Psychotherapy
Volume 36/Fall 1999/Number 3
PSYCHOTHERAPY AND CHAOS THEORY: THE METAPHORIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PSYCHODYNAMIC THERAPY AND CHAOS THEORY SHIGERU IWAKABE McGill University, Montreal, Canada This article explores potential benefits and problems in applying chaos theory in psychotherapy through an examination of previous attempts to integrate chaos theory into psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy. First a discussion provides an understanding of basic concepts in chaos theory and reviews applications in psychoanalysis. Second, problems in such applications are scrutinized. Finally, the discussion speculates on a general tendency in the literature in psychotherapy and counseling to resort to mathematical analogies, arguing that this attraction may produce an "erroneous metaphor," and gives reasons both for the attraction and its danger. Introduction In recent years, new models of system theory called chaos theory and nonlinear dynamics have emerged as new paradigms in the physical sciences and mathematics. The "nonlinear revolution" is now shifting the physical understanding
Preparation of this article was supported by a scholarship from the International Council for Canadian Studies. The author wishes to thank Frank Dumont and Anastassios Stalikas for comments on an earlier version of this article. Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Shigeru Iwakabe, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, 3700 McTavish Street, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1Y2, Canada. E-mail:
[email protected]
274
of how order evolves and of how change is driven, providing a new worldview of ecology, human beings, and nature (Gleick, 1987; Goerner, 1994). Growing attention has been given to chaos theory in various fields of psychology, from neuropsychology to social psychology to all areas of the social sciences, forming a new arena of interdisciplinary communication (Abraham, 1995; Barton, 1994; Robertson, 1995). In psychotherapy and counseling, chaos theory has been examined in terms of its potential contribution to client change process (Hager, 1992), counselor education and training (Brack, Brack, & Zucker, 1995; Wilbur, Kulikowich, Roberts-Wilbur, & Torres-Rivera, 1995), family therapy (Chamberlain, 1995), and group psychotherapy (Burlingame, Furhriman, & Barnum, 1995). One of the fields in psychotherapy where the application of chaos theory is vigorously explored is psychoanalysis (e.g., Chessick, 19%; Goldstein, 1995a; Grotstein, 1990a, 1990b; Levenson, 1994; Lonie, 1995; Priel & Schreiber, 1994; Sabelli, Carlson-Sabelli, Patel, Levy, & DiezMartin, 1995; Spruiell, 1993). For example, Priel and Schreiber (1994) drew an analogy between the mathematics of chaotic systems (especially strange attractors) and the unconscious process. Others explored the application of chaos theory to empirical investigations of psychoanalytic processes (e.g., Bucci, 1994; Czogalik & Russell, 1994; Kowalik, Schiepek, Kumpf, Roberts, & Elbert, 1997; Reidbord & Reidington, 1992; Sabelli, Carlson-Sabelli, & Javaid, 1990; Sabelli, Carlson-Sabelli, Patel, Levy et al., 1995; Sabelli, Carlson-Sabelli, Patel, Zbilut et al., 1995). Although these attempts to integrate chaos theory and psychoanalysis may be potentially beneficial, such integration is carried out without a close examination of chaos theory: chaos theory is often used only metaphorically, without questioning the fundamental ontological mismatch between the two theories. Application of chaos theory and nonlinear models to empirical
Psychotherapy and Chaos Theory research is often recommended without consideration of the enormous practical difficulties due to simplistic data structure and measurement errors. The goal of this article, therefore, is to review previous attempts to integrate psychoanalysis and chaos theory where chaos theory is most frequently discussed, while providing the understanding of basic concepts of chaos theory, and to examine the problems of applying chaos theory to psychoanalysis. The potential benefits and problems of applying chaos theory in psychoanalysis are largely generalizable to the whole field of psychotherapy. I believe, therefore, that this article will help to clarify the potential roles of chaos theory in research and practice for psychotherapy and counseling in general. Chaos Theory A technical understanding of chaos theory is not the primary goal of this article, but a brief review is germane to the following discussion (e.g., see Briggs & Peat, 1989; Gleick, 1987; Goerner, 1994, for more extensive explanations of chaos theory). Therefore, some of the principles involved in chaos theory that are particularly relevant to psychotherapy and that are frequently used by psychoanalysts are reviewed in this section. What is chaos theory? Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics that is used in natural and social sciences as a strategy to observe and model the behavior of complex sets of interrelated phenomena (Goerner, 1995a). Essentially, chaos theory represents a system of differential equations that describe the patterns of nonlinear, complex phenomena by tracing the trajectory of the behavior of systems over time and the manner in which these systems seek or deviate from stable states. In chaos theory a point-in-time prediction is not a primary goal. Indeed, even with the use of chaos theory, the precise position of the system is almost entirely unpredictable (Goerner, I995a). Chaos theory instead focuses on the property of natural systems that tend toward stable overall patterns with characteristic form. Therefore, research hypotheses based on chaos theory are directed at the presence and shape of the overall patterns or organizations of systems; What form would these changes take? What patterns would a system show? How long would the system repeat the same states? This does not mean, however, that conventional hypothesis testing cannot
be applied. After a pattern is abstracted, its stability may be demonstrated by using standard statistics procedures (Freeman, 1990). A dynamic system is commonly expressed by use of a set of differential equations and graphs showing trajectory, or the resulting path, of a variable. The phase portraits that graphically show the collection of all such trajectories are frequently employed as primary tools to visually examine and present certain features of the patterns of the movement of systems. This characteristic of nonlinear and chaotic dynamics—that it lends itself to an easily visualizable expression—is particularly helpful since the mathematical expression of psychological phenomena can be counterintuitive, and it is often difficult to derive actual implications from the findings. Using phase portraits, researchers can describe the movement of a system through a landscape of valleys, hills, mountain ridges, saddles, and so on. An understanding of findings is significantly facilitated by presenting mathematical models in a visual, geometrical way. Systems that are described by chaos theory vary from simple systems, such as the movement of a pendulum, to very complex systems, such as the development of international corporations in an economic system (Goerner, 1995a). Chaos theory also refers to a set of theories in general such as nonlinear dynamic systems theory, neural networks, artificial intelligence, self-organization theory, and fractals. Chaos theory can be considered as an extension of the general systems theory (Chubb, 1990). Compared to the general systems theory, which emphasizes structural aspects of a system, chaos theory is more comprehensive in that it explains the structure, process, and probability under which certain processes lead to a certain structure. Last, although the term chaos conventionally denotes randomness, disorder, and instability, chaos in scientific terms represents an order that is hidden beneath a seemingly random appearance. Thus, it is an order beneath randomness (Goldstein, 1995a). Nonlinearity and Interdependence. The ability of chaos theory to capture complex processes of change rests on two fundamental principles or mathematical assumptions: nonlinearity and interdependence. Concepts central to chaos theory such as attractors, bifurcation, fractals, and the butterfly effect are derived to describe the resulting effects of mathematical models built on these two principles. A nonlinear model is any
