M. Guy Thompson, "Existential Psychoanalysis: A Contemporary Introduction" (Routledge, 2025)

Summary

---

Podcast Summary:

New Books Network — M. Guy Thompson, "Existential Psychoanalysis: A Contemporary Introduction" (Routledge, 2025)
Host: Philip Lance
Guest: Dr. Michael Guy Thompson
Date: July 11, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode features Dr. Michael Guy Thompson, founder and director of the New School for Existential Psychoanalysis, discussing his new book Existential Psychoanalysis: A Contemporary Introduction. The conversation explores what existential psychoanalysis means, both in theory and clinical practice, and reflects on how existentialist philosophy influences the therapeutic relationship and method. Dr. Thompson and host Philip Lance dive deep into the personal dimensions of psychoanalysis, the legacy of existential thinkers, distinctions from other schools of therapy, and foundational concepts such as authenticity, honesty, and free association.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Heart of Existential Psychoanalysis: The Personal Dimension

• Thompson's Core Claim (02:14–07:30):
  • Existential psychoanalysis centers on the personal qualities and character of the analyst, rather than technique or theory alone.
  • “It is the character of the analyst—who the analyst is, not what the analyst does specifically—that determines the efficacy of a given analyst’s treatment philosophy.” (Philip Lance, quoting Thompson, 02:14)
  • Traits such as honesty, kindness, generosity, and integrity are central:

    “Aren’t these qualities that you would hope your own analyst would possess? Not part of a training or educational model—just who that person is.” (Thompson, 06:50)

  • The stance challenges traditional psychoanalytic emphasis on technique, such as interpreting the transference or resistance.

2. Concept of Authenticity and Honesty in Therapeutic Practice

• Being Oneself in the Room (07:31–08:35):

  • The best analysts are authentic and honest, not performative or overly focused on technique.

  • “You don’t become a different person when you walk into the room to analyze the person. You bring yourself into that room, and all of you comes with it.” (Thompson, 08:09)

• On ‘Niceness’, Neutrality, and Abstinence (09:04–11:13):

  • Dr. Thompson distinguishes “niceness” from fundamental character traits, noting that neutrality (suspending judgment, being present) is often more important.
  • Discusses contrasting approaches:

    “When you’re doing that, you’re not engaged in abstinence… You really want to be the best listener on the planet.” (Thompson, 10:02)

  • Great analysts like Melanie Klein and Jacques Lacan may not be warm but can be deeply authentic.

3. Philosophical Foundations: The Influence of Skepticism and Existential Thought

• Existentialist Roots (11:14–13:27):
  • Existential psychoanalysis traces inspiration to ancient skepticism and cross-influences from Buddhism.
  • Skeptical inquiry and a nonjudgmental stance are core existential qualities, fostering a compassionate, open therapeutic relationship.

  • “If you’re a skeptic, you’re already nonjudgmental. You don’t want to impose yourself on people, and that naturally lends itself to a more kind and compassionate way of engaging another person.” (Thompson, 12:20)

  • Existential and humanistic therapists may radiate optimism and personal engagement, but each tradition remains uniquely individualized.

4. No Essential Theory or Technique

• Theoretical Plurality (14:56–19:02):
  • Existential psychoanalysis lacks a single unifying technique or theoretical system—each practitioner defines their own orientation.
  • Role models include Freud (seen as existential in focus), R.D. Laing, Winnicott, Bion, Lacan, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Nietzsche.

  • “No two existential analysts would define it the same way.” (Thompson, 18:57)

5. Existential Psychoanalysis vs. Existential Psychotherapy

• Differentiation (19:03–22:53):
  • Originally, the fields overlapped, but psychotherapy distanced itself over time, especially as humanistic psychology gained prominence.
  • Existential psychotherapists often eschew concepts like the unconscious, transference, or psychiatric diagnosis, focusing instead on lived experience.

  • “They’re all singularly, very uninterested in ideas like the unconscious, transference, defense mechanisms, and diagnostic categories. They want to do away with all that, and they think that’s what you have to do to be existential.” (Thompson, 22:24)

6. Critique: Are All Therapies Equal? Is There Value Judgment?

• Therapies as Culturally Embedded (23:17–25:34):
  • Lance questions whether existential psychoanalysis avoids value judgments among therapies—does, for example, CBT reinforce social conformity?
• Thompson’s Response (25:35–29:44):
  • Acknowledges that all therapies are valuable, contingent on clients’ needs but asserts that analysis is the most “ambitious and effective.”
  • The therapeutic relationship and the “mindset” of suspended judgment are paramount, with philosophy aiding openness.

7. Existential Unconscious: Sartre, Freud, and Heidegger

• Philosophical Distinctions (29:44–38:21):
  • Sartre reinterprets the unconscious as pre-reflective experience rather than Freudian repression; for Heidegger, “being” substitutes for the unconscious.

  • “Heidegger’s argument is that we pay far too much attention to what we know. …Being is his substitute for the unconscious.” (Thompson, 35:34)

  • The therapeutic focus should be on being with the patient, not extracting hidden knowledge.

8. Free Association and Honesty

• Discussion on Free Association (39:47–44:16):
  • Lance references Barnaby Barrett's claim that free association is an altered state involving non-linear thought.
  • Thompson sees it more as candid, spontaneous communication, facilitated by honesty and the analytic setting.

