How Symboldrama and Analytical Psychology Interact

The following paper was timed to the XI International Theoretical and Practical Conference on Symboldrama “Symboldrama and the Depth Psychology” that took place in November 2010 in Minsk, Republic of Belarus.

The idea of the conference as well as its theme emerged during the regular Minsk seminar held in last November by the president of Interregional Public Organization of Symboldrama Development Promotion Y. L. Obuhov. The author of the present paper, associated professor of ISGAI, to that moment, had finished her long and complicated training in Jungian analysis and had passed her final exam; so she offered the conference theme to be “Symboldrama and Jungian Psychology”. However, taking into account the fact that many specialists of symboldrama continue their education in other directions of the modern psychoanalysis, we (together with Y.Obuhov) decided to amplify the Conference theme and to offer the open discussion: how symboldrama “feels” itself and develops amongst the different psychoanalytical schools and their respective scientific paradigms both in Belarus and abroad? With that goal in mind and, of course, in order to exchange experiences we wanted to invite to our Conference specialists from Germany (the Symboldrama motherland) – Ralf Bolle, Jungian analyst and associate professor of ISGAI from Stuttgart, and Eva-Maria Nietzsche, author of exercises to Tarot cards.

I decided to allow myself to reflect on the ways the symboldrama (Catathymic-Imaginative psychotherapy, Guided Affected Imagery) and analytical psychology (Psychology of Complexes, Jungian Analysis) can interact within the psychoanalytic space mutually enriching each other, and what could be the possible zones of conflicts and oppositions – for, as it follows from a Jungian tradition, there is no further development without confrontation and integration of opposites.

Symboldrama or Catathymic (emotionally conditioned) Experience of Images, (Katathym-Imaginative Psychotherapie in German-speaking countries, Guided Affective Imagery in English-speaking countries) – is a method of depth- or analytically oriented and self-oriented psychotherapy based on the use of imagination.

The conceptual base of the method consists of:

• theory of classical and modern psychoanalysis;
• analytical psychology of C.G.Jung [9]

The method was elaborated in the course of the long experiential researches by the famous German psychotherapist professor Hanskarl Löiner [1,2]. It is known that the founder of symboldrama H.Löiner was a Jungian analyst. Thus, the relation between symboldrama and analytical psychology underlies this psychotherapeutic method.

Psychotherapeutic training abroad (in Germany, for example) begins with the choice between one of the two basic psychotherapeutic orientations – psychoanalytically-oriented or cognitive-behavioural – available for a prospective psychotherapist. And only upon finishing the main training course can psychotherapists choose what would be their proper psychotherapeutic method in work with patients [9]. In our country as in the whole post-Soviet space, everything has been done vice versa.

Symboldarama training in our Republic started in 1998 as a part of the activity of Scientific-Research Laboratory of Practical Psychology of the European Humanitarian University (EHU) with the active support of PhD, associate professor of the Psychological Department of Belorussian State University (BSU) Vladimir Polikarpov. In March 2001 the president of the Society for Guided Affective Imagery of Germany (SGAIG) professor Heinz Hennig visited Minsk; in April 2001 there was a visit to Minsk of the two associated professors of ISGAI – Peter Taihmann and Harald Ulmann (Germany). In August 2001 the 2nd International Theoretical and Practical Conference on Symboldrama was held in Minsk. The honourable guests there were the German psychotherapists Regina Lörer and Kurt Lagner (Malenta). At that time in the whole post-soviet area, there were no certified Jungian analysts. The first analysts appeared in Russia only in 2004.

The training seminars on symboldrama are held in Minsk regularly. The participants from other Belarusian towns take part in such seminars as well. In a period since 1998 till now about 200-300 physicians, psychologists and pedagogues attended the symboldrama training seminars. However, only a few of them started the therapy training and supervisions in order to continue the training. Today the Belarusian regional symboldrama community consists of about 50 persons who are actually in training; two psychotherapists have passed the final exam successfully, have defended their diploma and have been certified as psychotherapists in symboldrama technique; two others are preparing themselves for the final exam in 2011. Such processes (the eagerness to attend seminars while being reluctant to continue education in training therapy and supervisions) seem to be explained by both personal and collective factors. Unfortunately, today in our country only formal education of the State Educational body is considered to be officially accepted; alternative education of whatever professional community does not give a legal right to practice psychotherapy and/or to have a license for private practice. Thus the professional schooling and training in any method is still a matter of individual responsibility and initiative of each particular specialist; taking into account such a labour-intensive, energy consuming and long-termed process of education along with the actual economic situation in our country it is difficult enough to fulfil it. Besides, to my mind, in such a long-termed training as symboldrama the thorough selection (screening-interview) of the participants is required and necessary.

