The Answers (so far):
|Question 1:||Question 3:|
|Question 5:||Question 7:|
|Question 9:||Question 11:|
|Question 13:||Question 15:||
(Not all the Appendices (there are in fact 39 at present) are included here yet as some of these are in the form of lists of books and articles extracted from the EABP Bibliography on Body Psychotherapy database and which are not (yet) easily reproducible on these web pages, others are in the form of documents that are not held electronically and therefore would need to be processes especially for these web pages. Please enjoy what there is!)
Back to Home Page You can also view the answers about the scientific validity of Hakomi by clicking here.
The European Association of Body Psychotherapy (EABP) represents directly a number (currently about 350) of accredited psychotherapists who have been trained in a large number of very different schools of Body Psychotherapy (or similar) that all have in common an expertise on how bodily behaviour and phenomena can be integrated into the study or discipline of psychotherapy. As such we therefore do not and cannot represent any one single approach, but a whole wide range of approaches. These include : Hakomi, Bioenergetic Analysis, Bodynamic Analysis, Biodynamic Psychology & Psychotherapy, Radix, Reichian & neo-Reichian vegetotherapies, Core Energetics, Rubenfeld Synergy, Biosynthesis, Unitive Psychology, Organismic Psychotherapy, Pesso Boyen System Psychomotor, etc. each with their own theories and philosophies, as well as many different methodologies and techniques within some of these modalities. We can therefore not answer all of the 15 questions in the exact spirit that they were formulated - so as to determine how scientific a modality we are - because some of the formulations are only strictly answerable from the perspective of a given approach in psychotherapy. This is actually more of a mainstream argument. However, we can be asked what attitude towards science we require from our members, and from their training schools, and what is generally found within their individual approaches.
The body of publications from psychology & psychotherapy (viz PsychLit database) show that psychotherapy is a recognised form of knowledge, and that it has largely influenced philosophical and scientific developments in the 20th century, as well as numerous cultural and educational ones. Psychotherapy is recognised as one of the major scientific procedures of the 20th century, all around the world, by nearly all social and religious institutions. The fact that recent attacks have been formulated against the emerging profession of psychotherapy in Europe (originating perhaps from rival professions, economically minded politicians, and insurance companies) should not let us forget the immense respect that we have gained for what we have achieved: like redefining the unconscious; describing an individual's intimate life; throwing new lights on the function of sexuality; redefining emotional needs; redefining the needs and rights of children; proposing rational methods to understand how individuals can improve their attitude towards life; formulating new insights on human nature; improving mother-infant relations; etc.
The question of how psychotherapy relates to science is an old debate on which Freud already wrote (1a). Reich himself did not think that orgone therapy itself was scientific, but he spent a tremendous amount of time, energy, and money to create a parallel scientific experimental validation of clinical theory. It is generally agreed that psychotherapy follows scientific ethics and procedures in it's way of managing data, models, and collaboration between colleagues and other sciences. That is to say that our methods and results and theories are made public through publication and workshops; that we take into account what other sciences produce; that we share are knowledge with other sciences; that the care we dispense respects the personal boundaries and belief systems of our clients. We are thus as independent as possible from religious and ideological activism. However it is also generally admitted that psychotherapy is not a branch of science because a) it does not proceed experimentally, b) because it does not synthesise it's theory through a formal system (e.g. mathematics), and c) because it is not yet able to describe the systems that make it work.
When the European Association of Psychotherapy (EAP), in its Strasbourg declaration, states that psychotherapy is a science, it goes one step further still: it claims that science includes not only experimental procedures, but also clinical ones. To join the EAP, we must accept this option. This implies that in the future we will accept to favour scientific formulations and procedures when we present our work. It is to be noted that this does not imply that we cannot inspire ourselves from bodily techniques generated by past cultures and other forms of thinking. However, even within EAP we find differences.
"I think it will be very difficult because the process is built on the new scientific paradigm of the system theories so that the pocess itself will be part of the scientific validation. This means that we have to cange the thinking from hyerarchical categories (like the evaluation in the EAP) to dynamic dialogues. A open Group of psychotherapists of all modalities have developed a catalogue of themes (not Questions) that we think a psychotherapeutic modalitiy has to have reflected. These themes will be discussed in open colloquias and published in our scientifc forum that reaches 4500 psychotherapists in Austria, Switzeland and Germany, so that the quality of the statements, critical reflection and the reactions of the public will be the basic input to the general assembly who will decide, if a modality can be accepted as a scientific one. We hope that this process will be a motor for the development of psychotherapy and that it will also show the common ground and the differences of the modalities" (1b)
The World Health Organisation, for example, is re-evaluating many known treatments used in various cultures and in the past. It does, on the other hand, imply that we justify the use of methods produced in contexts other than a scientific and empirical one, and using rational forms of explanation, which can be accepted by the scientific community.
