Hi everyone - thanks for all the attention this presentation has received. After doing it, I have had the good fortune to do an array of interviews with former students of Davanloo. On this basis, I want to present a handful of corrections to what I say in the presentation: 1) Some of those who studied with Davanloo during the early 80’s have suggested, that in fact, a development similar to the one I describe from a “mature” to a “late” phase in Davanloo's practice, took place as early as between 1980 and 1990. 2) Others, however, have expressed a different view of the apparent development, that can be traced in Davanloo’s work on the basis of his publications. These suggest, that Davanloo, in fact, did not develop much in his clinical style over the years, at least in those from the late 70’s and forward, represented in his publications in which he calls his technique ISTDP. Instead, the shifts I mention in the talk are suggested to reflect, not a development in Davanloo’s technique, but in his teaching. Over the years, it became increasingly clear to Davanloo, that his students had difficulties learning the method from him. In part, this is might have been due to the complexity and intuitiveness of Davanloo’s technique, which he initially taught on the basis of his own example, ie. by showing video and not much more. It may, as some have suggested, also have been due to Davanloo’s teaching style and the group dynamics unfolding around him due to his charismatic and sometimes difficult personality. Either way, Davanloo’s response to the difficulties of his students was, as is reflected in the articles published in his name, an increasingly strict focus on the application of a specific sequence of interventions, as well as an increasing narrowing in of the videos and segments he would show, in order to stress the key events of his technique, such as systematic challenge and the unlocking. 3) All of Davanloo’s articles are written by David Malan, on the basis of a continued dialogue with Davanloo, who would, however, approve of the final form of these articles before publication. As such, Davanloo’s own understanding of his technique cannot strictly be separated from the light shed on it by David Malan after they met in the late 70’s. This accounts for at least some of the apparent inconsistency in Davanloo’s use of terminology, as he would not always himself have entirely integrated his understanding of certain terms before applying them. Instead, Davanloo would develop his understanding of them over time, often ascribing quite arbitrary meanings to them along the way, as is seen, for instance, in the case of Davanloo’s use of the notion of projective identification. The same seems to be the case for what will become a more central term in Davanloo’s metapsychology, namely that of attachment. In sum, it seems fair to say, that while the commentary in Davanloo’s articles does reflect the development of Davanloo’s vocabulary, it does not necessarily reflect his own understanding, but rather the state of his continued discussions with David Malan, with the purpose of systematizing the technique which was intuitively developed by Davanloo. 4) Last but not least, all of Davanloo’s trainees I have spoken to have emphasized both benefits and dangers of “return to Davanloo”. On one hand, Davanloo’s clinical work constitutes the foundation upon which ISTDP rests, and an intimate familiarity with it is invaluable for graining a deep understanding of the model. On the other hand, such a return should not become to a return to the more destructive aspects of the community Davanloo created, in which ingroup/outgroup dynamics evolved strongly around a notion of staying true to Davanloo’s teachings. In fact, as noted above, such group dynamics may have been one of the central reasons for many of Davanloo’s students’ inability to integrate the model at all.
I love this presentation. Mikkel, you really fleshed out the differences found over the decades of work. It is very inspiring to me and provided a nice guide as to what is emphasized during the “mature” period. I was surprised that Dr.Patricia Coughlin wasn’t mentioned as someone who has maintained a psychoanalytic emphasis and writes/trains true to the “mature” period. She was trained by Davanloo in the eighties. She trained Jon Frederickson and remains a prominent figure.
Davanloo didn't do his own writing. David Malan wrote the articles contained in Unlocking the Unconscious. I am not sure who took this up later, but I think that's why there's the gap between the late 80s and 95.
That was a great overview of the model as it was developed and refined over time. I understand that he was always trying to cut through faster, but I wonder at what point it was of diminishing return and increased the risk of misalliance and treatment failure. It appears we'll never know.