In 2003, being aware of a huge interest to and feeling the lack of the psychoanalytical education we together with the associate professor of the Psychology department of BSU V. Polikarpov formed the action group (to that moment I already was the training-therapist and associated professor of ISGAI and a member of Kiev Developing Group of International Association for Analytical Psychology (IAAP)). The major part of our group consisted of psychotherapists and psychologists who used the symboldrama method. Dmitry Zalessky helped me to communicate with Lev Hegai. Many thanks to both of them for their help during all those years and now. Russian Jungian analysts were invited to hold theoretical seminars on analytical psychology. Vladimir Polikarpov once more was initiating this new educational project. We are deeply grateful to him for his help. For a long time, he was translating the works of C.G.Jung.

The coming of analytical psychology specialists to Minsk was an important event for the whole psychotherapeutic community of our country because it was for the first time when analysts came to Minsk with training seminars. Action group members graduated from the basic training theoretical course for professional development on the base of the Moscow Institute of Psychoanalysis with its program “Analytical psychology of C.G.Jung” (250 hours, curator – L. Hegai) in 2005. Now we regularly invite professors from Moscow and Saint-Petersburg with theoretical seminars on analytical psychology and with practical training courses of analytical attitude. We once again formed the group for the basic theoretical course on analytical psychology (as it was with the first group the major part of the participants of the second one are specialists in symboldrama) and I hope that with the help of the members of Russian Society for Analytical Psychology (PSAP) this course will start in September. It is important to note that practically all the training psychotherapists of Belarusian regional community of symboldrama are continuing their development and training in analytical psychology. As I mentioned before, in Belarus (as in the whole post-soviet area) in contrast to foreign countries everything happened in the opposite way: psychotherapists and psychologists had not been trained psychoanalytically but instead were taught different psychotherapeutic methods (and symboldrama in particular); it’s worth noting that many Russian and Ukrainian Jungian analysts were initially trained as symboldrama specialists – Dmitry Zalessky (individual member of IAAP), Oksana Zalesskaya (candidate to individual IAAP members), Yuri Danko (candidate to individual IAAP members), Konstantin Slepak (candidate to individual IAAP members), Tatyana Pervushina (candidate to individual IAAP members), Vadim Tarakanov (candidate to individual IAAP members), Lia Kinevskaya (individual IAAP member) and others.

In the afterword to J.Henderson’s book “Psychological analysis of cultural attitudes”, written by Russian Jungian analysts [12, С.271], one could read that “symboldrama of H.Löiner is one of the methods of analytical psychology along with the Jungian analysis with the analyst, dream interpretations, typology, active imagination, work with fairy tales and mythology, sand-play, process therapy of A. Mindell and with Neo-Ericcson’s hypnosis by E.Rossi”. Probably I can partially agree with this statement; however, the guided affective imagery (cathatymic imaginative therapy) is an independent technique of a psychodynamic therapy or a short-term analytically-oriented therapy. There are principal differences between Jungian analysis and analytically-oriented psychotherapy.

Psychodynamic psychotherapy is a therapy based on principles of classic and modern psychoanalysis. Psychodynamic psychotherapy eliminates symptoms, suggests working with the particular complex (or locus) which is actually for the patient at the moment of coming to the therapists [10].