275
Shigeru Iwakabe model in which input is not proportional to output (that is, an increase in x, does not produce a proportional increase or decrease in y). Nonlinear models, therefore, include every relationship which, if graphed, would not produce a straight line. On the other hand, interdependence means that two or more variables or factors mutually affect one another. This is similar to the idea of interactions in the analysis of variance method. In chaos theory, however, interdependence is more detailed in the model, including dependence of observation over time as well as dependence of two variables. The difference between a linear independence model and a nonlinear interdependence model may be illustrated in the modeling of verbal interactions between a therapist and client in psychotherapy. In linear independent models, the interaction between a therapist and client is modeled by creating two independent linear models: one for the client's effect on therapist behavior, and the other for the therapist's effect on client behavior. This division of effects is necessary due to the assumption of the independence of observations. Therefore, it fails to fully account for the interaction effects between the two participants. A nonlinear interdependence model, on the other hand, accounts for such mutual influential effects without breaking them down to two independent linear systems. One model, consisting of a set of differential equations, can describe the mutual influence between the two participants: the client's statement influences therapist response, which in turn affects the client's subsequent behavior, which itself affects the client's own subsequent behavior. Nonlinear interdependence models, therefore, allow modeling of a system without simplifying the nature of complex, mutually affecting variables. While these two principles of nonlinearity and interdependence are deceivingly simple, their implications are tremendous. First, a nonlinear model makes apparently aberrant, illogical behavior a completely lawful part of the system. Thus, in comparison to linear models that limit change to smooth, incremental (positive/negative) shifts, nonlinear interdependence models have a higher descriptive capacity. Second, nonlinear models reveal how systems evolve and transform themselves (Goerner, 1994). Because mutually affecting variables tend to co-effect themselves into discernibly ordered patterns, nonlinear models based on these two principles en-
276
able us to describe patterns, coherence, selforganization, coordination, and networks. In other words, chaos theory explains how systems evolve and structure and organize themselves. Goerner (1995b) characterizes chaos as "a mutual effect system in that elements in the system create global order, which in turn creates a pressure on individual elements toward maintenance of this global pattern" (p. 21). This type of structuring phenomena may be exemplified by the process in which psychotherapy treatment proceeds. A therapist and client first establish rapport and a certain culture or communication style between them that facilitates their therapeutic work (global order). This global order is defined by the interactions between elements such as idiosyncratic communication styles of both participants, the client's presenting problems, the therapist's theoretical orientations, and so forth. In other words, these individual elements determine the global order of the therapeutic environment; establishing how they should interact and creating implicit and sometimes explicit rules for therapeutic interactions. In turn, this global order or what become the norms of therapeutic interactions influences and creates changes in elements (e.g., degree of distress, improvement in therapist's skill). Furthermore, each element directly influences and changes one another reciprocally. This mutual effecting, from the global to the elemental, and from the elemental to the global, repeats itself to create one form of self-organizing system. Through this system, elements (client and therapist) go through changes, while the system as a whole simultaneously continues to evolve as some of the client's presenting problems are resolved and other new problems emerge. Nonlinear interdependence models indeed enable us to examine such a complex mutual-effect system. Attractors and Bifurcations. Central to the understanding of chaos theory are concepts such as "attractors" and "bifurcations." These concepts are important in that they enable us to mathematically describe complex, qualitative, sudden, and abrupt changes. A bifurcation refers to a major change of a system rather than in just a small quantitative manner; it is a sudden reorganization of behavior that occurs when the movement of the system crosses critical points, which are called chaotic attractors. Attractors generally refer to the points toward which all nearby trajectories tend (Abraham, 1995), and where the movement of
Psychotherapy and Chaos Theory systems tends to settle down, forming distinguishable, cyclic patterns of movement. Bifurcations and attractors take several forms. There are three main types of bifurcations. A subtle bifurcation is where one type of attractor changes to another. A catastrophic bifurcation occurs when an attractor either appears or disappears. An explosive bifurcation is when its principal feature is the sudden shift in the magnitude of the attractor. Similarly, three types of attractors are typically found. Periodic attractors are points or cycles that all nearby trajectories tend to approach. Saddle points and cycles are regions to which some trajectories approach while others depart. Chaotic attractors are the points or regions of phase space at which trajectories make sudden erratic movements. Chaotic attractors are often divided into two types. Low-dimensional attractors show some observable periodic movement or patterns as observed in periodic attractors. High-dimensional attractors are those where trajectories show completely random movement and where prediction of the movement becomes impossible (Abraham, 1995). Chaos Theory in Psychoanalysis and Psychodynamic Therapy Application of chaos theory to psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy takes two forms: (a) theoretical and clinical conceptualization using chaos theory and (b) application of chaos theory and nonlinear models in empirical research. Theoretical and Clinical Application of Chaos Theory Metapsychology. One of the areas in which attempts are made to incorporate chaos theory into psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy is metapsychology. Goldstein (1995b) stated that the Freudian metapsychological model becomes more complete by coupling it with a nonlinear dynamic model. Freud's understanding of psychic apparatus is based on the 19th century's equilibrium model. This equilibrium model, derived from the first law of thermodynamics, alludes to a basic condition of rest or constancy of some libidinal quantity in the mental system. This metapsychological model, according to Goldstein, is limiting because it assumes that all important dynamics are internal to the system and that the connection to the environment is disregarded. Furthermore, this equilibrium model underestimates the importance to the psychological growth
