Friday 29 November 2013

Rebranding Psychotherapy as Classical Stoic Philosophy



M. Aurelius. Roman Emperor as Emotional Role Model?

This week I faced attacks by social media from some (un-Stoically angry) self- styled Stoics. I was invited by the producer of Radio 3’s Nightwaves to consider whether the practices advocated by the organisers of ‘Stoic Week 2013’ had anything to do with what I, as a classicist, understand by ‘Stoicism.’ Also present were the Stoic Week ‘team member’ Jules Evans, who has written a book he was keen to promote, and the unfailingly sensible philosophy journalist Mark Vernon.


I dutifully read the ‘Stoic Week Handbook’, which recommends a programme of meditation and mindfulness exercises requiring me-time which, frankly, is the stuff of dreams for any working mother. I also read many other texts by the ‘Team,’ which is dominated by psychotherapists but also includes two reputable experts in ancient philosophy and their PhD students. Most of the reflective practices they recommend, including cognitive behavioural therapy, would benefit any stressed-out individual in the 21st century, were she or he child- and work-free enough to find the time (the elite Stoics Marcus Aurelius and Seneca enjoyed leisure). But they simply are not Stoic philosophy.


The brilliant translator of Epictetus, Elizabeth Carter, was very concerned that some Stoic ideas were too harsh to be of much use to her 18th-century audience. I believe the Stoic Week team have not addressed the contradictions involved in transposing into modern experience the ideology favoured by the ruling class of the ancient Roman Empire, a slaveholding, patriarchal, centralized dictatorship. I said so.

 I do think that authentic ancient Stoicism still has one crucial idea to offer: some anxiety is constructive, because it energises you to change things, and some anxiety is unconstructive, because it concerns things over which you have no control.

But most of ancient Stoicism was addressed to suppressing animal instincts and emotions, rather than addressing and dealing with them without shame. This hasn’t been acknowledged by our neo-Stoic brethren. 



I am myself involved in researching the ways that
ancient Greek and Roman ideas have really inspired people to improve their emotional, social and political positions in my Classics & Class project. I therefore feel queasy when radically distorted information about antiquity is put into the market-place.  I was funded by British taxpayers to become an expert on ancient Greece and Rome. I would be betraying them if I didn’t honestly say what my acquired knowledge leads me to think about any ancient topic, including Stoicism. Neither retreat nor surrender, just yet.

16 comments:

  1. Well said, Edith. (Angie Hobbs made some similar points on R4's Today.) I had a similar reaction to W. Irvine's A guide to the good life: the ancient art of Stoic joy (OUP, 2009). My review is in Polis 26.1 - you can get it online, I think - and it got an interesting response here: http://philosophy-of-cbt.com/2013/05/17/review-of-irvines-a-guide-to-the-good-life-the-ancient-art-of-stoic-joy-2009/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Richard Bett has also published an article recently in OSAP arguing against the, now popular notion, that Stoicism articulated a concept of 'human rights'. It might be of some interest to you if you haven't already read it:

    http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646043.001.0001/acprof-9780199646043-chapter-9

    Erlend

    ReplyDelete
  3. you recommended a book to read in the program which i couldn't catch the name. can you please tell it again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i nswered you privately. If you want to take Stoicism seriously, then read Epictetus, either the Discourses or the shorter Encheiridion (Handbook).

      Delete
    2. i nswered you privately. If you want to take Stoicism seriously, then read Epictetus, either the Discourses or the shorter Encheiridion (Handbook).

      Delete
  4. Hi Edith, I contributed to the handbook you're criticizing and I'm also the author of the article James Warren has cited (strangely!) in agreement with you. You've written that our team is dominated by psychotherapists. Actually, three team members are therapists, out of a core of seven people, so we're in the minority. Also, as I'm sure you're aware, someone can be qualified in more than one subject. Tim Lebon and I both have degrees in philosophy and have been involved for many years in inter-disciplinary work involving philosophy and psychotherapy. In terms of whether the approach is workable for people with busy lives, we had over 2,200 participants using the handbook this year and so far none of the feedback suggests people found they had too little time. So possibly you're over-estimating the difficulty of finding 20-30 minutes per day, for seven days, which is roughly what the study requires. As for your criticism of our interpretation of Stoicism, I'd love to hear more! I can't quite see what you mean so it would be good to find out what it was exactly that you felt was wrong. I'm surprised that you say most of Stoicism was about "suppressing" emotions because I don't think that's how most people read the texts. Rather the Stoics appear to be saying that by modifying our underlying judgments to remove falsehoods, our emotions will change. Perhaps you can correct me though, and I'd be delighted to take on-board your comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Donald. I would be interested to know how may of your 2,200 were working mothers. Your interpretation of Stoicism is just fine if taken as a commercial brand rather than intellectual history. Go for it! On Stoicism and emotions, I simply recommend you start reading Seneca attentively or looking up M. Arelius' record on human rights etc;. I have no objection, to be honest, with you calling meditation plus CBT 'Stoicism' any more than I object to people calling yellow cornflower plus milk 'custard'. But denying the presence of real eggs in real custard won't make historical truth go away. But hey, you aren't really doing anyone any harm.