  • “It’s very liberating to be able to share with another person things that you typically just keep to yourself.” (Thompson, 41:31)

  • Lying on the couch can induce a relaxed, meditative state aiding disclosure, but the essence is honest dialogue.

9. The Fundamental Rule vs. Free Association

• Rule as Instruction vs. Practice (44:17–49:17):
  • Thompson clarifies Freud’s “fundamental rule” (be honest, don’t censor) as a guiding principle more for the analyst than an external imposition on the patient.
  • “Free association is an act; the fundamental rule is more of a guideline or suggestion for practice.”

10. Current Projects & Personal Note

• Thompson’s Current Work (49:18–50:49):
  • Leading the New School for Existential Psychoanalysis, running a clinical training clinic, writing a new book on love and happiness.
  • “I've never been busier…this book is about love and happiness. I’m trying to go from what can go terribly wrong in our lives to the things that can occur optimally right. And love is at the heart of that.” (Thompson, 50:24)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Analyst’s Character:
  “It is the character of the analyst—who the analyst is, not what the analyst does specifically—that determines the efficacy...” (Lance quoting Thompson, 02:14; Thompson, 06:50)
• On Authenticity:
  “You bring yourself into that room, and all of you comes with it.” (Thompson, 08:09)
• On Existential Stance:
  “If you’re a skeptic, you’re already nonjudgmental. You don’t want to impose yourself…” (Thompson, 12:20)
• On Philosophy as Practice:
  “Reading philosophy is the best practice on earth for open-minded hearing.” (Thompson, 28:30)
• On Free Association:
  “It’s very liberating to be able to share with another person things that you typically just keep to yourself.” (Thompson, 41:31)
• On the Relationship Not Insight as Change-Agent:
  “I don’t believe insight is the heart and soul of any kind of psychic change. I think we have insights all the time...Change itself is quite a mystery.” (Thompson, 37:45)
• On Love at the Heart of Psychoanalysis:
  “Love is at the heart of that.” (Thompson, 50:45)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

| Time | Segment | |------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------| | 01:10–02:11 | Introduction of Dr. Thompson and existential psychoanalysis | | 02:14–07:30 | Analyst’s character as central to clinical work | | 07:31–11:13 | Authenticity, honesty, neutrality, and abstinence in analysis | | 11:14–13:27 | Existentialist, skeptic philosophy roots and their impact | | 14:56–19:02 | Lack of theory/technique; influences; every analyst is unique | | 19:03–22:53 | Distinguishing existential psychoanalysis from psychotherapy | | 23:17–29:44 | Value judgments between therapy schools; critique and “mindset” | | 29:44–38:21 | Sartre, Heidegger, meaning of unconscious, knowledge vs. being | | 39:47–44:16 | Free association: honesty, altered states, spontaneous talk | | 44:17–49:17 | The fundamental rule vs. free association | | 49:18–50:49 | Thompson’s current work and new projects |

---

Tone and Language

Throughout the conversation, Dr. Thompson is reflective, candid, and gently challenging of the mainstream. The tone is collegial and inquisitive, with host Lance pressing for clarity on philosophical distinctions while appreciating the humane, authentic spirit threaded through Thompson’s approach.

---

Summary Takeaways

• Existential psychoanalysis prioritizes the analyst’s authentic character over rigid adherence to technique or doctrine.
• The approach is pluralistic, influenced by a range of philosophical and psychoanalytic figures but unbound by any single canonical theory.
• Authenticity, honesty, and the capacity for open, nonjudgmental presence define the existential analyst.
• Major distinctions exist between existential psychoanalysis, existential psychotherapy, and other modalities, especially concerning the role of the unconscious, transference, and technique.
• Change in therapy emerges more mysteriously from relationship and rapport than from insight alone.
• Free association is less mystified than commonly thought; it is, at heart, radical self-disclosure and honesty within the analytic relationship.
• Existential psychoanalysis resists dogmatism, encourages practitioner individuality, and values a spirit of philosophical inquiry as core to its practice.

---

For more:

• Find Dr. Thompson’s work at MichaelGuyThompson.com
• Host Philip Lance: HollywoodPsychotherapy.com

Transcript

[Commercial Announcer]

Good sleep is everything. That's why Ollie's Science Back support is made with a blend of Melatonin and L theanine for both kiddos and grown ups. So when your mind won't switch off, you've got something that can help your racing thoughts and restless nights won't stand a chance. Find Ollie Sleep Solutions for the whole [e-mail] that's O L L Y.com

[Michael Guy Thompson]

hey,

[Commercial Announcer]

it's Christy from Lululemon and I'm here at the office checking out the Shake it out shorts. These have been my go to's and I kind of think of them as between a true run short and a more playful, athletic, sporty short. They have all the performance you want for running, so a comfy liner, our lightweight Swift fabric, even a pocket for your keys. But what I really like is the flowy fit and layered hem. It gives it a little bit of volume, a little bit of fun so they feel as good on a run as they do just at coffee afterwards. You can find the Shake it out shorts in store now or [e-mail] Morning Decisions how about a creamy mocha Frappuccino drink? Or a sweet vanilla smooth caramel maybe? Or a white chocolate mocha, which you choose. Delicious coffee awaits. Find Starbucks Frappuccino drinks wherever you buy your groceries.

