to a lesbian identity or life or lifestyle (whatever anyone wants to call it) I doubt I would call myself homophobic. Did that ever cross your mind? — That some people just begin to see their sexuality and life differently than from a gay only perspective??
Zeke said in post 81056:
Next thing you know you’ll be telling me that the rooster is responsible for the sun coming up.
Of course the rooster is responsible for the sun coming up, didn’t you see “Rock-A-Doodle”? 🙂
Zeke,
Yes, I have thought of that and know some of it is true. I also know that it is personal as well and often an individual’s faith and values are imbedded a long time before an identity is claimed because of unwanted feelings. It is those individuals that I refer to – ones that have this conflict because of unwanted feelings and impulses and choose to seek help to understand and modify them rather than yield to them. Do you think they have a right to treatment?
Ann,
I guess it never crossed your mind that it might be homophobia and not homosexuality that makes gay people unhappy to be gay.
I grew up in Mississippi in the 60’s. I can remember talking to black children my age who told me that they hated being black and that they wish they were white. By your deductive reasoning they were unhappy and wished they were white because of the inherent unhappiness of and evils of being black and not a result of living in a white dominated, racist and bigoted society and community.
Next thing you know you’ll be telling me that the rooster is responsible for the sun coming up.
Jim,
No – LOL – typo – I meant that society still makes it difficult to be gay.
JayHuck: Did you mean: “but society still does make it very easy to be gay” ?
Thanks for your comment, Ann; I hear you. Jim
Mary,
I have met gays who just did not want to be gay but were told it was the only way to be happy
I have also met gay people like this, but their unhappy feelings had to do more with they way they felt they were “SUPPOSED” to be, rather than by any internal values. There are many messages out there, in popular culture and from religious and other institutions saying you can’t be gay and happy, you can’t be gay and Christian, and if you’re going to be gay, then we’ll make sure you’re unhappy by making sure you don’t get equal rights. These things have to be dealt with as well.
I’m not suggesting that this will address or help all gay people who are unhappy with their orientation, but society still does make it very easy to be gay – and this has nothing to do with internal values. What a miserable way to live, indeed.
Ann,
I can totally see your point. I have met gays who just did not want to be gay but were told it was the only way to be happy. What a miserable way to live – not having options.
David Roberts,
I don’t think it can be shown – there are no stats – except there are stats on suicide. I think the gay community makes a claim about suicide from these individuals but there is not a statistical significance being shown? Why doesn’t the gay community follow up on these?? That would be an interesting project that would yield alot of benefit if it was proven.
David Roberts wrote,
‘Could we add to that list of things ultimately proven wrong the idea that one becomes homosexual because of a lack of trust in men, weak father, overpowering mother, et al?’
No, because life is just not that simple. The things you mention obviously don’t make everyone gay. That doesn’t mean that they can’t make some people gay.
‘should we not demand a similar ban on reparative therapy and it’s many similar practices?’
Your suggestion that reparative therapy should be banned is, to put it politely, foolish. Despite what you say over at exgaywatch, banning reparative therapy clearly means denying that people have the right to live their own lives, which is not a good position for a gay man to take. Furthermore, it would be terrible public relations and produce a major backlash.
Sure, and while they are at it, why not ban gay affirmative therapy, it too has no scientific validity, and can be considered psychological warfare.
Jim,
And it can be said that it has caused emotional harm as well – I would still like to hear the therapists who told their clients that there was no other choice except for them to accept their homosexuality and to live as such and their reasoning for telling them this. I would also like them to explain to the families who lost sons to AIDS or depression or suicide why they did not give them choices and resources to make the choice they originally came in for. Are they around to explain how they decided to conduct therapy to those who came in for counseling because they had unwanted same gender attraction and were seeking ways to modify those feelings and were instead told they had no choice?
Sure, and while they are at it, why not ban gay affirmative therapy, it too has no scientific validity, and can be considered psychological warfare.
I would love to know as well, Mary. There are so few records of any sort kept by reparative therapists, much less ministries practicing essentially the same thing, that we just don’t know. But my statement is prefaced by “if” it can be shown. In actuality, I think far less harm would qualify for a ban to be seriously considered, when compounded with the miserable failure to provide any meaningful change – the entire point of the therapy.
@ Warren
I think there is an excellent case for them to ban both.
People do not need reparative therapy to become celibate, and standard therapy techiniques seem fine to deal with those who are distraugh over any aspect of their sexuality, be they gay or straight. Reparative therapy is a very specific issue.
Is it the theory that leads to dispair or some other facet? I dont know. I do know the APA has not taken steps to ban attachment therapy or rebirthing and so I think it will be amazing if they ban RT.
David Roberts,
What are the stats on suicide? Or those with repressed homsexual feelings committing suicide? I would like a reference- in all seriosness.
Could we add to that list of things ultimately proven wrong the idea that one becomes homosexual because of a lack of trust in men, weak father, overpowering mother, et al? And are not reparative therapists protesting the banning of reparative therapy much like those who prevented the ban on all types of “restraint therapy” in Colorado?
Just because clients of RAs don’t die in their offices, doesn’t mean they are not harmed, perhaps even unto death by suicide. If even one such case can be shown, should we not demand a similar ban on reparative therapy and it’s many similar practices?