      Delete
    2. That's nice of you, Edith. I've been reading all the Stoics quite closely for a number of years now. So could you possibly be a bit more specific? I'm honestly interested to find out more. If we're mistaken in our interpretation, I'd be happy to consider revising things. I'd like to make a small correction first, though. You've said that our interpretation of Stoicism is a "commercial brand". Actually, it's not a commercial project, in any sense. So it might be important to clarify because we wouldn't want anyone to be misled into thinking it was.

      More importantly, what we've written in the handbook definitely isn't CBT. Each section is based on specific Stoic practices, and references against the primary sources. It's true we've then borrowed some practical suggestions from CBT to make the exercises workable for a modern audience, in the context of a study. For example, Epictetus told his students to monitor their thoughts and feelings closely, and to keep a tally of problematic emotions. We've gone a step further and suggested that might be easier if people keep a written log, as that's generally been found helpful in similar studies. I don't think that noting things down rather than keeping a mental tally constitutes a radical break from the philosophy, though, just a small practical adjustment.

      I'd say that's pretty typical of the way we went about developing the rest of the exercises - they're all based on specific Stoic primary sources. But if you think it's not authentic enough as an interpretation of Stoicism then I'd be pleased to hear you out and reconsider the approach. What specifically do you think is at variance with the historical truth about Stoicism?

      Delete
    3. Come on Edith, give your references! Which specific passages do you have in mind that recommend suppressing, rather than rethinking, negative emotions? They may exist (I honestly have no idea), but just saying 'read Seneca attentively' isn't all that helpful.

      Delete
  5. I followed the Stoic Week Handbook 2013 exercises right through to the end of the week. Personally, I found them inspiring and a real eye opener in putting the Stoic philosophies to the test not just in my home life but also every day at work. It made a real difference in my dealings with my work colleagues, the general public and my family and friends and although by the end of the week it felt like I was trying to cram everything in too much, I remained positive.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Enjoying leisure is precisely what Marcus Aurelius did not choose; he died after more than a decade of traversing the Danube frontier, while keeping on board a full slate of legal commitments. As for Seneca, his letters to Lucilius could well be interpreted from the standpoint of single mothers, for his counsel that Lucilius deconstruct the glitter of power and fame, that he obtain genuine self-possession, represents teaching that gets to the heart of what ruins people's lives, both then and now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Several even deliver more cost-free extra publications and additional assistance in case required Eheberatung

    ReplyDelete
  8. Your woman in addition to the woman partner were being arranging a wedding in addition to idea it will be a good idea to have got pre-marital advising "to iron out and about a few problems" Paartherapie

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've noticed a bit of a dichotomy between those who see stoicism as an old and perhaps venerable philosophy, and those who are primarily looking for a life practice. I realize that lots of folks are in both camps. For me, it's about a having a modern life practice, and the fact that it's a couple thousand years old is interesting, but also tangential. If I read it as an ancient philosophy (regardless of how much time I spend doing that), and don't put anything into practice, then I'm not really going to ‘get’ it. Being a scholar in ancient philosophy is important, but not sufficient when it comes to really understanding Stoicism. Reading the original works is an excellent foundation, but also just the beginning. CBT & REBT do a really good (but not perfect) job of packaging Stoic ideas and tools into a modern venue. As therapy, and a way to explore the self, they’re well researched and have helped countless people who have chosen to put them into practice. If we read about them and published papers and had debates but didn't really implement anything, well ... what's the point?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Edith Hall writes: I have received this comment by email from a Mr Prins, who has been unable to get his comment to appear, and so I have offered to publish it verbatim myself: The comment I wanted to delight you with publicly, is the following.


    Having read your critical remarks on modern day appropriations of stoic philosophy, I am certainly glad that I, as a Dutchman, don’t have to pay British taxes. All the taxes that have financed your education and research notwithstanding, you were not able to seriously address the critical remarks and questions raised by Donald Robertson. Was the custard metaphor really the best you could offer as a proper educated classicist and intellectual historian? You wrote:

    ‘(…) denying the presence of real eggs in real custard won't make historical truth go away. But hey, you aren't really doing anyone any harm.’

    In using this metaphor without actually clarifying the egg part, you are selling your readers wind-eggs. Isn’t that a bit ironic when your purpose was to protect your readers from intellectual unfair trade? Fencing with ‘historical truth’ without qualifying it is rather a pointless exercise, and hence not an activity one would recommend to busy people – especially, of course, working mothers!

    You wrote:

    ‘I was funded by British taxpayers to become an expert on ancient Greece and Rome. I would be betraying them if I didn’t honestly say what my acquired knowledge leads me to think about any ancient topic, including Stoicism. Neither retreat nor surrender, just yet.’

    Retreat and surrender is exactly what you showed your readers after Robertson’s reasonable second post. Taxpayers such as rafi.hythloday and SausageRiot asked you to inform your readers with your acquired knowledge that was funded by British taxpayers. Why do you so blatantly betray them? Instead of feeding us a motherly metaphor of custard, you might want to inform the taxpayers and intellectual consumers with actual references and convince them with proper philological criticism.

    Yours sincerely,

    R. Prins

    ReplyDelete