[Philip Lance]

Welcome to the New Books Network. Hello everybody, and welcome back. My name is Philip Lance and I'm a psychoanalyst in West Hollywood, California. Today we're talking about existential psychoanalysis, and if you're a clinician, you might actually be practicing existential psychoanalysis and not even know it. My guest today is Michael Guy Thompson, the author of the recently published Existential Psychoanalysis a contemporary introduction. Dr. Thompson is the founder and director of the New School for Existential Psychoanalysis and a personal and supervising analyst and faculty member at the Psychoanalytic Institute of Northern California, San Francisco. He is the author of Essays and Existential Psychoanalysis on the Primacy of Authenticity and the Death of an Existential Study, Insanity and Madness, and the editor of the Legacy of rd, an appraisal of his contemporary relevance. Welcome to the program, Michael.

[Michael Guy Thompson]

Well, thank you so much, Philip. It's an honor to be here.

[Philip Lance]

And since I think a lot of our listeners are therapists, I'd like to jump right into talking about how you work clinically and then maybe work our way backwards toward understanding the existentialist principles that ground your work. So you begin the fourth chapter of this 100 page book by saying the heart and soul of existential psychoanalysis is the personal dimension to the relationship between therapist and patient. At the end of the chapter you say, I've been trying to explain in this chapter that it is the character of the analyst who the analyst is, not what the analyst does specifically that determines the efficacy of a given analyst's treatment philosophy. I'm curious about your argument for the stance in the face of a long tradition in psychoanalysis that places the emphasis on what the analyst does, such as interpreting the transference or the resistance or analyzing the interpersonal dynamics that are occurring with the patient or any one of many other techniques and methods. So, yes, how do you kind of defend your personalist approach to clinical work?

[Michael Guy Thompson]

Well, that's a great question, Philip, because we don't usually talk about character except in a pathological sense. Of course we have character disorders and character pathology. But Freud was the first to talk about character in a positive way. He thought that a good psychoanalytic patient should possess what he refers to as good character. He says that every now and then you come across a person who you just have to conclude is good for nothing. That's not a diagnosis. You can't assume that no matter how a person behaves, it's due to some kind of mental disorder that can be analyzed away. So the first and primary character trait that he emphasized was honesty. But Freud had a very unique definition of honesty. It simply was to engage in free association. Just speak to me unreservedly. Don't hold anything back. Don't conceal anything. If you're concealing anything, that's what he would call not being honest with the process and with yourself. Of course, there was no way he could impose that. It was just a rule of thumb and nobody's completely honest, nobody completely discloses everything. But that was more or less the heart of this idea. He also talks about how important it is to. To have a good character in life. I don't think therapy and psychoanalysis are intended to improve a person's character. It can certainly improve their insight and their self awareness and their self knowledge. But I think character Freud's implying, and I tend to agree with this, is something almost innate. It comes from our own childhoods and how we've handled especially the earliest stages of our upbringing. By the time we become a fully formed adult, we're kind of more or less who we are and that's the person we bring into analysis. We don't really talk about this very much. We talk about the personal dimension to analysis. Ecopsychologist are probably among the Few who actually do use that word Sometimes. Freud was criticized for mixing a personal relation with the transference in the session. Sometimes he wouldn't be doing analysis. He'd just be chatting. And so it really is something that we've kind of ignored and pretend doesn't exist. Many analysts think the personal should be left completely out of the treatment. It's just all about the unconscious and transference and projections and defense mechanisms. And we're there to uncover that stuff. But the idea that you're really talking about. And here we were really talking about the analyst. What kind of a person the analyst is, is that really important? And just some of the virtues that I did have in my chapter, you referred to the very last chapter of this book, or I say, kindness, generosity, courage, integrity, honesty, resolve. I mean, aren't these qualities that you would hope that your own analyst would possess not part of a training or educational model? That's just who that person is. And whatever techniques a decent person is going to adopt, I think will reflect the character of that analyst.

[Philip Lance]

Okay, so it's kind of refreshing to sort of think you don't have to strive so hard to be implementing the correct technique or theory. You can lean into being your own authentic self with patients, and that that's going. They're going to notice how authentic you're being. Am I using the word authentic correctly there? And that. That somehow is impactful on the patient?

[Michael Guy Thompson]

I would say absolutely right. In fact, Freud doesn't use the word authentic for him. I think the word honest substitutes for that. That's kind of what he's implying. I think you just want to be yourself. You know, you don't become a different person when you walk into the room to analyze the person. You bring yourself into that room and all of you comes with it. And you just try to be as relaxed and as informal as you possibly can to establish a good connection and rapport with any of your patients.

[Philip Lance]

So then an analyst who's very personable, very honest, maybe a better analyst than someone who's kind of naturally, I don't know, prickly and reserved. Or it's. It almost seems like you're saying really nice people make better analysts than not nice people. That may be true.