In an excellent article (2), Emmy van Deurzen and David Smith characterise psychotherapy as a pre-paradigmatic science according to Kuhn and subsequently Masterman's definitions, which is moving towards an advanced 'scientific' state where a single total paradigm exists. They define "sciencificity" as using methods designed to objectively discriminate between what are true and false ideas; they also identify three approaches of scientific rationality - enumerative inductivism, falsification, and eliminitive inductivism, which seeks to establish positive knowledge through falsifying one hypothesis with respect to another and which seems most appropriate to psychotherapy. They define hermeneutics as seeking to interpret the meaning of human activity, which underpins the difference between Geisteswisenschaft and Naturwissenschaft and argue that psychotherapy tends towards a hermeneutic science than a natural science. There is a challenge from the falsification school for psychotherapy to come up with some to make sure that any claims are, in principle, refutable on evidential grounds and to specify what observations would supply such refutation and to seek out refuting evidence. However they come up with a good working definition which we can adhere to:
They also deal with the arguments that psychotherapy should be subsumed under medical science or the practice of psychology. There are obvious overlaps and studies in each of the other disciplines may inform and guide psychotherapy, but psychotherapy is autonomous and distinct from both of these. The recent attacks, which seem to confound the EAP, are in fact a proof that we have become a form of knowledge sufficiently important to be made part of the public debate on how to regulate major health care services. We think, as a part of the establishing profession of Psychotherapy, that we are strong enough to be able to resist such attacks and to seek to impose our own views on such matters. That is precisely what the EAP should be doing instead of taking so seriously the demands of the rival professions and insurance companies to accept their definition of science.
However there is one further point they. There is a differentiation made between "outcome studies", which can demonstrate the efficacy of psychotherapy or of a particular modality or method within psychotherapy, and scientific scrutiny of psychotherapy which can underwrite the scientificity of a particular method "only insofar as it is able to establish the events occurring within psychotherapy are most plausibly explained with reference to psychotherapeutic theories" (5).
They conclude that there is not in fact a general science of psychotherapy, but that there might be one in principle. The criteria for a future general unified science of psychotherapy are that:
(i) all psychotherapies possess a common data base;
(ii) there would need to be a consensus about methodological norms for evaluating hypotheses;
(iii) the criteria for falsification need to be spelt out;
(iv) testable predictions and retrodictions need to be deduced, so that it would be possible to test their theories against clinical data for rival psychotherapies.
They also acknowledge that the different psychotherapeutic approaches advocate different moral or ideological visions of human goals, and the existence of these differences might work against a general unified science.
Many of these views are picked up on in the EAP's own Official Journal by it's editor, Heward Wilkinson. He states: "At the heart of the dispute between the positivistic, and the hermeneutic, conceptions of science is a disagreement about the mystery of active causality. Perhaps both conceptions are one-sided. Theoretically, the causality 'we psychotherapists' presuppose as the scientific assumption of our work is one for which we have no consensus of a model. We might call it psychic or phenomenological causality. As psychotherapists we are in no better position to claim theoretical authority here, though probably no worse off, than anyone else." He continues: "Thus not even philosophers, let alone ourselves as psychotherapists, have a model of phenomenological causality, the causality which is our very trade, at the very heart of our enterprise and its manner of verification, and yet 'we psychotherapists' are often inclined to talk of 'scientific criteria' as if we all had an undisputed concept of what these are. It precisely is open to dispute; this question is not yet settled. As sign of this, all three traditions (existential phenomenologists & Kantians; empiricist positivists and common -sense philosophers (including Wittgenstein); objective idealists (modern Hegelians) and (their) unavowed successors) at odds with each other, have only limited dialogue." He concludes: "Where there are such fundamental disagreements National Umbrella organisations and the European Association for Psychotherapy, if they are to retain their claims to be inclusive, cannot afford to fall into the trap of occupying one model of science any more than one model of psychotherapy. The emphasis on dialogue, rather than forced integration, which is the ethos of this journal, is, with whatever difficulty and tension, also an expression of the ethos of the National Umbrella organisations and to the European Association for Psychotherapy. The cumbersome and difficult task of holding the diversity together is inescapable." (6)
We are sorry that we have had to go into these issues in depth, but they most definitively 'set the scene' for any discussion about the scientificity of psychotherapy and we can only answer the questions from the EAP's Scientific Committee about the scientific validity of Body Psychotherapy in the light of these above arguments. The next section also does not form part of the answers to the specific questions about the scientific validation of Body Psychotherapy. It also informs the scene, but much more in relation to Body Psychotherapy.