Hi everyone - thanks for all the attention this presentation has received. After doing it, I have had the good fortune to do an array of interviews with former students of Davanloo. On this basis, I want to present a handful of corrections to what I say in the presentation:
1) Some of those who studied with Davanloo during the early 80’s have suggested, that in fact, a development similar to the one I describe from a “mature” to a “late” phase in Davanloo's practice, took place as early as between 1980 and 1990.
2) Others, however, have expressed a different view of the apparent development, that can be traced in Davanloo’s work on the basis of his publications. These suggest, that Davanloo, in fact, did not develop much in his clinical style over the years, at least in those from the late 70’s and forward, represented in his publications in which he calls his technique ISTDP. Instead, the shifts I mention in the talk are suggested to reflect, not a development in Davanloo’s technique, but in his teaching. Over the years, it became increasingly clear to Davanloo, that his students had difficulties learning the method from him. In part, this is might have been due to the complexity and intuitiveness of Davanloo’s technique, which he initially taught on the basis of his own example, ie. by showing video and not much more. It may, as some have suggested, also have been due to Davanloo’s teaching style and the group dynamics unfolding around him due to his charismatic and sometimes difficult personality. Either way, Davanloo’s response to the difficulties of his students was, as is reflected in the articles published in his name, an increasingly strict focus on the application of a specific sequence of interventions, as well as an increasing narrowing in of the videos and segments he would show, in order to stress the key events of his technique, such as systematic challenge and the unlocking.
3) All of Davanloo’s articles are written by David Malan, on the basis of a continued dialogue with Davanloo, who would, however, approve of the final form of these articles before publication. As such, Davanloo’s own understanding of his technique cannot strictly be separated from the light shed on it by David Malan after they met in the late 70’s. This accounts for at least some of the apparent inconsistency in Davanloo’s use of terminology, as he would not always himself have entirely integrated his understanding of certain terms before applying them. Instead, Davanloo would develop his understanding of them over time, often ascribing quite arbitrary meanings to them along the way, as is seen, for instance, in the case of Davanloo’s use of the notion of projective identification. The same seems to be the case for what will become a more central term in Davanloo’s metapsychology, namely that of attachment. In sum, it seems fair to say, that while the commentary in Davanloo’s articles does reflect the development of Davanloo’s vocabulary, it does not necessarily reflect his own understanding, but rather the state of his continued discussions with David Malan, with the purpose of systematizing the technique which was intuitively developed by Davanloo.
4) Last but not least, all of Davanloo’s trainees I have spoken to have emphasized both benefits and dangers of “return to Davanloo”. On one hand, Davanloo’s clinical work constitutes the foundation upon which ISTDP rests, and an intimate familiarity with it is invaluable for graining a deep understanding of the model. On the other hand, such a return should not become to a return to the more destructive aspects of the community Davanloo created, in which ingroup/outgroup dynamics evolved strongly around a notion of staying true to Davanloo’s teachings. In fact, as noted above, such group dynamics may have been one of the central reasons for many of Davanloo’s students’ inability to integrate the model at all.
I love this presentation. Mikkel, you really fleshed out the differences found over the decades of work. It is very inspiring to me and provided a nice guide as to what is emphasized during the “mature” period. I was surprised that Dr.Patricia Coughlin wasn’t mentioned as someone who has maintained a psychoanalytic emphasis and writes/trains true to the “mature” period. She was trained by Davanloo in the eighties. She trained Jon Frederickson and remains a prominent figure.
Thanks for creating this and sharing it online.
Davanloo didn't do his own writing. David Malan wrote the articles contained in Unlocking the Unconscious. I am not sure who took this up later, but I think that's why there's the gap between the late 80s and 95.
Great to experience such a well-prepared presentation - nice that Mikkel did all the hard work and offered the conclusions.
That was a great overview of the model as it was developed and refined over time. I understand that he was always trying to cut through faster, but I wonder at what point it was of diminishing return and increased the risk of misalliance and treatment failure. It appears we'll never know.
Very fascinating - I never understood why the language was changing around the concepts in CCC. Very, very interesting.
What an inspiring way to start the day! I feel so prepped for my first client :-)
Wow… that was fascinating