[Michael Guy Thompson]

I'm not sure that nice has to be. I'm not sure that's a character trait. I think that's an Americanism. Very important in American culture that people be nice or maybe polite to each other. Well, this is, of course, an ongoing controversy among psychoanalysts who tend to either emphasize Neutrality or abstinence in their work with patients. You know, abstinence is kind of like to slap somebody across the face a little bit to get their attention. A good interpretation might really, you know, take you back a bit. That's abstinence. It, it's okay. It's a challenging part of the work. Neutrality, on the other hand, or evenly suspended attention, as Freud calls it, is to have no judgment, to have no agenda. You know, it's what beyond calls erasing memory and desire. You're just fully present. You're not pretending to know anything. You're just taking it all in. You really want to be the best listener on the planet. And when you're doing that, you're not engaged in abstinence. Now, I think, you know, people, analysts like Melanie Klein, Jacques Lacan, are famous for using an extraordinary amount of abstinence in their work. They're not necessarily what you'd call user friendly. Does that mean they would be terrible analysts? I'd hate to say that because, you know, I think you'd have to be an analysis with either Klein or Lacan to know that I admire both of them tremendously. They're both brilliant, brilliant people who've had a huge impact on our profession. I've certainly learned a lot from both of them. I don't think I would have liked to have been in therapy with Melanie Klein, but actually had I had an opportunity for Jacques Lacan. Absolutely. He just sounds like such a character, you know, And I think there's something about him that does come across as incredibly authentic.

[Philip Lance]

How does this idea of the personal dimension of the analyst being so important? How does that tie back to any existentialist philosophy or assumptions or what is it about existentialist, I guess, philosophy that informs this idea of the importance of the personal dimension of the analyst?

[Michael Guy Thompson]

Well, I think what all existential philosophers and writers have in common, apart of course, from this idea of being authentic, is that they've all been influenced by skeptic philosophy that goes way, way back to the Greeks, Pyrrho, who lived during the time of Alexander the Great. And there's been a lot of comparison between the Pyrrhonian skeptics and certain schools of Budd in India. In fact, Alexander took Pyrrha with him on his travels to India when he conquered part of it, and they met Indian sages there. There's been some debate about some kind of interfusion of influence between Buddhism and skepticism. But if you're a skeptic, you're already non judgmental. You're already in an open space with people. You don't want to impose yourself on people, and that naturally lends itself to a more kind and compassionate way of engaging another person. So that's, I think, one reason why existential therapists or psychoanalysts tend to have this aura of kindness about them. Now some existential therapists are not analysts. They're more humanistic. That's maybe even more more flower power, as we say in California, than other schools of existentialism or existential psychoanalysis. But that's certainly a running thread through, I think all practitioners who would call themselves existential. They tend to be an optimistic lot right now. Get up to 15% off select storage

[Philip Lance]

solutions Put heavy duty HDX totes to good use, protecting what's important to you.

[Michael Guy Thompson]

The solid impact resistant design prevents cracking

[Philip Lance]

and the clear base and sides make items easy to find even when the totes are stacked. Find select shelving and tote storage up

[Michael Guy Thompson]

to 15% off at the Home Depot. To organize every room in your home

[Philip Lance]

from your garage to your attic, visit homedepot.com how doers get more done

[Commercial Announcer]

this episode is brought to you by Google Health. Stop chasing someone else's definition of health. What matters is what's healthy for you. Google Health offers offers a new kind of coach built with Gemini for effortless tracking, sleep insights and holistic coaching tailored to you. Visit googlestore.com to learn more and start a new relationship with your health. Requires Google Account, Google Health app Internet and Google Health Premium subscription. Features subject to change availability and results vary. Not intended for medical purposes. Works independently of Gemini apps. Check responses for accuracy.

[Michael Guy Thompson]

Do you hear that?

[Philip Lance]

Sounds like breakfast is ready.

[Michael Guy Thompson]

Because Quakers coming in hot with morning

[Philip Lance]

nutrition 100% whole grain oats and a good source of fiber to fuel the

[Michael Guy Thompson]

rhythm of your morning and kickstart your day. And that sounds absolutely delicious.

[Philip Lance]

Fuel to start whatever's next Quaker Official

[Michael Guy Thompson]

sponsor of FIFA World Cup 26 let's go.

[Philip Lance]

Okay, and I think on page 101 you say existential psychoanalysis as I conceive it has no inherent theory nor does it have a technique. But I guess I still want to it is called existential psychoanalysis because it came from a particular theoretical background and you might want to mention who some of those people are. So I'm still trying to sort of connect that theoretical background or philosophical background to a particular way of practicing as an existential psychoanalyst.

[Michael Guy Thompson]

Yeah, I think as I've developed my own practice over the years and of course Freud stands out as one of my primary influences, mostly because of his focus on the role of love and sexuality in our life. RD Lang was a huge fan of Freud's and actually convinced me to take another look at him, that he had a lot more to offer than perhaps my generation had assumed. And I think of Freud as an existential analyst. He wouldn't have used that term, but all the qualities that I think of that would be consistent with that. For the same reason I think of Winnicott as existential. I think of Beyon as existential. I also think Lacan has a huge existential dimension to his thinking. He was much more of a phenomenologist in his earlier training when he knew Sartre and Merleau Ponty, then later when he turned to structural linguistics and kind of reinvented himself. But I don't think ever left the existential part behind. His techniques are probably more Zen and existential driven than they are linguistic. Okay, so, yeah, it's. You know, you open the show by saying that some of your listeners may be existentialists and not know it. And that's certainly true. The reason I say there is no underlying technique or theory, unlike psychoanalysis, that had someone who invented it, and he got to say what the theory and technique should be. Although we've seen that now since Freud's death, there's dozens and dozens of various kinds of techniques and theories that are all called psychoanalytic, and many of them completely contrary to Freud's. Existentialists never had a father of that nature who laid down the law. Benzware and Boss might have been very early in trying to integrate Heidegger and Freud, but I wouldn't use them as role models for what I would call existential psychoanalysis, because in a way, since it has no father, each practitioner has to decide for him or herself which philosophers that meet the existential definition are used to them. Most people like Heidegger. I like Heidegger, and I like Sartre, and I like Merleau Ponty, and I especially like Nietzsche. Those have been very dominant in my thinking about the relation between existentialism and psychoanalysis. And as far as analysts concerned, Freud and Lang have been by far my most important role models. And I would have to add, when it taught Lacan and beyond as also favored brothers. So that's what I've patched together more or less, in my definition of existential psychoanalysis. No two existential analysts would define it the same way.