Analysis is reaching or cultivating psychological depth. The well-known Moscow Jungian analyst Lev Hegai writes: “Talking about depth psychology we often use the image of the sea, where what is laying at the bottom differs radically form what is seen on the surface. There are different laws and different powerful streams that define the way of life at the seabed. But exactly those hidden layers and processes are the decisive influential forces so often. So analysis is like the courageous research expedition where in order to find the truth one has to plunge into the darkness and uncertainty” [13, С.238]. While psychodynamic psychotherapy supposes “working” towards eliminating the symptoms of the disorder of the patient, analysis requires quiet different attitude to the symptom: we learn how to respect the symptom. We know that the symptom is vitally needed to the patient, symptom carries all the tension of the inner conflict and it is thanks to the formation of a symptom or on account of a symptom that the patient is able to adapt to the actual life situation. Any symptom and even psychosis of a patient always carries a protective and sometimes even curing function.

C.G.Jung said: “Psychoanalysis has a much broader outlook as regards the evaluation of symptoms than have the usual psychotherapeutic procedures. These all start from the assumption that neurosis is an entirely pathological formation. In the whole of neurology hitherto, no one has ever thought of seeing in the neurosis an attempt at healing or, consequently, of attributing to the neurotic formations a quite special teleological significance. … From this follows the inquiring and expectant attitude of psychoanalysis toward neurosis. In all cases, it refrains from judging the value of a symptom and tries to understand what tendencies lie beneath that symptom. If we were able to destroy the neurosis in the same way, for instance, as cancer is destroyed, we would at the same time be destroying a large amount of useful energy… What psychoanalysis asks of the patient is the exact opposite of what the patient has always done. He is like a man who has unintentionally fallen into the water and sunk, whereas psychoanalysis wants him to act like a diver. It was no mere chance which led him to fall in just at that spot. There lies the sunken treasure, but only a diver can bring it to the surface. … His former compulsion now has a meaning and a purpose, it has become work. …Here we have the basic principle of all psychoanalytic treatment”. [19].

The major purpose of the analysis is the process of individuation (one of the central notions of Jungian analysis), that is to reach the wholeness. “Individuation is an expression of those biological processes, simple or complicated, by means of which each and every living creature becomes what it was predestined to be from the very beginning”… and later C.G.Jung notes: “It is not a therapy. Is it a therapy when a cat becomes a cat? It is a natural process… It is what makes a tree to become a tree; if we intervene the tree would wither and would not function as a tree, but to let it be as it is meant to let it grow and become a tree. It is an individuation” [18].

Analysts and clinicians clearly differentiate analysis and psychotherapy in correlation to:

• intensity and frequency of sessions with the patient
• general duration of the process- besides, it is necessary to evaluate realistically the request and motivation of the patient;
• psychic abilities and boundaries of a patient.

For example, if a patient can afford due to various reasons to have only short-term psychotherapeutic work (4-6 months) then, absolutely, we would offer her the psychodynamic psychotherapy: short-term and intensive work in the nearest months (if her psychic functioning is on a high enough level). And, on contrary, I can give an example of a patient who came to me searching help many years ago: at first it was psychotherapy based on symboldrama method, then it smoothly was modified into a Jungian analysis; today this patient is in analysis for twelve years already. It is well known that analysis is a long-termed method; many well-known analysts work with their patients for many years, sometimes up to twenty years and even more.

Thus the psychodynamic therapy correspondingly offers variations of setting (or analytical frame): frequency of sessions, duration of a therapeutic process, use of the analytical couch or armchair, fees, special agreements (being late, vacations, decision making and ending of analysis). Psychotherapists usually meet their patients less frequent than it happens within the analytic work and similarly, the duration of psychotherapy is considerably less than in analysis.

C.G.Jung was the first one in the history of psychoanalysis who refused using the couch, preferring the “face to face” situation. Jung considered the procedure of analysis to be close to the common human relationships. “Jung thought that the analyst could express himself quite freely at sessions. The analyst does not only investigate and interpret but can also share his own feelings and life episodes, can argue, make jokes, give advice – so to speak to act like a real person. Sometimes it is well appropriate to hold the patient’s hand or to do something else similarly non-verbal just to express human support. Only being maximally open one can facilitate the dialogue between consciousness and unconsciousness within the analytical space… Jung did not pay big attention to the frequency of sessions or to the strictness of analytical rules. It is known that sometimes he suggested to a patient to do a “home task”. And he continued his work with some of his foreign patients in correspondence. It was all the inadmissible liberty, destructive of the “analytical” relationship from Freud’s viewpoint” [13, p.248-249].