(1a) Haynal A. 1991: Psychanalyse et science face à face. Mezieu: Cèsura Lyon Edition; and Haynal A. 1993: Psychoanalysis and the Sciences: Epsytemology - History. San-Francisco: University of California Press.
(1b) Mario Schlegel, Swiss NUO representativeto EAP, in a private e-mail.
(2) Is Psychotherapy an Autonomous Scientific Discipline ? A Preliminary Investigation: Prof. Emmy van Deurzen-Smith & David Smith.
(3) Ibid p.16
(4) Ibid p.27
(5) Ibid p.27
(6) Wilkinson, H: Editorial: Identity & Diversity: The diversity of science. International Journal of Psychotherapy Vol 3. No 1, March 1998 p.7-8
Back to Contents (Top of the Page)
The general position of the EABP on the quite complex relations between science and psychotherapy (and Body-Psychotherapy in particular) is contained in the following 11 points:
 We see that psychotherapy is an autonomous, distinct, human and social science and that Body Psychotherapy is a distinct branch of it. With reference to terminology, some modern thinking has started calling the various 'broad and different rivers' that make up psychotherapy as "mainstreams". The various streams within this "mainstream" are coming to be called "modalities". We see Body Psychotherapy as a mainstream; and the various groupings ("disciplines") within it as modalities. Within the differently evolved "modalities" there are also various. different "methods". EABP speaks definitely from being in the position of representing Body Psychotherapy from the "mainstream" position, though we do not possess or claim this mainstream purely as our own.
However, as a branch of Psychotherapy, Body Psychotherapy has often been marginalised and not recognised by some of the established areas of psychiatry, psychology and psychotherapy for a long time for a number of different reasons. As a result of this discrimination, there have been a number of profound effects, some good some bad. Laboratory research science has not been largely used in Body Psychotherapy (as it has in some other psychotherapies) as it is perceived, by it's nature, to be quite alienating and inappropriate. Clinical studies have been used quite extensively and are printed and readily available. Double-blind research studies have not been used as they are often inappropriate and Body-Psychotherapy organisations have not been funded sufficiently to carry them out. Collections of large statistical data have not been made a great deal of use of for a similar reason. Some of the good effects have been that as Body-Psychotherapy has been rejected by and has rejected many of the old paradigms, and it has adopted some of the newer scientific paradigms. There has also been personal and political discrimination, which has harmed Body-Psychotherapy in a number of different ways too numerous to identify fully. However one such example, close to the rub (so to speak) is mentioned in David Boadella's open letter about the EAP's attitude to science. (20)
Including bodily behaviour in our data has forced us to become theoretically innovative in directions which have not been explored as intensely by other psychotherapeutic modalities (5). Our clinical experience and data on bodily behaviour has caused us to be particularly attentive to aspects of human behaviour which are often neglected by other psychotherapies. Strong support for our endeavour has been found in the authors quoted below and we also contend that most of our work ends up by reactualising Spinoza's theoretical standpoint (6). Wilhelm Reich himself showed that we can only work with a paradigm that can situate bodily experience within a frame that coordinates physiology, mental representations, unconscious communication (in character analysis), and cultural support (in SexPol). He was also extremely significant in establishing a link to the body within the origins of Psychotherapy. He was not the first. Mesmer and Janet preceded him (7).