[Philip Lance]

And what would differentiate? I have a patient who's a student of psychology and she was studying existential psychotherapy in grad school. Is there a difference between existentialist psychotherapy and existential psychoanalysis?

[Michael Guy Thompson]

Absolutely, there wasn't, originally. In the post war years, when two Swiss analysts, Ludwig Binswanger and Medard Boss, who worked with both Jung and Freud, became psychoanalysts, they weren't official members of Freud's group, but they were admitted as very important people in that community. And they wanted to integrate Heidegger into their reading of basically reading of Freud. So it started out as a school of psychoanalysis, but over the years that began to change as you had more psychiatrists, therapists that began adopting the existential model. And they would then bring in their own attitudes and influences. Lang, for example, as most people know who are familiar with him, talks more about Jean Paul Sartre than he does any other existential philosopher, although he loved Buber and Merleau Ponty, and he's familiar with all of them. And these were mostly. There were journals published in the US on existential psychology and psychiatry. The people who contributed to those were, for the most part, psychoanalyst. And then that kind of began to die down. You know, we're Talking about the 50s and the 60s was kind of their heyday. And then by the 70s, it began to kind of fade. And the only really prominent existential psychoanalyst that seemed to be making any noise was RD Lang and Rollo May, who were very good friends. Around that time, the humanistic psychology began to emerge as a big force in psychology. Abraham Maslow founded it, Esalen Institute, and some of them began to call themselves existentialists. Even Carl Rogers at one point was saying that he was existential. Fritz Perls has been referred to as being existential, the inventor of Gestalt therapy. So they have a very different kind of take on existential because it's deliberately not psychoanalytic. If anything, you could almost say it's anti psychoanalytic. There are some, like Kirk Schneider, a good friend and colleague of mine, who's much more sympathetic with the psychoanalytic tradition. But he rarely cites psychoanalyst in his voluminous publications. And that's kind of the. That's kind of the way it is today. Either, of course, these people are spread all over the world, Britain, us, South America, Europe. But they're all singularly, very uninterested in ideas like the unconscious transference, defense mechanisms and diagnostic categories. They want to do away with all that, and they think that's what you have to do to be existential.

[Philip Lance]

I'm Wondering just to really try to keep getting at what exactly is an existential psychoanalysis? How would I know if I'm an existential psychopan analyst? I like reading Continental Philosophy. I like Freud. I like Winnicott. I generally, when I working with, especially with people one day a week, I'm pretty eclectic. Am I an existential psycho?

[Michael Guy Thompson]

I mean, very well could be. Okay, you could be ready to come out of the closet.

[Philip Lance]

Finally, I have an identity. Okay, well, let me quote something else you say. I feel that all schools of psychotherapy, psychoanalytic, existential, humanistic, cognitive, behavioral, and so on have their value and that they help people who need someone to talk to about their problems and their life. I don't need to put down or dismiss other schools of therapy in order to advocate the efficacy of an integration of existential philosophy and psychoanalysis. This union or integration enjoys its own merits, just as all other types of therapy enjoy theirs. So I'm going to kind of put on my critical psychology hat, which I, when I was in grad school, was kind of was very interested and still am. So you seem to be saying almost that I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that there are no standards by which to judge right or wrong, good or bad, better or worse. With regard to different therapeutic approaches, I guess I would like to push back a little based upon some of the training I have in critical psychology, where one assumes that every psychological approach is ideological in the sense that it conveys values that are particular to a cultural historical context, and the effect is to reproduce and reinforce those values. For example, the infamous bogeyman for many psychoanalysts is cbt, which covertly makes assumptions about what is normal and how to modify a patient's behavior to make them more adapted to that standard of normality which happens to be shaped by the capitalist economic system in which we live. So therapy becomes about helping patients to function better as subjects of capitalism rather than as subjects of desire, which would be a more radical psychoanalytic way of thinking about what we're aiming for with our patients, assuming that we agree on what is meant by desire in psychoanalysis. I'm trying to create a case that we should judge some psychotherapies as maybe being better than others, or some are more prone to go in a, I don't know, conservative direction than others.

