What is logotherapy?
Psychotherapeutic schools of thought do not exist in a void, they are influenced by the experiences of their founders, by their cultural and historical environment. Occasionally as in the case of Viktor Frankl they are birthed directly from history, however gruesome.
In 1946 Viktor Frankl, a Jewish concentration camp survivor published this watershed book, “Man’s search for meaning. In it he expounds his theory that man’s central quest in life resides in creating/finding meaning. The book would also founded logotherapy as an approach, relevant to grief and trauma therapy.
“When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.”
Frankl was a doctor in the 20s already, specialising in psychology, corresponding with Freud and working with greats like Adler. His book recounts three years as prisoner of multiple concentration camps: Theresienstadt (where he lost his father), then Auschwitz (mother; brother both gassed), then Bergen-Belsen (lost his wife). As true stories go, it is both a journey to the absolute pit of the human condition, and a glorious tale of human resilience.
In it Frankly observes that fellow inmates who could find meaning in their actions, and despite all still establish a sense of choice over their actions (however minute) tended to survive longer. Frankl also offers that man’s central quest is that of meaning (and not sex for Freud, or power for Adler). And not so much “what meaning does my life have?” as it is often phrased as “where and how can I find and create meaning with my life decisions?”
Logotherapy as moral compass for a shaken 20th century
The book immediately met huge success and is widely listed as one of the most influential books of the 20th century. It is a brave new world in 1946, when at peace finally, all had to stomach the horror, the profound impact global war and barabarity, on world consciousness. A lot to digest, and the Nurenberg war crimes tribunals won’t even start for years yet.
In this laden, depressed context, Frankl publishes an existential blueprint, a psychological cypher to help make sense of the unspeakable. To observe the “heart of darkness” he had experienced as objectively as possible (he for ex, made no mystery that some kapos were kinder than others, and that conversely some fellow prisoners could be abject). From that, to derive a way of living that can deal with any kind of horror or extreme stress. He has the ideal experience to speak from, ex survivor himself, confronted routinely for years to extreme psychological stresses.
In essence his approach centered around man’s quest for meaning and how free arbiter is always there as a sort of last line of defense. It is also there as a resource, to find purpose, and transform one’s experience and interpretations in always a tiny bit better light. That between events and our response to them we always have some choice. If at least how we picture the events and carry ourselves accordingly.
“Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”
(Widely attributed to) Viktor Frankl
What is Logotherapy? Humanity’s need and quest for meaning
The publication of that book single-handedly founded a new type of psychotherapy, that Frankl called “logotherapy”. As a discrete school of thought, it belongs to the family of dialectical and humanistic therapies (Rogerian, person-centered, etc.)
Speaking from extreme personal experience, Frankl tells us that we should not ask ourselves “what is the meaning of life?” and rather consider that all we do carries meaning. Meaning yesterday, today and tomorrow. That meaning, is closely related to free arbiter, his thought is very traditionally existential in this way. Something that Camus and Sartre explored in art and philosophy. Logotherapy is very much an existential, humanistic school of thought.
Frankly also asserted that there were two basic races of people: some people were decent, others indecent. He noted dispassionately that some of his fellow prisoners were “indecent” and some of the kapos were “decent”. A heroic level of mental stoicism, in a way, to still be able to write such things and not let hatred consume your understanding of the world entirely.
The important thing in his view was to latch on to a purpose and to see meaning rather than lose one’s humanity, even in extreme pain. He quotes an anecdote where him and a group of fellow prisoners received a collective punishment for refusing to sell out one of their friends. The detailed context matters little, compared to the central message: In even the most gruesome situations we can usually choose a response.
Frankl posits that in such defining moments (big ones or small ones) we must imagine a friend, God, someone looking down on you and who expects not to be disappointed. Frankl affirms that the hold that anyone can apply on their own inner life, the capability to preserve some hope for the future are vital. Once he/she loses hope or that belief in a higher purpose, the prisoner is lost, doomed to moral decay and soon after death or terminal spin out.
Man’s search for meaning – Limitations and dissenting views
It is important to note that the book drew also wide criticism.
Chief among them was the notion that Frankl seemed to imply in some way that some of his fellow prisoners died because they had “given up”. Many holocaust historians lined up to criticize this view, and point out that survival rates were extremely similar across any psychological or social profile.
Others were even simpler in their criticism and pointed out that Frankl’s firebrand optimism was probably also an individual thing. To them, his obstinate optimism was not something all that helpful, rather an extreme quality in himself as an individual. Not something that most people confronted to absolute horror could reasonably be expected not to lose.
Modern neurology would also find umbrage with some of Frankl’s claims, particularly around the notion that we can all potentially perfectly control our response. There are many psychiatric and neurological disorders that include uncontrollable, hyper-reactiveness (ADHD, autism, Borderline Personality Disorder, to name but three).
Another source of criticism finally, is a lot more pointed yet, and implies that his book was largely an elaborate attempt to control the narrative of his survival. That in truth Frankl did collaborate with some of the Nazi camp authorities, and that would explain his survival more than his founding of a new psychological worldview that can conquer all.
Logotherapy: A balanced understanding
We will probably never know for sure the context in which Frankl behaved, and whether there is any truth to the allegations his work garnered. It is also arguably, irrelevant. If logotherapy is a valuable psychotherapeutic approach, its origins should preclude it from being used for many successful therapies.
It is worth noting maybe that he was a practicing doctor for example, who refused to abandon the Rothschild hospital till the last hour, before the German troops invaded. Also to note that Frankl as an undergrad, had already taken on himself the task of protecting his fellow medicine students’ mental health, famously prone to suicide at the time. He had set up a basic psychotherapeutic group which seemed to have vastly lowered students suicide rates. His humanistic credentials seem true and tested.
What Frankl really did was provide a coherent view of life, very existential in nature, and capable of accommodating (in theory at least) the most gruesome extremes of human life. Of finding meaning, and reframing helpfully with purpose virtually any situation. What is logotherapy can be both seen as a specific tool to handle traumatic experiences, as well as a general human drive worth becoming aware of, and satisfying.
Logotherapy is also a useful idea, that of the quest for meaning. As such it weaves in and out of other philosophical/psychological schools of thought, such as humanism, existentialism, Rogerian-class, as well as human-centered therapies. It gave that concept more depth, though in truth the fabulously high requirement in terms of never giving up hope and optimism, does not make it applicable to all. But it is always an interesting family of questions to explore with patients.
What do you ascribe meaning to? And why? How do you express that meaning? What other things do you attach meaning to? What happens when they come to clash and prove impossible to entertain both fully at the same time? What do you find meaningless? How far would you be ready to go to defend your conception of a meaningful life?