of unexpected crises, fortuitous events, and accidents. A more appropriate metapsychological model is a nonlinear and nonequilibrium model that adequately accounts for evolutionary transitions across development stages. Goldstein does not reject the equilibrium model, but incorporates it within the nonequilibrium model, providing it with a different function: "Within this nonequilibrium perspective, equilibrium has a crucial role to play in identifying the attractor characterizing the initial stuck condition of patients in psychotherapy" (p. 240). Priel and Schreiber (1994) similarly posited chaos theory as metapsychology of psychoanalysis by reinterpreting Freud's model of psychodynamic functioning as a nonlinear dynamic system. They found Freud's conceptualization of drive energy as a system that is prohibited from coming to equilibrium as analogous to a model of a nonlinear dynamic system: The assumption of a constant flux within a system which is then hindered from coming to equilibrium is far beyond the principles of the 19th century equilibrium thermodynamics, and evokes contemporary theories of irreversible, far-rromequilibrium thermodynamics and nonlinear dynamics, (p. 210)
Similar attempts are made by several other theorists. Sashin and Callahan (1990) placed catastrophe theory as metapsychology of affect in psychoanalysis. Godwin (1994) drew a direct correspondence between the Quantum physics of Bohem and Bion's account of the unconscious process and called this theoretical synthesis a "Quantum Metapsychology." Sabelli, CarlsonSabelli, Patel, and Levy et al. (1995) developed a process theory that integrates chaos theory, biology, physiology, and sociological considerations into psychoanalysis and characterized it as "mathematical psychodynamics" (p. 85). They gave priority to the mathematics of chaos theory as an explanation for psychosexual development and psychopathology. Finally, Grotstein (1990a, 1990b) found the utility of chaos theory in explicating such unconscious processes of psychopathology as psychosis and schizophrenia that are seemingly random, yet are organized in a complex mechanism of nonlinearity. He applied a concept of bifurcation in conceptualizing the mechanism of splitting or polarization in the psychotic delusional system. Bifurcation, chaotic attractor, and process of change. Many theorists find the use of chaos theory, particularly of bifurcation and attractors, use-
277
Shigeru Iwakabe ful in its ability to describe the psychoanalytic process as well as the client change process. For example, Priel and Schreiber (1994) presented a case study delineating the psychoanalytic process by employing these new concepts. The most detailed link that they created lies between attractors and symptoms and repetition compulsion observed in the psychoanalytic process. They make use of the characteristic of the attractor as the point to which the behavior of the system settles down or is attracted, and its insensitivity to initial conditions. Many initial states outside the attractor merge into the attractor, resulting in a loss of memory of initial conditions. Symptoms and repetition compulsion, according to Priel and Schreiber, conform to these properties; symptoms and repetition compulsion involve loss of initial basic information, and differences among conditions are not perceived. They conceptualized the psychoanalytic process as a process of "destabilization" (p. 213). The psychoanalytic process, therefore, aims at developing these limited (periodic) cycle attractors to chaotic (strange) attractors, which allows stretching and folding of the whole system by providing information by interpretation, and by facilitating the patient's remembering and reconstruction of the past. Therapist interventions, particularly interpretations, push the individual into a new state and she or he becomes an unstable system. Consequently, the individual becomes "open to new things" and perceives an "increase in information." Similar analogies were drawn by many others (e.g., Galatzer-Levy, 1995; Lonie, 1995). Application of Chaos Theory in Psychoanalytic Research Nonlinear dynamics captures complex interactions between variables remarkably well. Many hold that this property of nonlinear dynamics is particularly suitable for studying the psychoanalytic process (e.g., Fogel, 1990; Galatzer-Levy, 1995; Moran, 1991; Sashin & Callahan, 1990). Galatzer-Levy (1995) maintained that the central research problem for psychoanalysis is how to explore psychoanalytic work in an empirically rigorous but psychologically rich fashion. He held that chaos theory will greatly contribute to resolving this problem in two ways. First, chaos theory allows psychoanalytic researchers to explore, model, and predict all types of abrupt changes observed in psychoanalytic sessions. Compared to linear equation models, differential equation
278
models capture all types of abrupt changes. Others similarly see the ability to model the complex change process of psychoanalytic therapy. Fogel (1990) suggested that with chaos theory, a study of the impact of the analytic relationship itself may provide new insights into the processes of intrapsychic change. He also considered that chaos theory may be particularly effective in studying dreams and transference. Moran (1991) stressed that chaos theory opens up research possibilities for the future by enabling psychoanalytic researchers to describe complex clinical phenomena. Galatzer-Levy (1995) maintained that another contribution of chaos theory to psychoanalysis is that of self-similarity. The notion of selfsimilarity provides psychoanalytic researchers with a method of data reduction, while still maintaining the possibility of addressing psychoanalytically significant ideas. The concept of selfsimilarity indicates that the patient's concerns are detectable even from very small fragments of material because of the widely redundant selfsimilarity of the personality. Therefore, one can study the essential qualities of those structures, or at least some major aspects of them, by examining small portions of them microscopically; just as basic patterns of growth (e.g., a tree's growth) can be inferred from very small amounts of data about the underlying pattern of growth, essential psychological qualities are observed even in small amounts of data. Thus, Galatzer-Levy suggested that chaos theory relieves researchers of the burden of analyzing intractable amounts of data. Sporadic attempts have been made to examine the process of psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy by chaos theory (e.g., Reidbord & Reidington, 1992; Sabelli, Carlson-Sabelli, & Javaid, 1990; Sabelli, Carlson-Sabelli, Patel, Levy et al., 1995; Sabelli, Carlson-Sabelli, Patel, Zbilut et al., 1995; Sashin & Callahan, 1990). These studies primarily examined the patterns and changes in patients' cardiovascular activity during psychoanalytic sessions. Typically, these studies used psychophysiological variables for which, measurement devices can record minor changes, such as patients' heart rate and finger temperature. The data are plotted on three-dimensional phase portraits and visually inspected to detect any emerging patterns, attractors, and shapes of trajectories. Reidbord and Reidington (1992), for example, examined autonomic activity of a patient in psychodynamic therapy. A 42-year-old female with
Psychotherapy and Chaos Theory a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder and major depression was given 28 weekly sessions of psychoanalytic treatment. Her cardiovascular activity was monitored throughout the sessions. Out of 28 sessions, 6 sessions, 2 each from early, middle, and late phases of treatment, were analyzed. By plotting the time-series change of heart rate, they constructed phase portraits of the patient's autonomic activity for each of the six sessions, which they examined visually to detect patterns in physiological activities. Four prototypical trajectories were found through this visual inspection. By watching the videotaped sessions, correspondence was created between each of the four trajectories and the client's in-session behaviors. It was found that the most complex and apparently chaotic trajectory pattern corresponded with relatively calm, therapeutic interchange. Furthermore, the briefest trajectories were associated with the client's overcontrolled manner of speech. Based on this investigation, they suspected that internal psychological processes may be predicted by the underlying psychophysiological processes. Reidbord and Reidington considered the use of nonlinear dynamics as potentially effective in studying psychoanalytic therapy, although the field is still at an early stage. What they intended to achieve in the future is a clarification of the relation of physiological processes to the psychotherapeutic interaction process. Criticisms