Since Jung ideas are divergent, un-systematized and often contradictory, theory and practice of analytical psychology differs greatly in different countries, institutions and professional groups to which any of its particular followers belong [12, p.268]. So my teachers-supervisors from London, representatives of the developmental school, prefer to see patients in analysis for four or five times a week and explain such frequency as follows: problem of many patients of the modern world consists in lacking the ability to form a safe attachment to an object thus only such intensive regimen of sessions can facilitate therapeutic regression in analysis and can help to form anew the positive attachment to an object. At the same time, Jungian analysts-representatives of the classical school consider such a regimen as too intensive, thinking that such a mode can facilitate pathological regression, particularly in work with patients with early developmental disturbances (from personal conversations of the author with the teachers). Modern Jungians generally meet their patients two or more times a week. As for the symboldrama, the frequency of sessions here vary strongly, dependent on psychotherapists’ preferences and capacities of a patient – it could be twice a week mode or less frequent. Many therapists who use symboldrama as a method meet their patients once a week or even less.

It is important to remember that not all of the patients are able to maintain themselves in the analytical process; some persons (due to their personal peculiarities and life circumstances) might perceive even the analytical frame as it is as too rigid, traumatic and even sadistic. Zinkin writes of the three necessary conditions of the analysis (cit. by [13, p.252]):

1. Boundaries that are secure enough. The patient should differentiate him/herself from the other, be aware of both participants of analytical process as of two different individuals.

2. Ability to perceive analysis as a relatively (conventional) situation. Analysis is similar to the theatrical drama where both actors and audience know that events do not happen in reality, or it is like children’s game. Such conditionality allows the patient to get an experience of the safe expression of his/her strong feelings within the analytical space and to learn to assimilate their energy. Analyst, in his/her turn, can make an interpretation of a patient self-perception (that a patient perceives him/herself as “such and such”), knowing that in reality, the patient is not “such”. As any game, analysis is a symbolic act that pulls apart and then brings together the real and the imaginative. It is an organized ritual that supports and keeps alive the patient’s experiences thus helping him/her to learn to combine these two life dimensions.

3. An art to be a patient consists in the ability to hand parts of him/herself over to analyst free-willingly; in particular, those parts that are integrative of evaluation, organization, comparing and differentiating. Very often it happens so that only by delegating the control functions to someone else the person can allow him/herself to be as he/she is… It is important to do so without losing the personal boundaries. It means that the patient should be able to take these functions back – they are only handed over to analyst provisionally but not lost. If a patient is not able to be a patient he/she would not by analogy permit an analyst to be an analyst.

In a current paper, I would like to share my thoughts about contradictions in theoretic conceptions and the questions I came across with during my Jungian training while I tried to combine in my own clinical practice the symboldrama and Jungian analysis.
Almost all the motives of symboldrama are directed towards the interaction of a patient with archetypal images and archetypal experiences. C.G. Jung understood archetypes as an innate stereotype of human behaviour. “Archetypes for Jung – both as instincts and as they are – are given to us together with the genetic material and thus are innate… The most recent researches of the biological bases of the human behaviour seem to confirm Jung’s views on the fact that we inherit a big amount of mental and behavioural patterns that previously were considered to be a product of upbringing and education and not of nature” [7, p.244]

According to the modern concepts of post-Jungians, for example, according to Jean Knox’s theory, an archetype can be understood in four aspects[17] (four different ways to understand an archetype):

1. As a biological unit – an information fixed on a genetic level that contains a “set of instructions” both to the psyche and to the body (some biological structures built into genes);
2. Archetypes can be understood as organized psychic patterns of abstract nature without any symbolic or representative content, unavailable for immediate perception (some mental patterns of abstract nature without stuffing);
3. Archetype can be considered as core sense that has a representative content and that gives the major symbolic meaning to our experience (thus the very experience is archetypal);
4. And lastly, archetype can be understood as metaphysical quantity – eternal and independent of the body.

Thus the problem is in too many possible ways of understanding the archetype: as a structure and as a process, as a belief, symbol and image, central figure of a complex or a religious confession and many others [17].