[Michael Guy Thompson]

Well, that's an excellent point, Philip. Now, when I'm saying that I don't want to be critical of other schools of therapy or psychoanalysis, I do think that they all have Their virtues to me, the essential therapeutic movement. Whenever any person seeks to work with a therapist, whether it's a CBT therapist or something more spiritual based or existential or psychodynamic or behavioral, I think what they all have in common is that they need someone to talk to and that just holding all their stuff inside and ruminating about it isn't really doing them any good. There's something about just reaching out to another human being and verbalizing what it is that you're obsessing about, ruminating about, worried about, thinking about. That in itself is already therapeutic. Just to be able to have someone in your corner that you can trust and talk to on a regular basis. I do agree though, there's all the world of difference in these therapies. It's just that some of them appeal more to some people than they do to others. I don't think everyone is suited for psychoanalysis, even though I do think that is by far the most ambitious and effective form of psychotherapy. But not everybody needs that. I mean, the reason why I think existential philosophy plays such a key role in psychoanalysis is because of the mindset that I'm advocating all practitioners adopt. You know, the, the evenly suspended attention. It's almost like a meditative state where you just kind of empty your mind of everything. You're just completely right there with your patient and you're just taking it in. You're learning everything you can that they have to teach you about who they are and you have to develop a good way of doing that. You have to be able to clear your mind. You can't be constantly thinking about now what defense could this person be employing and which theoretical angle might I look at and what type of interpretation might I best offer? Those get in the way of listening and reading. Philosophy is the best practice on earth. I think in order to develop that kind of open minded hearing, yes, you can do meditation practices and many, many analyst friends of mine do that. Maybe that can help. You know, I, I think there's a lot of similarity between Buddhism and psychoanalysis, both in their view of the human condition and, and their ultimate goal, which is to arrive at acceptance of who we are and the world that we live in. But it's, it's that getting back to that very special state of mind that all analysts are ideally trying to nurture and develop that we're talking about, I just happen to think that philosophy adds a huge impact to being able to develop that as matter of course. And just reading philosophy on a regular basis is Already engaging in a kind of meditative practice, especially if you're reading people like Heidegger. I'm not so sure reading Descartes or Kant would necessarily do that, but some philosophers more than others.

[Philip Lance]

Okay, well, how about Sartre? Because I think you spend a good amount of time on him in your book. And he's maybe the most famous existentialist arguably. And. And I'm wondering, but. And he had some conversation with psychoanalysis because Versartre, the idea of the unconscious was very different from what some people call the Freudian repressed unconscious, which is sort of a different thing. But can you tell us a little bit about Sartre's idea of the unconscious? And is it sufficiently psychoanalytic?

[Michael Guy Thompson]

That's a good question and one that has no really easy answer. It sure stymied Boss and Binswanger, you know, they. They didn't like this idea about the unconscious and transference and they tried to come up with different ways of talking about it, but they basically dismissed it. Sartre really was trying to his best to understand what Freud meant by the unconscious. Then of course, when he wrote that, he was talking about the. The topographical unconscious, you know, the conscious, preconscious and unconscious. He hadn't. Freud hadn't developed the structural model id, ego, super ego. And that was quite a decisive change, an alteration of the concept of the unconscious. Although Freud did continue to use both the topographical and the structural model. You know, he just kind of felt like they were sufficiently compatible to do that. Is there any such thing as an unconscious or an unconscious portion of the mind? And Freud sure makes it sound like that. The topographical model makes it quite literal. It's the bottom part of the circle. The structural model is more complicated now. You have id, ego, superego, all of those are unconscious, except for one portion of the ego, which houses our defense mechanisms and is also able to plan. You know, it's that portion of our mind that we have or able to apply and live in the world and be effective in it. I agree that Sartre's notion of pre reflective and reflective consciousness kind of only touches on, doesn't completely explain how repression works, for example. So that's left a little unsatisfied, but it's a good step in the right direction. It's really with Heidegger, I think, that you get much closer to a proper existential understanding of what Freud's calling unconscious. Heidegger doesn't use the term conscious or unconscious anywhere in his writing. He thinks it's a useless concept the word conscious was invented by Descartes. It didn't exist before that. People just used aware, awake. I know, but the word consciousness was something he invented as being part of the mind. And then, of course, from that, Freud extrapolates unconscious, which is slyly, another kind of consciousness. Consciousness that we're not aware of. And that's where Sartre gets reflective and pre reflective, you know, that there's that even Freud argues that sometimes we are not conscious of what we're conscious of, and sometimes we are conscious of it. Heidegger's argument is that we pay far too much attention to what we know. And in a way, following him, you could almost argue that psychoanalysts are obsessed with acquiring knowledge. They want to know everything there is to know about their patients. Unconscious, what patients are hiding, concealing, not aware of. The more you get out, the better. As though we're excavating some kind of a, you know, tomb and want to make sure we dig everything we can out of it. Freud even uses archaeology as a kind of model for the kind of work analysts do. Heidegger completely dismisses this notion. He thinks we don't need to know much at all to flourish in the world. The way we go about our business, day to day, moment to moment. Now, the obsessional might be more hyper, you know, thoughtful about every step, which becomes a neurosis because you don't have to be hyper conscious of every step you take. And it's extreme version. You've got somebody with a symptom that when they're walking out on the sidewalk, they have to make absolutely sure they don't step on any of the cracks or something bad will happen. So gaining knowledge, in Heidegger's view, is kind of a practical thing, but it's not what makes us tick. And that's why he uses the word being as the primary concept. In a way, being is his substitute for the unconscious. I would say his theory of language is also where you find the unconscious in reading Heidegger and language. And of course, as we know psychoanalysis, the unconscious are all intertwined. And that's what Lacan's emphasis is, why it's essentially a linguistic phenomenon. So in a sense, what Heidegger is saying is that almost everything is out of our awareness. If you want to call that unconscious, call it that. But why is it that? It comes down to why is it that it's hard for us to acknowledge certain things that we're doing or thinking or feeling? Why do we need to talk to a professional in order to kind of dig that out of us when our closest friends and our spouses and so on have not been able to be of much help with that? That is a mystery. Why is it that suddenly you're ready to hear something, you finally get it? Why does it take so many years to have a successful analytic experience? Because these things happen in their own time. So all of that, we don't have the perfect answer to it. I think Heidegger would say it's a bit of a mystery how the mind works and that the important thing, for example, with a practitioner and a patient is not how much can I know about this person, but how can I be with this person? How do I establish my rapport and my relationship in such a way that will be optimally beneficial to that person? And that seems to be where the gold is. That's why the relationship between the analysis and patient are so critical. I don't believe insight is the heart and soul of any kind of psychic change. I think we have insights all the time. Some of the most insightful people never change anything of what they do. Change itself is quite a mystery. All we know is that we can tinker with it for a certain amount of time, put our hearts in it, devote ourselves to it, the person we feel we can really talk to, and amazing things can happen.