Although the above applications of chaos theory may be beneficial to the development of psychoanalysis, there appear to be several problems in drawing a link between the two theories: 1. Examination of the ontological mismatch between concepts of chaos theory and those of psychoanalysis is neglected. 2. Metaphoric use of chaos theory is problematic because of erroneous use of the term and no specification that enables clarification of either theoretical system. 3. Practical difficulty associated with applying chaos theory in empirical study is more difficult than recognized due to large measurement error and an oversimplistic data structure used in psychotherapy research in general. Ontological Mismatch In applying chaos theory in psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy, theorists depend upon
the analogy between concepts in psychoanalysis and chaos theory; thus, between humans and natural systems. The therapist's interpretation is equated with attractors (e.g., Goldstein, 1995b; Priel & Schreiber, 1994). Psychopathology is treated as the movement of chaotic systems (e.g., Chessick, 1996; Grotstein, 1990a, 1990b; Levenson, 1994). These theorists also derive their clinical conceptualization based on classic examples of chaos theory at work, such as the unpredictability of weather systems and the falling of a leaf. Priel and Schreiber draw an analogy between the process of Dora's word associations with drips falling from a tap. When the periodic dripping goes through a sudden change (bifurcation point), its leak rate becomes completely irregular. Similarly, certain chains of memory become completely unconscious as a result of a single unique event. Just as the bifurcation point can be detected in the moment when the frequency or pattern of dripping becomes erratic, the whole working (system) of the unconscious is revealed when missing links between words appear through free associations within the analytic process, signaling bifurcation points. Concepts in chaos theory such as attractors and bifurcation are the terms used to describe physical phenomena, however, whereas psychological phenomena are not necessarily driven by the laws of nature and probability. These theorists, therefore, failed to acknowledge crucial ontological differences between physical systems such as the movement of a pendulum and human psychological processes observed in the psychoanalytic process. Denman (1994) maintained that this is problematic in two ways: it humanizes mechanical dynamics and at the same time dehumanizes humans. Similarly, Gardner (1994) also asserted that the property of nonlinearity possessed by physical systems is intrinsically different from that of an unconscious mental system. Varela (1989) discussed this point in the context of family therapy. He warned against direct application of concepts and methods developed in the natural sciences and other sciences to family therapy: Families are not natural objects or units; they are spaces of concern whereas human actors are defined as subjects of their own actions. Stable patterns and structure of natural systems such as single-cell and multi-cellular organisms are very different from those of social phenomena, (p. 22)
The direct application rarely questions the profound ontological differences between concepts such as attractors and the psychoanalytic process.
279
Shigeru Iwakabe The objects of inquiry in psychological and natural sciences are ontologically different (Martin, 1993). Unlike the objects of study in the natural sciences, human action is not constituted atomically. Rather, human action is socially, culturally, and historically bound. Therapeutic interventions are intentional actions that are very different from those of natural systems that occur due to probability. Therefore, what this analogy accomplishes is a resurrection of a "general misanalogy between mental mechanisms and mechanical ones" (Denman, 1994, p. 221). This analogy is rife with another danger, which is the naturalization of psychopathology as well as social phenomena in general. Chaos theory is a scientific theory that develops the physical understanding of the order-producing side of the universe. This order-producing is considered as a consequence of natural, ecological law (Goerner, 1995a, p. 17). Chaos theory explains how ecologies are generated from the molecular to the economic (Goerner, 1995a). Both Goerner (1994, 1995a) and claimed that economic systems and the development of large corporations can be conceptualized using chaos theory. The flow of money interacts and generates a network of exchange that structures itself into a system of economy similar to what Adam Smith described in Invisible Hand. The course of this natural development, according to this idea, leads to the most effective functioning of the system; therefore, economic legislation and government controls over economic activities are considered detrimental (p. 23). As a management strategy for cultivating a productive work environment in a large corporation, Goerner (1995) recommended taking a laissez-faire stance so that the self-organizing tendency within the corporation will allow the most appropriate evolution of the organization. But does economic development follow natural laws? Furthermore, can we justify the poverty and economic injustice produced as the result of the capitalist economy as if they were akin to the natural consequences of world ecology? Chaos theory has the potential danger of naturalizing phenomena that are not necessarily the result of natural causal law. Similar naturalization is observed in the application of chaos theory to psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy. By linking psychopathology to attractors, psychological problems become natural consequences that are unavoidable. Furthermore, the etiology of psychological problems are
280
consequently posited to be due to natural law rather than to the social, political, and socioeconomic circumstances that may not be closely associated to the laws of nature. Is the occurrence of compulsion explainable through natural law? Does psychological development follow the natural order of change? Chaos theory goes back again to the reduction of psychological phenomena to the biological, and causes may be easily attributed to the individual rather than to environmental factors. Metaphoric Use of Chaos Theory Chaos theory is often used metaphorically when applied to psychoanalysis. The use of metaphor may enhance clinical practice by allowing wider conceptualization (e.g., Gergen & Kaye, 1992; White & Epston, 1990). There appears to be a confusion of technical terms and common usage, however. As a result, erroneous metaphors are constructed, leading to attributions to the mathematical theory that are not supported by its actual content (Galatzer-Levy, 1995). First, this metaphor is built on the loose, sometimes erroneous use of the terminology. The term chaos is employed freely as the word is used in common parlance, without basing its definition within the scientific theory from which it is supposedly derived. The word chaos has various connotations having to do with turmoil, turbulence, the primordial abyss, and so on. Theorists use the term chaos with these connotations, referring to all sorts of turbulent, unstable, and unpredictable behavior in systems, and reference to chaos theory is made only indirectly (Goldstein, 1995a). Grotstein (1990a, 1990b) equated chaos with feelings of "nothingness" experienced by his patients and bifurcations with various levels of splitting, both within the psychotic delusional systems. Gelatt (1995) used chaos as a symbol for compassion and creativity. Here the actual properties of chaos are not even considered. Gelatt's treatment of chaos is highly metaphoric and almost freely associational: "new experience of chaos now come to mind: excitement of new possibilities, the elimination of boredom, openness to surprise, and the chance for individual creativity" (p. 109). Priel and Schreiber (1994) asserted that psychosexual development, symptoms and repetition compulsion, and psychoanalytic process can all be represented by the concept of bifurcation through apparent similarities. What is referred to as chaos, however, is not a kind of behavior in