 As Newtonian physics has been replaced by quantum physics and Einstein's' relativity has replaced the absolutist vision of space and time, matter and energy are nowadays seen to be interchangeable. Not only on the level of the photon, which is sometimes a particle and sometimes a wave, but also within the body of the human. These new paradigms, [see Fritjof Capra, "The Turning Point, Science and the Rising Culture"] which include such concepts as self-organising systems, (largely developed by Ilya Prigogine with Isabelle Stenger ["Order Out of Chaos"] in their work on dissipative structures on the concepts of autopoesis, and on the dynamics of self-organisation developed by E. Jantsch ["The Self-Organising Universe"] and E. Lazlo ["Evolution: The Grand Synthesis"]) connect living biological systems to physics and show nature to be much more than the purely mechanical. These are some of the paradigms of Body-Psychotherapy (8) with which many Body Psychotherapists work intuitively and empathetically. These have fundamental implications when we begin to talk, as many Body-Psychotherapists do, about Bio-energy or Body Energy etc. These concepts have also existed in the form of Ki or Chi energy within Chinese acupuncture and Shiatsu for many, many hundreds of years and form a demonstrateable and replicable system within these treatments that has been generally accepted, even by modern medicine.
 There exists no general scientific formulation on what a 'fully-realised' human being is, or should be. There only ethical, philosophical or spiritual formulations. In this context, we view the person as a largely self-determined organism that functions in a multi-level set of dimensions; (not many dimensions on the same level, but many dimensions on many different levels). For example, a conscious movement (as of the finger) may carry within it not only an unconscious element but also an unconscious repressed element as well as an instinctive reaction which may or may not also be repressed. Some of these elements may superimpose and exaggerate the conscious action or may cancel each other out, or may be radically different. There may well be (and quite likely are) conflicting emotions that are attached to each of these actions - conscious or unconscious, intended, repressed instinctual etc. The individual's view of their emotions can radically change with the environment - in some settings a raised middle finger is appropriate, in other's it is not; and therefore the levels of emotional inhibition (both conscious and unconscious) will also affect the resulting action, the timing of it, the strength of it, the attachment to it, whether it is seen or unseen, etc. The personal organism does not just raise a finger mechanically; it's system reorganises itself and results in a raised finger. Furthermore the probable effect of this is calculated and evaluated and as it happens the reactions are noted, and the action moderated appropriately. It is not an off-on. It is a whole series of subtle actions, reactions and interactions (9).
We can also fit onto this example a classical clinical model of unconscious elements in human behaviour on which many other Body Psychotherapists work (close to Reich's model of Character Analysis). It all very much depends on what perspectives you want to include. We contend that we have a significantly different (and more intricate) perspective - as it includes the body - than many other psychotherapies.
 Psychiatry and psychotherapy have been created and have evolved to solve concrete problems relating to mental health. Even now with DSM IV, things are not rigid or defined. The psychotic material of a client can be florid and can resemble the phenomena of creative inspiration and religious conversion. The diagnosis by any one particular clinician as to whether a particular set of phenomena is (a) creative inspiration or religious conversion, (b) borderline, or (c) psychosis - influenced by many subjective factors and reliability across clinicians varies considerably. This is but one of the obvious problems when attempting to apply linear/rationalist protocol to human functioning. While psychology and psychiatry present themselves as sciences, they do not neatly fall into what we traditionally think of as "pure science". So this is by no means scientific, though a 'science' has been made of it (10). Since much of the methodology of working with a client in Body-Psychotherapy is to "follow the client's process" (a theme common for many) rather than inflict upon them a static diagnosis. Thus the treatment of the moment can be identified and given. The client's presenting material can thus be viewed more dispassionately and without attachment to a particular goal or outcome (diagnosis & treatment). This can carry disadvantages as well,but on the whole it is found to be more satisfactory; it works according to numerous self-reports and case studies. In addition, success may be seen as the client gaining a greater sense of meaning or spiritual connection, not often measured in traditional scientific studies. (We are taking the definition of psychotherapy as "working" to mean that the client has found the result meaningful in some way.)
Other psychotherapies within the Humanistic, Integrative as well as Jungian Analysis (11) adopt similar approaches at least initially. Furthermore the categories of psychopathology are impersonal and bear no relationship to the client's experience. They are constructs imposed upon the client. They can alienate the relationship between the client and the therapist (doctor ?). They are culturally based and vary considerably within Europe as well as varying between wider cultures. There are still further hierarchical elements within the whole profession as the psychiatrist is tended to be seem superior to the psychotherapist and his/her expertise and professionalism is often overvalued. (One example is that a recently qualified locum in a psychiatric ward was given greater precedence than a lay psychotherapist who had known the client for about 10 years.) There is also a sociopolitical aspect to psychopathology by which certain sections of the population can be marginalised as Foucault describes (18). None of these elements are totally 'scientific' and yet this yardstick of psychopathology is held-up and used as a base-line criteria for psychotherapy.