[Commercial Announcer]

This episode is brought to you by State Farm Listening to this podcast Instead of doom scrolling Smart move, Another smart move getting help from one of state farmers 19,000 local agents when you choose to bundle home and auto bundling. Just another way to save with the personal price plan. Prices are based on rating plans that vary by state. Coverage options are selected by the customer. Availability, amount of discounts and savings and eligibility vary by state.

[Michael Guy Thompson]

If we knew more about our sleep, what would we do differently? Would we go to bed at a consistent time or take steps to reduce

[Philip Lance]

interruptions to our sleep?

[Michael Guy Thompson]

With Sleep score, Apple Watch measures your bedtime consistency, interruptions and sleep duration. Then every morning it combines these factors into an easy to understand score from 1 to 100 so you'll know how to take the quality of your sleep from okay to very high. Know your sleep score with Apple Watch iPhone 11 or later required.

[Commercial Announcer]

Plan B is a backup birth control option that's there for you when things don't go according to plan. It specifically works after unprotected sex and before pregnancy occurs by temporarily delaying ovulation. Plan B is available nationwide at all major retailers and through delivery apps like DoorDash, no ID, prescription or age requirement. It's the number one OB GYN recommended brand of emergency contraception and it won't impact your future fertility. That's freedom to be use as directed.

[Philip Lance]

Let's go back to free association, because you mentioned that at the beginning and that was the topic of my last podcast interview with Barnaby Barrett. His book Free Association a contemporary Introduction. And so he makes, I think, like you do. It's a strong case that there's no psychoanalysis without this free associative method. But I think you understand it a little bit differently from him. For Barnaby, free association involves almost falling into this meditative state where you let go of the imperative to maintain a coherent narrative or to present oneself accurately to the analyst. And through this method, the patient accesses another dimension of being. Let's call it desire or the repressed unconscious that escapes from the realm of rational or intellectual or representational thinking. You say that free association is, and I'm quoting, a spontaneous form of conversation in which patients are invited to participate by being unreservedly candid. To freely associate in the manner that Freud intended requires nothing more complicated than the willingness to speak spontaneously and unreservedly, as we sometimes do when not the least self conscious about what we are disclosing to another person. So there's a distinction, I think, between how you two think of free association. With Barnaby, it seems to me, be it almost entering into an altered form of consciousness, free associative consciousness. With you, it's maybe you can say it again in your own words, but speaking unreservedly, candidly and honestly, that's what free association is this to you?

[Michael Guy Thompson]

Well, yeah, getting back to the idea of being honest, I think it's very liberating to be able to share with another person things that you typically just keep to yourself. And I know that there are a number of analysts who feel that free association is in effect an altered state. I think Martin Gill is one of those analysts. But there's a number of different ways of looking at it. I think one that I was very drawn to is the idea that you're simply sharing things you wouldn't share with anyone else. You know, that there's some something special going on in this arrangement, for whatever reason that allows you to be more daring about and honest with yourself about what it is that you happen to be experiencing and thinking and feeling about mostly your relationships with yourself and other people. I don't have any problem with thinking of it as an altered state. You know, when you lie on a couch, which many of my patients still do. But you don't have to use a couch to do psychoanalysis. But they all say when they lie on the couch, it immediately relaxes them. And since they don't have to be looking at the analyst, they can just kind of stare up at the ceiling or close their eyes. That, that almost puts in a meditative state where they can really get in touch with, okay, what's going on with me today? You know, they don't want to recap the last week or what's happened since the last session. It's all about getting into the here and now, what am I feeling at this very moment. And that's something that I think the couch can more readily facilitate for some people. And you could call that being in an altered state, that you're almost just mesmerizing. And, and that that can help elicit just self disclosure, which is essentially what free associating is about. Okay, so, yeah, I like Barnaby's way of talking about free association. And I think in general we're in agreement about why it's so important and how complicated it is.

[Philip Lance]

And just to sort of begin wrapping up here, but to stay on this topic, in your book, the Ethics of Honesty, you, you differentiate between the fundamental rule and free association, which most people would think, you know, clinicians, oh, they're the same thing. The fundamental rule is that you must free associate, I guess, but you kind of say, no, these are two slightly different things that are. And it's important to honor the distinction. Can, can you say more about what is the fundamental rule? I guess it's, you must be honest.