Jean Knox’s proper definition of archetype follows from her second model: that the brain is an organism capable of self-structuring, self-regulation and self-correction within the frames of its own environment. The most primitive form of psychic self-organization is forming of image patterns, of conceptual organizations that are similar to the spatial structures of the brain. These most early representative patterns are not innate; they appear as a result of education on the most basic level [17]. According to Jean Knox’s conception, these patterns can be learned; it seems that this structure is innate but it is not, these are repetitive achievements in the process of development, it is a certain potential that allows developing. Universal archetypes are the product of formation within the processes of birth, development and socialization. The healthy patterns of development exist and can be activated in a therapy process (Jungian analyst from Germany Professor Christian Roesler talked about it in his paper at Montreal XVIII Congress of IAAP this year).

Thus Jean Knox writes of CONSTRUCTING THE SELF. The Self is the most important of all the archetypes. “The Self plays the major role in uniting the seemingly irreconcilable contradictions thus the Self is the best fitted to compensate the modern split of the consciousness. It has the most important role among all the archetypes – it regulates and orders chaotic states, providing the personality by the maximum possible integrity and wholeness” [20]. Jung uses “wholeness” as a term equivalent to the Self. Wholeness happens, generally speaking, when Self is actualized in the consciousness [7, p.170-171]

In symboldrama while giving to the patient particular motives that are directed to archetypal images and emotional experiences and taking into consideration the emotionally corrective influence both of psychotherapeutic interventions of a therapist and of emotional experiences of a patient we can suppose that this is, seemingly, the way of constructing the Self (according to Knox). It is even more so because symbols of the major part of symboldrama motives are related to symbols of the Self. Well known Jungian analyst, Murray Stein, in his book “Jung’s Map of the Soul” writes, quoting C.G. Jung’s works: “In order to address the Self Jung constructs a series of images corresponding to the Self. Part of them are images that appear in dreams or fantasies, others are manifested in relationships and in interactions with the world. Hermetic forms such as circle, square and star are found and repeated quite often. They may appear in the dream without attracting much attention: people sitting around the round table; four objects situated in a space in the form of a square; map of a town, house. Numbers, in particular – number four and all multiple of 4, that indicates quaternary structures. Other images of the Self are gems, like diamonds and sapphire, gems that represent higher and rarely found values. To the symbols of the Self, we may attribute castles, vessels and of course, the wheel that has its centre, spokes that go out of the centre like rays, and round rim. There are images of people who are higher in relation to an Ego-personality, for example, parents, kings, queens, princes and princesses that also may serve as Self images. Images of animals that symbolize the Self are – elephant, horse, bull, bear, fish and snake. All these are totem animals that represent a particular tribe or people because the collective has an advantage over personal Ego. Self can also be represented by images of animate nature such as trees and flowers and by the abiocoen as mountains and lakes” [7, p.174-175].

Jungian analyst James Hillman also remarks: “According to Jung the lonely tree serves as one of the major symbols of the individuating Self” [15, p.331]. As it could be noticed from the above, Löener’s theoretical descriptions of many motives differ from a Jungian perspective. For example, rise to the mountain may symbolize motion in the direction of spiritual growth. Some Jungian analysts speak about the fact that “majority of the therapists understand that to offer directive instructions in active imagination on the sessions means to contradict the very spirit of analysis and might be perceived as intrusion and avoidance of discussing the more actual material” [4] C.G. Jung in analysis of his patients was waiting for the signs from the unconscious – to a moment when something different emerge from the darkness; when numinous, “big” or archetypal dreams appear. An analyst should patiently wait, not hurry and know his own defences. The work on revealing such signs is the art and indication of a Jungian analyst [6]. M.-L. von Franz speaks about it in the following way: “[patients] often have important archetypal dreams but they are not aware of the archetypal material that such dreams contained. Sometimes a person is so shocked after such a dream that you do not need to do any further comments. A person would know that something very meaningful and important had happened; that for a certain time they had been under the influence of the strongest emotion that evoked serious changes in them… In the cases when you do not manage to recognize the archetypal content of a dream if you do not notice its depth you miss the wonderful opportunity - for, according to Jung, the only healing factor in therapy is the archetypal experience. But archetypal experience is addressed to us only by the unconscious and thus it becomes the manifestation of the grace that is not possible to evoke artificially. We can only wait for it, prepare ourselves to meet it and to hope it would appear”… [11, p.9]