By history and by definition, Body Psychotherapy could not wait until experimental psychology and neurology could propose models which could generate the whole range of techniques relevant to current needs. These will probably only appear next century. All therapeutic techniques that can be used and that are currently available are thus taken into due consideration. Body-Psychotherapists are often inclusive, functionally orientated and discriminating, in the sense that they use what they can appropriately. Interestingly, developing almost parallel to Body Psychotherapy is the whole field of psychobiology and neuro-psychoimmunology (19). This represents and area of investigation that may provide models useful for Body Psychotherapy research. It appears that the psychobiologists have been developing more of the theoretical/research base while the Body Psychotherapists have been developing the hands-on technology. A meeting of the two disciplines is probably called for.
 In Body -Psychotherapy, as in very early psychoanalysis, we thus use methods derived from non-scientific though very long-established far-eastern techniques, such as mesmerism, as well as techniques generated by other psychotherapies and sciences. We also draw on a number of psychotherapeutic techniques that can be applied purely to the body (e.g. massage) that do not, in themselves, constitute a psychotherapy, but can be and have been integrated into a Body-Psychotherapy by a wider understanding and the application of psychological and psychotherapeutic theories and practices, often more verbal.
 It remains a solid fact, defended in many academic publications, that scientific research has not yet invested in the full understanding of bodily phenomena, and that techniques like Acupuncture and Yoga still have an unparalleled efficiency. An academic bibliography on this issue can be found in Heller (12). Whilst these do not, in themselves, relate to Body-Psychotherapy, they use and contain a theoretical framework and practical understanding of fundamental concepts that underpin much of Body Psychotherapy.
The existence of energy within the body, and the of this and the effect of the breath on the emotional and psychotherapeutic systems, is clearly established within these disciplines. Refutation of 2000 years of belief and practice should not be taken lightly, and the scientific validation of a modern application based (in part) on these principles and practice therefore steps outside of the tight framework of pure science.
 If methods and models are chosen in the functioning of any branch of Body-Psychotherapy because of their efficiency and relevance, we require from our members that the theoretical integration of their work follows current scientific ethics based on case studies and other appropriate methodologies. This means that we require a scientific attitude towards the phenomena that draw our attention. We encourage a mode of theorisation that takes into account the products of our field, of psychotherapy in general, and of any relevant scientific data and models. Reciprocally we regularly report our own findings and formulation in numerous publications and congresses. Workshops allow colleagues from neighbouring fields to contact the more concrete aspects of our work. No proposition in Body Psychotherapy is maintained without any evidence, and all are subject to collegial dialogue and scrutiny. The Congresses organised by the EABP openly address questions on how Body Psychotherapists integrate their various methodologies, scientific research and methods, clinical findings, professional and personal growth and spiritual beliefs. The Congress which will be given in September 1999 for example gives an important place to major academic figures who work on the integration of mind and body in human relationships.
 A further problem that the EABP has with some aspects of the fifteen questions proposed by the EAP as scientific criteria, is that some of them are closer to religion than to science. For example, Question 3 requires a "clear and self-consistent theory of the human being". One way of looking at this is that only religious and spiritual philosophies can propose an apparently coherent picture of what human nature is. Traditional science is today more modest and only describes of those aspects of human nature in which we have been able to gather some relatively solid knowledge. The current position in neuroscience, for example, not only proposes a modular structure for human beings, but also shows how modular our knowledge of these modules is. We are just beginning to learn how these physiological and psychological modules are organised, (see Candice Pert's work: The Molecules of Emotion (17) ). This is further complicated by the close parallels that some of the new scientific paradigms have to traditional and age-old belief systems. Taoism, for example, is very close to what is described in more scientific terms in §1 above, when discussing Prigogine, Jantsch & Lazlo, though of course any attempt to describe the Tao is not the Tao !