Psychotherapy and Chaos Theory a system that could be typified by a chaotic attractor. Furthermore, the possible discrepancies in the underlying principles of these concepts are not questioned. These theorists appear to use the same concept quite differently, communicating very different images of the term chaos. Metaphors between chaos theory and psychoanalysis constructed on this linguistic confoundedness may bring more misunderstanding than understanding, consequently obscuring rather than revealing both potentials and problems when applied to chaos theory and psychoanalysis. A second problem with the metaphoric use of chaos theory is that it lacks specificity in that it fails to make subtle but crucial distinctions between different types of chaos. Chaos is also discussed as representing a single theory and chaos as being one single phenomenon. As noted previously, however, there are at least four types of chaos reported. Although Priel and Schreiber (1994) made distinctions between these different types of attractors, others treated chaos and attractors as a single type of phenomenon (e.g., Grotstein, 1990a, 1990b; Lonie, 1995). Furthermore, metaphoric use of chaos theory also fails to acknowledge the fact that chaos theory is a mathematical model. Theorists do not clarify the system in question (e.g., client's unconscious, psychoanalytic interaction). The number of variables involved in a system is never clearly specified. What is described using chaos theory is simply a trace of an overall changing process. Although this simplistic model has some value as a heuristic tool, it is not clear whether it adds something new to the theoretical and clinical understanding of phenomena. A third problem with the metaphoric use of chaos theory is that it blurs the problems of psychoanalysis and functions as a false vindication of psychoanalysis as a theory of science. Several authors, writing on the roles of chaos theory in psychoanalysis, seem to hold that chaos theory and its application will validate and improve the scientific status of psychoanalysis (i.e., GalatzerLevy, 1995; Goldstein, 1995b; Levenson, 1994; Sabelli, Carlson-Sabelli, Patel, Levy et al., 1995; Sabelli, Carlson-Sabelli, Patel, Zbilut et al., 1995). By coupling psychoanalytic constructs with concepts that are derived from the natural sciences, this metaphor gives readers a sense that psychoanalytic concepts are supported by scientific evidence, and that these concepts were empirically testable. This relationship does not allow
any scientific examination of psychoanalytic hypotheses, however, nor does it establish the scientific status of psychoanalysis as claimed. Denman (1994) expressed a concern that the use of this scientific metaphor in psychoanalysis, which attempts to draw an analogy between the two theories, does not question any validity of concepts: "Nothing is questioned, theory is not challenged; like theology, it only becomes more complex and dense" (p. 221). Such attempts, he warns, produce "dangerous liaisons." By tracing psychoanalytic concept in chaos theory, they give the illusion that a new understanding is added and the concepts of psychoanalytic theory are then testable. Popper (1963) stated that the development of science originates from hypothesis testing that seeks to refute a theory. Similarly, Kuhn's paradigm shift occurs when the basis of a scientific assumption is found to be obsolete (Dumont, 1994). Therefore, the progress of science, according to these authorities, lies not in proving that a theory is correct but in proving that a theory is wrong or ineffective. The use of chaos theory in psychoanalysis is, therefore, opposite to what these two philosophers of science asserted. The metaphoric use of terms is not necessarily erroneous. Indeed, all scientific terms contain an element of metaphor, and in light of postmodernism, scientific theories can be reconceptualized as a form of narrative (Kvale, 1992). Several theorists attempted to resituate psychoanalysis as an interpretative system in which language and metaphor play a central role (Leary, 1994; Ricoeur, 1970; Schafer, 1976). When metaphor is based on the misapplication of scientific theory, however, it may result in confusion rather than understanding. Methodological Difficulties Nonlinear dynamics captures and models patterns of dynamic behavior. These properties of nonlinear dynamics appear to be particularly suitable for studying the psychotherapy process. It has been frequently suggested that the study of client change process should strive toward an intensive description of patterns of client change over time, since conventional hypothesis-testing procedures have failed to produce findings that are clinically relevant (e.g., Mahrer, 1988; Rice & Greenberg, 1984). Psychoanalysts as well as other psychotherapy researchers hold that chaos theory and nonlinear dynamic systems offer a new
281
Shigeru Iwakabe method that allows the examination of empirical data (e.g., Galatzer-Levy, 1995; Levenson, 1994). There are several conditions that must be satisfied in order to produce meaningful results by empirically using chaos theory, however. In the field of psychotherapy research, including research on psychodynamic therapies, unfortunately these conditions are rarely met. First, chaos theory and nonlinear models require precision in measurement because the sequence of behavior may eventually be completely different, even due to small errors in initial data (Cohen & Stewart, 1994). This is exemplified in the "butterfly effect"; theoretically, a perturbation as small as the flapping of a butterfly's wings in China could produce a large-scale change in the weather on the North American continent. In psychotherapy research, the scales that are used for coding observations have rather low reliabilities. In the case of categorical systems, the Client Behavior System Categories (Hill et al., 1992) that classify client behavior into 8 mutually exclusive categories, have a reliability coefficient (kappa) of approximately .55. This value corresponds to approximately 70% agreement. Although this value is considered to be sufficiently high, it is not accurate enough to produce any reliable estimates using nonlinear models. Second, the data structure resulting from the scales and measurement models used in psychotherapy process research may be too simplistic for nonlinear modeling. The Experiencing Scale, one of the most widely used scales, is hypothesized to measure the integration of cognitiveaffective information on a seven-point ordinal scale (Klein, Mathieu, Gendlin, & Kiesler, 1986). Each level has a complex definition that involves linguistic, paralinguistic, and behavioral dimensions. Such codings are inappropriate for nonlinear dynamics because they reduce subtle shifts in each distinct cue into one single dimension, failing to make subtle distinctions. Similarly, many psychoanalytic concepts are defined from a complex combination of several dimensions. Simple structure itself is not problematic. Some research employing a binary coding has produced interesting findings (Shultz, Buckingham, & Oshima-Takane, 1994). When simple coding structure is coupled with a low reliability, however, the likelihood of obtaining meaningful results through the use of nonlinear dynamics becomes very limited (Barton, 1994).