So in analysis we are patiently waiting when such material would appear. For doing this we need a sheltering space (container or alchemical vessel) – such as frames, rules, responsibility. An analyst should support the patient, take care of the safety and keep vigil; i.e. the required space should provide the release of Ego- and Self- defences so that the unconscious material would enter the space [6]. In symboldrama while working with motive after motive without thorough analytical processing and sometimes without even awareness of the therapist of what is going on, without solid analytical container (author refers to her own experience of supervising) we always run a risk that:

• a patient and sometimes a therapist him/herself might become seduced by play of a fantasy ignoring the necessity to confront the emerging images;
• narcissistic defences may increase. So many patients (and possibly the psychotherapists with a strong narcissistic residue) prefer to only work with images in their psychotherapy; patients may refuse to leave an image or are leaving it with a great “disappointment” that the time is over and they have to go back to the “unbearable” reality. Such processes require sufficiently long analytic working through;
• schizoid personalities may perceive the work with images as too deep a penetration to their inner world. In psychotherapy, it is important to trace the augmentation of anxiety, confusion and disintegration of a patient and correspondingly to give such a patient new motives less often while a bigger amount of time should be dedicated to the formation of a sufficient safety and security of the psychotherapeutic container. We need to approach the unconscious material with great care because by such a material the patient reports about him/herself much more than he/she knows and much more than he/she can accept.
• And lastly, the unconscious material could be so much charged with energy that a patient remains totally captured by unconscious images.

C.G.Jung spoke of the main danger that consists of “temptation to yield to the charming impact of archetypes. It happens most often when archetypal images influence out of consciousness, beyond consciousness. With certain psychological predispositions – which are not such a rare fact – archetypal figures, already autonomous due to their natural numinosity, totally free themselves from the conscious control. They became absolutely independent thus producing a phenomenon of possession” [16]

A degree of identification with the archetype depends on the weakness or strength of the Ego. Weaker the Ego, greater is the risk that a patient would develop such a deep regression.

M.Stein also notes: “Archetypal images and ideas that follow from them have an extraordinary power that can influence the consciousness with the same strength as the known instincts… When Ego is confronting the archetypal image it may become possessed by it, maybe shocked and may even refuse to resist because this confrontation is experienced as a very rich and meaningful experience. Identification with archetypal images and energies is included in Jung’s definition of inflation and even psychosis” [7, p.109]

C.G.Jung wrote that inflation is a state of consciousness beyond awareness. Archetypal material “seizes hold of the psyche with a kind of primaeval force and compels to transgress the bounds of humanity. It causes exaggeration, a puffed-up attitude (inflation), loss of free will, delusion, and enthusiasm in good and evil alike.” [21]. Jung said that inflation of Ego would be the most dangerous if it goes up to the identification with the Self. Resultant would be haughtiness and arrogance that make the integration impossible because a person does not differentiate him/herself from the image of God.

To conclude I would like to note that in spite of the conceptual contradictions described in this paper symboldrama is an effective method of the short-term analytically-oriented psychotherapy. The effectiveness of this method is practically and theoretically confirmed in numerous researches [3,5,8]. Symboldrama is well compatible with classical psychoanalysis , analytical psychology of C.G.Jung, psychodrama, gestalt-therapy, playing psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy. This method is recognized by a psychotherapeutic community both in our country and abroad. Lev Hegai, an individual member of IAAP and current vice-president of RSAP, training analyst, supervisor and professor of Moscow Association of Analytical Psychology (MAAP) notes: “A vast field of work consists in developing the short-term psychotherapy that can acquire depth and effectiveness due to Jung’s ideas. In Krasnodar, we observe a synthesis of gestalt-therapy and Jungian analysis. At the last conference in Kiev, the body-oriented therapy and art-therapy were very popular. In June at the Moscow Conference, we saw a synthesis of Hellinger’s placements, psychoanalysis and Jungian psychodrama. At the end of 90s, we made a lot to stimulate coming of a process-oriented therapy of A.Mindell to Russia. Historically there is a germaneness of Jungian analysis and symboldrama. Jungian analyst June Singer was working in S.Grof’s Institute and have done a lot for transpersonal psychology that conceptually almost coincides with Jungian psychology. All these movements may coexist within a Jungian family and are supported by MAAP” [14].