 We shall answer all questions as best we can, to show that we are realistically supporting a scientific attitude towards psychotherapy, and any scientific research on the topics we work with. However it must also be said that many of us view psychotherapy, and Body Psychotherapy, also (and sometimes even primarily) as a learnt set of skills, as a craft, or even as an art (13). This is reflected in the proportionally large amount of experiential training in the Body Psychotherapy. Sometimes, more in the past, this has not been balanced properly with a wide academic study and applied theory, research, and the eliciting of understanding, in a proper relationship and thus psychotherapy, and Body Psychotherapy, has been seen to be unscientific in it's application and training methodologies. Hence, in part, the 'raison d'être' of these questions. However we refute that psychotherapy and particularly Body-Psychotherapy, is unscientific, even though sometimes it might have been applied as such. We, Body-Psychotherapists, are not unscientific. (There is also the official argument that human sciences may not be scientific.) We are scientifically exploring individual processes through case analysis, and then reporting the results of our exploration to society. Tougher experimental procedures are then needed to challenge our findings and improve on them. We owe to the citizens that come and see us that our formulation defends socially the richness and complexity of individual experience. We, as psychotherapists, are in fact the only ones to do this, and it is because of this that our impact on human cultures have been so important during all of this century.
 Most authors within the field of Body-Psychotherapy that the EABP quotes use current epystimological, psychotherapeutical, psychotherapeutic, psychiatric, psychological, and neurological research in their attempt to formulate current theoretical stances in Body Psychotherapy. Some of these authors have recently carried out extensive experimental research on the subject in University institutions (e.g. Downing (14) and Heller (15)). This is also true of other Body Psychotherapists such as Hans Krens (16). Further to this:
A) The scientific committee of the EABP is considering how to overcome some of our limitations and are considering that extensive evaluation of our efficiency is required. Concrete projects are being constructed by the EABP's Swiss and German National Associations. Krens and Meyer are currently constructing an other one.
B) It would seem that questionnaires generated for psychiatric institutions are not necessarily relevant for private practices. Solutions on how to adapt current questionnaire methods for practices is being addressed.
C) There are big big questions about the epistonology to be used. (see Jerome Liss's article: Appendix 39)
 The evidence of what we might say and what we might need to produce in order to satisfy the Scientific Validity question is somewhat varied. There are five or six main types of evidence.
(5) Rispoli L. 1993: Psychologia funzionale de SÈ. Roma: Astrolabio: Heller M. 1998 : Les 100 ans de Wilhelm Reich. Adire, No 14.
(6) Misrahi R. 1992: Le corps et l'esprit dans la philosophie de Spinoza. Dèpartement Communication des Laboratoires Delagrange. Paris: Les empÍcheurs de tourner en rond. and Macherey P. 1997: Introduction: l'Ethique de Spinoza. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
(7) Boadella, David; Awakening sensibility, recovering motility. Psycho-physical synthesis at the foundations of body-psychotherapy: the 100 year legacy of Pierre Janet (1859-1947): International Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol 2, No 1, 1997
(8) Pharaphrased from Body-Centred Psychotherapy: The Hakomi Method by Ron Kurtz, (LifeRhythm) p.21 &25
(9) Heller M. 1992: Unconscious communication. Maul B. (ed.): Body Psychotherapy or the art of contact. Berlin: Verlag Bernhard Maul and reprinted in Energy & Character. In this article the details are given , based on experimental procedures for the analysis of nonverbal communication, of how we can say that millions of bodily communications are exchanged in a single therapy session.
(10) Major publications on modularity are:
Fodor J.A. 1983: The modularity of Mind. Cambridge, Massachussets: The MIT Press.
Fodor J.A. 1998: Concepts: where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Karmiloff-Smith Annette 1997: Beyond Modularity. Cambridge, Massachussets: The MIT Press.
Minsky M. 1988: The society of mind. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc.
(11)"Psychopathology : Contemporary Jungian Perspectives"; ed. Andrew Samuels (Karnac), Introduction p.5-7
(12) Heller M. 1991: Postural Dynamics and Social Status. Doctoral Dissertation presented at Duisburg University.
(13) Psychotherapy is not a Science: article by C. Young & M. Heller, to be submitted to the International Journal of Psychotherapy for publication 2000.
(14) Downing G.: Körper und Wort in der Psychotherapie. München: Küsel, 1996.
(15) Heller, Michel:opp cit.
(16) Krens, Hans:
(17) Candice Pert: The Molecules of Emotion, New York: Scribner, 1997
(18) Michel Foucault: Madness and Civilisation, Vintage, 1988
(19) Ernest L. Rossi: The Psychobiology of Mind-Body Healing, W.W. Norton, 1993
(20) David Boadella: EAP versus Charta: two attitudes to science. (Open letter within EAP, 1999)
Back to Contents (Top of the Page) Back to Home Page
This page was last updated on 15th Oct 1999