282
Rapp (1993) suggested that the contribution of chaos theory to the life sciences may be more theoretical man methodological. This conclusion was drawn based on his experience and observation of the difficulties confronted by researchers in the actual application of chaos theory to their data. Attempts to demonstrate the presence of deterministic chaos frequently led to quite unreliable, sometimes uninterpretable results under less than ideal conditions in which measurement errors may be moderately large, or experimental conditions are not maintained at a constant. Psychoanalytic theorists such as Spruiell (1993) provided a realistic, critical evaluation of the current status of chaos theory in psychoanalysis. Although he valued the potential use of chaos theory and implied that psychoanalysis can be made more scientific through the use of chaos, he also observed practical difficulties involved in its empirical use. He concluded that "psychoanalysts" are nowhere close to having an ability to set up plausible computer models for mental activities" and that "it would be wishful thinking to believe that psychoanalysts can exploit these ideas in the form of external research productions, demonstrable to nonanalysts" (p. 39). Finally, chaos theory is concerned with the relationship between variables, or the variable structure in a given system. Therefore, the problems associated with vague construct definition in psychoanalysis or other psychotherapy theories cannot be resolved by the introduction of chaos theory. Spruiell summarizes this point succinctly: We have not been able to delineate our variables clearly enough, much less make them quantifiable enough to be monitored, even less to find ways to monitor them except within the confines of the psychoanalytic consultation room—and our own minds, (p. 34)
Previous studies that employed chaos theory did not examine psychoanalytic concepts, but used psychophysiological measures that allow more accurate recording of events. The implications of such findings for theoretical development or clinical practice are very limited at this stage, however, as researchers themselves admit (e.g., Reidbord & Reidington, 1992). In sum, the application of chaos theory in psychoanalytic research is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for there are a number of problems associated with construct validity, data structure, and measurement errors. Conclusion The potential contributions of chaos theory are pronounced with intense enthusiasm by many
Psychotherapy and Chaos Theory scholars. Robertson (1995) expressed his excitement with the potential of chaos theory: Chaos offers science, in general, and psychology, in particular, a new living symbol that is for our time "the best possible expression for what is still unknown." What can be more primitive, more ubiquitous than chaos, from which everything emerged? Chaos theory has begun to emerge as any true symbol emerges, from all directions at once, from the "most complex and differentiated minds" of our age. (p. 14)
Goerner (1995a, p. 17) described the potential of chaos theory thus: "the new science originating from chaos theory not only connects the various disciplines of sciences that are disjointed but also ultimately it connects science and spirituality." Peat (1995) and Ainslie (1995) similarly speculated on the connection between spirituality and science by use of chaos and fractal theory. Here, the potentials of chaos theory exceed that of a single scientific theory that is repeatedly tested, modified, and finally refuted in laboratories. Chaos theory transcends its status of a theory to become a symbol representing the Zeitgeist. Certainly, chaos theory appears to possess potential. Its ability to describe complex patterns of change renders chaos theory an effective research tool. The field of psychotherapy has been attacked for the lack of scientific evidence in academic psychology. Chaos theory appears to resolve a longstanding difficulty in empirically studying complex phenomena of psychotherapeutic transactions whose "complexity" had to be sacrificed in order to use linear mathematical models, thus contributing to the establishment of scientific status of psychotherapeutic endeavor. Furthermore, its use in various disciplines from natural sciences to economics is valuable in developing communication between researchers of different disciplines. It appears, however, to be an overstatement that chaos theory will so easily solve the problems that psychology faces or the enduring schism between spirituality and science. What is peculiar in the area of psychotherapy and counseling is that chaos theory is embraced by different and traditionally opposing schools of psychology. Applications of chaos theory are seen in psychoanalysis (Goldstein, 1990; Spruiell, 1993), Jungian analytic psychology (Butz, 1992, 1995) and psychodrama (Remer, 1996), constructivist psychology (Perna, 1995), Gestalt therapy (Slife & Lanyon, 1991), and feminist psychology (Murphy & Abraham, 1995). Although they all seek a common theory as a new basis of their systems, these theoretical systems are quite dis-
tinct from one another. The disputes among these schools are indeed well documented. For example, feminist psychology repeats severe criticisms of psychoanalytic therapies in general. Analytic psychology holds a very different conceptualization of the unconscious. Constructivist psychology is quite distinct from other psychologies in its ontological and epistemological basis. The potential of chaos theory may be unforeseeably large, but how can a single scientific theory overcome profound disagreement between these schools of psychology and simultaneously become a theoretical basis of all of them? What attracts different schools of psychology to chaos theory? What property of chaos theory unites them? Moreover, how can chaos theory overcome an enduring schism between science and spirituality so easily? What seems to bind these schools of psychology is the negative property of not being recognized, accepted, or validated by existing scientific methods and mainstream psychology. In other words, the connection between these theories of psychology to chaos theory originates from the fact that both are concerned with what is denied in mainstream science and what was not previously given the status of a proper science. Take the connection between the mechanism of the unconscious and chaotic systems as an example. The unconscious mechanism is considered to be something that does not conform to the causal law derived from linear science (Gardner, 1994). Therefore, it cannot be tested by scientific method. More importantly, the unconscious mechanism became "negative presence" in psychology. Constructs in other theoretical systems, although they have not been so repeatedly attacked by psychology as psychoanalytic constructs, are also given similar status as that of negative presence. Paradigms such as those of existential psychology, humanistic psychology, transpersonal psychology, analytic psychology, and so on, were often viewed as beyond the pale of scientific respectability. Chaos theory emerged as a method for studying what is not known and what was once excluded from science. Here the connection between the above opposing schools of psychology and chaos theory seems to be constructed. As illustrated in the application of chaos theory in psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy, the ontological status of chaos theory does not match that of psychological theories, not only that of psychoanalysis, but of all other