[Michael Guy Thompson]

Well, of course, that's going back to the beginning, early days of psychoanalysis. I think Freud began to talk about the fundamental rule in his technique papers. And I think on beginning, the treatment was the one that was published around 1910 or 11 or 12. And he, of course, Freud's very cryptic with these technical principles, but he just simply said that he described free associating. Speak whatever comes in your mind. He used riding in a train and just describing the things you see go by as kind of an example of free associating. But he said that he felt, and you know, he had just invented psychotherapy. Nobody knew what it was. You really have to instruct your patients what he calls the fundamental rule, and that is to make sure not to censor anything when you're talking to me, anything that comes up, please disclose it, don't conceal it. And he, he would speak that rule with every new patient. I don't Think anybody does that today? First of all, treatments are so much lengthier now. They go on for years. In Freud's day, they lasted weeks or months. We're not in a hurry. Freud almost. It was like a spa, you know, you were there for only a short period of time. We do it six days a week. Let's go get at it. And so he had this, you might say a little overbearing take on how he was going to get his patients to do the work. They couldn't make any decisions about marriage or careers while they were in treatment with him. Their entire life was nothing but their analytic experiences. That's all totally changed. And we don't meet six times a week. We're lucky if we meet twice a week with patients. Couch. No couch. But what they all have in common is the duration. A standard analytic experience should be five years or more to get the best out of it. So we bring our life into the analysis. We don't try to separate our life from the analysis. And that's a big change. As far as the fundamental rule goes, I think that's simply a rule for the analyst to be aware of in his or her mind. I wouldn't impose that rule. I assume that people are trying to do their best to be honest and not disclose anything. There's a way that you can talk to a patient, you know, are you sure you told me everything there? You can ask questions, you can probe. There's a lot of ways of getting at it. Instead of saying, now don't forget that fundamental rule. Have you told me everything? I think today, over 100 years after that was invented, it wouldn't sit well, and I think it'd be too official and not sufficiently spontaneous and personal. But it is important to distinguish between the two, because on the one hand, Freud said on one occasion, some of his patients he saw were engaging in free dissociation. They were just chatting away, not saying much of anything of significance. They didn't have their eye on the prize. And that's of course, somebody he would have commented to them. We didn't really get a lot done today, did we? So that's. How do we notice that? How do we bring our patients to that or attention? What's going on? How come we're just chatting today? So those principles all seem to help out in catching that.

[Philip Lance]

Just before we wrap up, do you want to take a minute or less and tell listeners more, a little bit more about what your. What you do with your day and projects you're involved in?

[Michael Guy Thompson]

And, yeah, I've never been busier. Philip. I, you know, I've written this book last year, also the Essays book. And there's another book I don't think you mentioned, R.D. lang in the 21st century, that's taken from 10 years of lectures I gave at Esalen Institute with two co authors, Fritjof Capra and Douglas Kirzner, of course. I'm the director of the New School for Existential Psychoanalysis. We also have a local clinic in San Francisco, the Free Association Clinic for Existential Psychotherapy Psychoanalysis. Interns come get hours. They go on to do more advanced training afterwards. And I'm also currently working on a new book, which would be published by Penguin, Harper Rowe, called the Heart of the Essays and the Trials and Tribulations of Love Relationships. So this is a bit of a sequel to the Death of Desire. That book was largely about love and madness. This book is about love and happiness. I'm trying to go from what can go terribly wrong in our lives to the things that can occur optimally. Right. And love is at the heart of that.

[Philip Lance]

Well, it's really been delightful talking to you and kind of getting to feel into your spirit. I think I was pushing hard, maybe on some philosophical issues, but what kept coming through was, I don't know, an attitude, a spirit that just feels so wonderful to me. And if I was a patient looking for a therapist, I would definitely want to come to somebody like you. So thank you for your work today and for all the scholarship that's in your books, too, because it's quite something. So thank you.

[Michael Guy Thompson]

Oh, thank you, Philip. This has been delightful. You're a great person to have a conversation with.

[Philip Lance]

Thank you. And so for listeners, you've been listening to an interview with Michael Thompson, Michael Guy Thompson, about his book Existential A Contemporary Introduction. If you have any questions or comments, you can find me at HollywoodPsychotherapy.com or Michael Thompson at Michael Guy Thompson.com and you can reach us both there. Thanks for listening.

[Commercial Announcer]

Thank you for listening to this episode of the New Books Network. We are an academic podcast network with the mission of public education. If you liked this episode, please share it with a friend and rate us on your preferred podcast platform. You can browse all of our episodes on our website, newbooksnetwork.com Connect with us on Instagram and BlueSky with the handle ewbooksnetwork, and subscribe to our weekly Substack newsletter at newbooksnetwork.substack.com to get episode recommendations straight to your inbox.

[Michael Guy Thompson]

Foreign.

[Commercial Announcer]

Capture your favorite summer feeling with Pandora Jewelry. Discover a collection inspired by the sunshine, freedom, and moments that make the season unforgettable. From sun kissed metals to personalized pieces ready to be engraved with your summer mantra, each design moves with you from beach day to golden nights and every memory in between. Shop Pandora Jewelry's new summer collection in store or [e-mail] and let your summer unfold.