Tserashchuk Alena (the Republic of Belarus, Minsk) – doctor psychiatrist and psychotherapist, Ph.D., Jungian analyst, individual member of International Association for Analytical Psychology (IAAP), member of the Russian Society for Analytical Psychology (RSAP), associated professor of the department for psychotherapy and clinical psychology of Public Educational Institution “Belarus Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education” (BelMAPE); associate professor of the International Society for Guided Affective Imagery and Mental Techniques in Psychotherapy and Psychology (ISGAI)

EndNote

Some of the quotations were first translated from English or German into Russian and I got only the Russian version, so the translations in my paper were made not from the original texts but from the translations into Russian. Thus I am afraid that sometimes they may fail to correspond to the originals literally.

References

1.Literature1. H.Loener. Cathatymic experience of images / Transl.from German by Y.Obuhov. M., Eidos 1996

2. H.Loener Basics of depth-psychology symbolism Transl.from German by Y.Obuhov , M, Journal of Practical Psychologist, 1996, № 3, 4

3. Y.Obuhov Symboldrama and modern psychoanalysis, collected papers, Kharkov, Region-Inform, 1999

4. S.Paevsky, L.Hegai Methods in Analytical Psychology of C.G.Jung http://www.maap.ru/library/book/133/

5. Symboldrama. Collected scientific papers by E.Ageenkova, T.Vasilets, I.Vinova and all. Edited by Y.Obuhov and V.Polikarpov Minsk, EHU, 2001, p.416

6. M.Stein, Principle of Individuation, paper on Kiev International Summer School of Analytical Psychology, 2006.

7. M.Stein, Jung’s map of the Soul, Moscow, Cogito-Centre, 2010, p.256

8. E.Tereshuk Symboldrama combined with pharmacotherapy in treatment of the panic disorders, Moscow, Psychotherapy – ЕНПЖ, 2006, - № 3(39). – p. 34-37

9. E.Tereshuk, Y.Obuhov Let us introduce to you: Symboldrama. Introduction to one of the methods of a short-termed psychodynamic psychotherapy., 2004, -- № 1(8). – p. 18 - 20.

10. E.Tereshuk, Actual resources of psychodynamic psychotherapy Minsk, Psychotherapy and Clinical Psychology, Blarusian Association of Psychotherapists 2005, -- № 1(12).p. 21- 24.

11. .M.-L. Von Franz The Cat, Moscow, Class, 2007, p.144

12. J.Henderson Psychological analysis of cultural attitudes, Moscow, Dobrosvet, 2007, p.272

13. L. Hegai Depth Psychology at the Edge of the Scene / J.Henderson Psychological analysis of cultural attitudes, Moscow, Dobrosvet, 2007, p.272

14. L.Hegai New directions of Analytical Psychology/ Paper on the 2nd South Russian Conference on Depth Psychology http://www.maap.ru/library/book/179/

15. J.Hillman, Inner Quest, M., Cogito-Center, 2004, p.334

16. C.G.Jung Archetype and Symbol, Moscow, Renaissance, 1991

17. Paivi Marjaana Alho, Mariehamn, Finland Collective complexes – total perspectives /Journal of Analytical Psychology, 2006, 51, 661-680

18. Jung C.G. Speaking/1952. ll: p.460; p.206-7

19. Jung C.G. CW 4: p.184-186

20. Jung C.G. CW10: 622

21. Jung C.G. GW 7, § 110

Mental Health Organisation - Alena Tserashchuk, based in Minsk, Belarus.

With a commitment to mental health, Mental Health Organisation provides services in Russian, including .

Mental Health Organisation has expertise in .

Click here to schedule a session with Mental Health Organisation.

MORE FROM THE AUTHOR...

Символдрама и аналитическая психология

You may like

---

Dora Paper

Object Relations Theory- Psychoanalysis

Mann paper