283
Shigeru Iwakabe humanistic psychologies as well. These schools of psychology, then, are connected not by common factors intrinsic to each theory or by the theoretical similarities among them. What they have in common is their negative status in mainstream science. The necessity of synthesizing psychoanalysis and chaos theory, therefore, is not interior to these theories, but may simply be the result of external social factors that have placed psychoanalysis and other schools of psychology in the realm of "pseudo science." This explains the peculiar union among opposing schools of psychology. It also helps us see why attempts to integrate psychoanalysis and chaos theory tend to result in rather superficial, metaphoric relationships that do not affect the status of either theory. Indeed, all of the above theoretical systems have little empirical support. Philosophers of science such as Meehl, Popper, and Kuhn all agree that these theories are impossible to scientifically confirm or refute (Dumont, 1994). They gave these schools of psychology only the status of pseudo science (or soft psychology), not because these theoretical systems deal with complex change processes that do not conform to the linear models. These theories, they would argue, are not testable because of the vague definition of constructs, and constructs are not related to one another by causal laws but by rhetoric; thus, their truthfulness cannot be established or denied (Dumont, 1994). Factors and reasoning contingent upon these two theories connect them, but there exists no inherent necessity to connect the two. This notion clarifies some of the reasons that the synthesis between psychoanalysis and chaos theory does not go beyond the level of a metaphoric relationship because the connection between the two theories is the social metaphor of being victims of normal science. Both groups are concerned with unseen worlds, worlds that were not supported by a scientific community. This connection, as explained with psychoanalytic use of chaos theory, remains very shaky and erroneous. What chaos theory offers is a chance for the less scientific psychological paradigms to be included and recognized as science. At this stage it is too early to judge whether the application of chaos theory to psychotherapy and counseling is beneficial. Historically, psychological theories have been greatly influenced by new scientific theories emerging from mathematics, physics, and biology as exemplified by
284
Freud's use of the principle of conservation, Erikson's use of the epigenic principle, family therapy's use of cybernetic theory, and the constructivist's use of cognitive science. Whether these theorists had an accurate understanding of the theories they employed, significant contributions were added to the development of the field. Although the concepts in chaos theory are not used properly, this confusion should not stop psychologists from exploration of this new theory. A significant work of science lies in exploration and discovery as well as confirmation (Mahrer, 1988). Exploratory studies are particularly important in the field of psychotherapy research, which is still at an early stage of development. In such cases, tolerance of even crude experimentation of ideas may be more rewarding than rejection of the new methodologies and ideas. References ABRAHAM, D. F. (1995). A postscript on language, modeling, and metaphor. In D. F. Abraham & A. R. Gilgen (Eds.), Chaos theory in psychology: Contributions in psychology (pp. 311-336). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/ Greenwood. BARTON, S. (1994). Chaos, self-organization, and psychology. American Psychologist, 49, 5—14. BRACK, C. J., BRACK, G., & ZUCKER, A. (1995). How chaos and complexity theory can help counselors to be more effective. Counseling & Values, 39, 200-208. BRIOOS, J., & PEAT, D. (1989). Turbulent mirror. New York: Harper & Row. Bucci, W. (1995). The power of the narrative: A multiple code account. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, andhealth(pp. 93-122). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. BURLINOAME, G. M., FuHRIMAN, A . , & BARNUM, K. R.
(1995). Group therapy as a nonlinear dynamical system: Analysis of therapeutic communication for chaotic patterns. In F. D. Abraham & A. R. Gilgen (Eds.), Chaos theory in psychology: Contributions in psychology (pp. 87- 105). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood. Burz, M. R. (1992). The fractal nature of the development of the self. Psychological Reports, 71, 827-843. Burz, M. R. (1995a). Chaos, theory, philosophically old, scientifically new. Counseling and Values, 39, 84-98. BLITZ, M. R. (1995b). Emergence in neurological positivism and the algorithm of number in analytic psychology. In R. Robertson & A. Combs (Eds.), Chaos theory in psychology and the life sciences (pp. 331-344). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. CHAMBERLAIN, L. (1995). Strange attractors in patterns of family interaction. In R. Robertson & A. Combs (Eds.), Chaos theory in psychology and the life sciences (pp. 267-273). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. CHESSICK, R. D. (1996). Nothingness, meaninglessness, chaos, and the "Black Hole" revised. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 23, 581-601. CHUBB, H. (1990). Looking at systems as process. Family Process, 29, 169-175.
Psychotherapy and Chaos Theory COHEN, J., & STEWART, I. (1994). The collapse of chaos: Discovering simplicity in a complex world. New York: Viking.
CZOOALIK, D., & RUSSELL, R. L. (1994). Therapist structure of participation: An application of P-technique andchronographic analysis. Psychotherapy Research, 4, 75-94. DENMAN, C. (1994). Strange attractors and dangerous liaisons: A response to Priel & Schreiber, "On psychoanalysis and nonlinear dynamics: The paradigm of bifurcation." British Journal of Medical Psychology, 67, 219-222. DUMONT, F. (1994). Ritualistic evocation of antiquated paradigms. Professional Psychology, 25, 195-197. FOGEL, G. (1990). Review of James Gleick's chaos. Bulletin of the Psychoanalytic Medicine, 29, 89-94. FREEMAN, W. L. (1990). Searching for signal and noise in the chaos of brain waves. In S. Krasner (Ed.), The ubiquity of chaos (pp. 47-55). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. GALATZER-LEVY, R. M. (1995). Psychoanalysis and dynamical systems theory: Prediction and self similarity. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association,43,1085-1113. GARDNER, S. (1994). "On psychoanalysis and nonlinear dynamics": Comment. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 67, 223-225. GELATT, H. B. (1995). Chaos and compassion. Counseling and Values, 39, 108-116. GEROEN, K. J., & KAYE, J. (1992). Beyond narrative in the negotiation of therapeutic meaning. In S. McNamee & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp. 166-185). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. GLEICK, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking Penguin. GODWIN, R. W. (1994). Psychoanalysis, chaos, and complexity: The evolving mind as a dissipative structure. Melanie Klein & Object Relations, 12, 17-39. GOERNER, S. (1994). Chaos and the evolving ecological universe: A study in the science and human implications of a new world hypothesis. New York: Gordon & Breach.
