(…) I am reminded of the American doctor who once turned up in my office in Vienna and asked me, “Now, Doctor, are you a psychoanalyst?” Whereupon I replied, “Not exactly a psychoanalyst; let’s say a psychotherapist.” Then he continued questioning me: “What school do you stand for?” I answered, “It is my own theory; it is called logotherapy.” “Can you tell me in one sentence what is meant by logotherapy?” he asked. “At least, what is the difference between psychoanalysis and logotherapy?” “Yes,” I said, “but in the first place, can you tell me in one sentence what you think the essence of psychoanalysis is?” This was his answer: “During psychoanalysis, the patient must lie down on a couch and tell you things which sometimes are very disagreeable to tell.” Whereupon I immediately retorted with the following improvisation: “Now, in logotherapy the patient may remain sitting erect but he must hear things which sometimes are very disagreeable to hear.”
This emphasis on responsibleness is reflected in the categorical imperative of logotherapy, which is: “Live as if you were living already for the second time and as if you had acted the first time as wrongly as you are about to act now!”
Viktor Frankl en «Man’s Search for Meaning» (las dos citas)
Si los tres «estados del yo» de Eric Berne sirven muy bien para comprender los juegos detrás de las relaciones entre personas pero no muy bien para saber qué hacer ante los problemas, la «logoterapia» de Viktor Emil Frankl creo que cubre ese hueco. De las teorías de la psicología (de las que sé, en general, poco) estas dos son las que más me gustan porque las comprendo.
Esta reflexión es fruto de mi reciente lectura de Man’s Search for Meaning, la fuente de la citas de arriba.