GOERNER, S. (1995a). Chaos and deep ecology. In F. D. Abraham & A. R. Gilgen (Eds.), Chaos theory in psychology: Contributions in psychology (pp. 3-18). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood. GOERNER, S. (1995b). Chaos, evolution, and deep evolution. In R. Robertson & A. Combs (Eds.), Chaos theory in psychology and the life sciences (pp. 17-38). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. GOLDSTEIN, J. (1990). Freud's theories in light of far-from equilibrium research. Social Research, 52, 9-45. GOLDSTEIN, J. (1995a). The tower of Babel in nonlinear dynamics: Toward the clarification of terms. In R. Robertson & A. Combs (Eds.), Chaos theory in psychology and the life sciences (pp. 39-47). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. GOLDSTEIN, J. (1995b). Unbalancing psychoanalytic theory: Moving beyond the equilibrium model of Freud's thought. In R. Robertson & A. Combs (Eds.), Chaos theory in psychology and the life sciences (pp. 239-251). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. GROTSTEIN, J. S. (1990a). Nothingness, meaninglessness, chaos, and the "Black Hole" I: The importance of nothingness, meaninglessness, and chaos in psychoanalysis. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 26, 257-290. GROTSTEIN, J. S. (1990b). Nothingness, meaninglessness, chaos, and the "Black Hole" II: The black hole. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 26, 277-405. HAOER, D. (1992). Chaos and growth. Psychotherapy, 29, 378-384.
HILL, C. E., CORBETT, M., KANITZ, B., Rios, P., LIOHTSEY, R., & GOMEZ, M. (1992). Client behavior in counseling and therapy sessions: Development of a pantheoretical measure. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 539-549. KLEIN, M., MATHIEU, P. L., GENDLIN, E., & KIESLER, D. (1986). The experiencing scales. In L. S. Greenberg & W. Pinsof (Eds.), The psychotherapeutic process: A research handbook (pp. 21-71). New York: Guilford. KOWAUK, Z. J . , SCHIEPEK, K . , KUMPF, L. E., ROBERTS,
L. E., & ELBERT, T. (1997). Psychotherapy as a chaotic process II. The application of nonlinear analysis methods on quasi time series of the client-therapist interaction: A nonstationary approach. Psychotherapy Research, 7, 197-218. KVALE, S. (Ed.). (1992). Psychology and postmodernism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. LEARY, K. (1994). Psychoanalytic "problems" and postmodern "solutions." Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 63, 433-465. LEVENSON, E. A. (1994). The uses of disorder Chaos theory and psychoanalysis. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 30, 5-24. LONE, I. E. (1995). The princess and the swineherd: Applications of chaos theory to psychodynamics. In R. Robertson & A. Combs (Eds.), Chaos theory in psychology and the life sciences (pp. 285-294). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. MAHRER, A. (1988). Discovery-oriented psychotherapy research: Rationale, aims, and methods. American Psychologist, 43, 694-702. MARTIN, J. (1993). The problem with therapeutic science. The Journal of Psychology, 127, 365-374. MORAN, M. (1991). Chaos and psychoanalysis: The fluidic nature of mind. International Review of Psychoanalysis, IS, 211-221. MURPHY, P. L., & ABRAHAM, F. D. (1995). Peminist psychology: Prototype of the dynamical revolution in psychology. In F. D. Abraham & A. R. Gilgen (Eds.), Chaos theory inpsychology: Contributions inpsychology (pp. 295-304). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood. PEAT, F. D. (1995). Chaos: The geometrization of thought. In R. Robertson & A. Combs (Eds.), Chaos theory in psychology and the life sciences (pp. 359-372). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. PERNA, P. A. (1995). Regression as chaotic uncertainty and transformation. In R. Robertson & A. Combs (Eds.), Chaos theory in psychology and the life sciences (pp. 295-304). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. POPPER, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Basic Books.
PRIEL, B., & SCHREIBER, G. (1994). On psychoanalysis and nonlinear dynamics: The paradigm of bifurcation. The British Journal of Medical Psychology, 67, 209-218. RAPP, P. (1993). Chaos in the neurosciences: Cautionary tales from the frontier. Biologist, 40, 89-94. RETOBORD, S. P., & REIDINOTON, D. J. (1992). Psychophysiological processes during insight-oriented therapy: Further investigations into nonlinear psychodynamics. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 180, 649-657. REMER, R. (1996). Chaos theory and the canon of creativity. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama, & Sociometry,48, 145-154. RICE, L., & GREENBERO, L. S. (1984). Patterns of change: Intensive analysis of psychotherapeutic process. New York: Guilford.
RICOEUR, P. (1970). Freud and philosophy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
285
Shigeru Iwakabe ROBERTSON, R. (1995). Chaos theory and the relationship between psychology and science. In R. Robertson & A. Combs (Eds.), Chaos theory in psychology and the life sciences (pp. 3-15). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. SABELLI, H. C., CARLSON-SABELLI, L., & JAVAID, J. I. (1990). The thermodynamics of bipolarity: A bifurcation model of bipolar illness and bipolar character and its psychotherapeutic applications. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and biological processes, 53, 346-367. SABELLI, H. C., CARLSON-SABELLI, L., PATEL, M., LEVY, A., & DIEZ-MARTIN, J. (1995). Anger, fear, depression, and crime: Physiological and psychological studies using the process method. In R. Robertson & A. Combs (Eds.), Chaos theory in psychology and the life sciences (pp. 65-88). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. SABELLI, H. C., CARLSON-SABELLI, L., PATEL, M., ZBILUT, J. P., MESSER, J. V., & WALTHALL, K. (1995). Psychocardiological portraits: A clinical application of process theory. In F. D. Abraham & A. R. Gilgen (Eds.), Chaos theory in psychology: Contributions in psychology (pp. 107-126). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood. SASHIN, J., & CALLAHAN, J. (1990). A model of affect using dynamical systems. Annual of Psychoanalysis, 18, 213231.
286
SCHAFER, R. (1976). A new language for psychoanalysis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. SHULTZ, T. R., BUCKINGHAM, D., & OSHIMA-TAKANE, Y. (1994). A connectionist model of the learning of personal pronouns in English. In S. J. Hanson, T. Petsche, M. Kearns, & R. L. Rivest (Eds.), Computational learning theory and natural learning systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. SLIFE, B. D., & LAN YON, J. (1991). Accounting for the power of the here-and-now: A theoretical revolution. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 41, 145—167. SPRUIELL, V. (1993). Deterministic chaos and the sciences of complexity: Psychoanalysis in the midst of a general scientific revolution. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 41, 3-44. VARELA, F. J. (1989). Reflections on the circulation of concepts between a biology of cognition and systemic family therapy. Family Process, 28, 15-24. WHITE, M., & EPSTON, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York: W. W. Norton. WILBUR, M. P., KULIKOWICH, J. M., ROBERTS-WILBUR, J., & TORRES-RIVERA, E. (1995). Chaos theory and counselor training. Counseling and Values, 39, 129-144.
