Against Therapy

by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, Dorothy Rowe (Foreward)

Zablode psihoterapije (1988) predstavljajo eno najodmevnejših del J. M. Massona, zgodovinarja in nekdanjega psihoanalitika, ki je s svojimi deli o psihoterapiji in njenih začetnikih zbudil izjemen javni in strokovni odziv. S to kontroverzno knjigo je Masson zamajal temelje moderne psihoterapije, lotil se je tako Freuda kot Junga, odločno pa je izpodbijal tudi Perslove in Rodgersove terapevtske metode. Kot projektni direktor Arhivov Sigmunda Freuda je imel dostop do vse dokumentacije tega intrigantnega dunajskega terapevta, z izsledki zgodovinskih zapisov pa je razkril številne nepravilnosti celotne psihoterapevtske stroke. Zavzeto in jasno poziva strokovnjake in laike k prepoznavanju napak in h kritičnemu odnosu do psihoterapevtskih metod, ki v svoji osnovi hočejo spreminjati človeka. Angažirano razmišlja o številnih zlorabah pacientov, ki nastanejo kot posledica neizogibne premoči terapevtov nad nemočnimi žrtvami in na podlagi analiz dokazuje, da je psihoterapija v svojem bistvu škodljiva in da so skoraj vse njene oblike potencialno nezdrave. Z uvodom priznane britanske psihologinje Dorothy Rowe in v slovenskem primeru dodanim zaključkom dveh domačih strokovnjakov, dr. Perka in dr. Ruglja, knjiga kar kliče k »spremembi mišljenja« in v svojem izvirniku velja za enega temeljnih dokumentov o zgodovini psihoterapije, zaradi česar je njen prevod izjemen doprinos k slovenskemu družboslovju in humanistiki.S to kontroverzno knjigo je J. M. Masson, profesor sanskrta in nekdanji psihoanalitik, zamajal temelje moderne psihoterapije. Odločno se je lotil tako Freudovega dela kot Junga, resno pa je izpodbijal tudi Perlsove in Rogersove terapevtske metode. Kot dolgoletni projektni direktor Arhivov Sigmunda Freuda je imel dostop do vse dokumentacije tega dunajskega terapevta, z izsledki zgodovinskih zapisov pa je razkril številne nepravilnosti celotne psihoterapevtske stroke. V knjigi zavzeto poziva strokovnjake in laike k prepoznavanju napak in kritičnemu odnosu do psihoterapevtskih metod, ki v svoji osnovi hočejo spreminjati človeka. Angažirano razmišlja o številnih zlorabah pacientov, ki nastanejo kot posledica neizogibne premoči terapevtov nad nemočnimi žrtvami, in na podlagi analiz dokazuje, da je psihoterapija v svojem bistvu škodljiva in da so skoraj vse njene oblike potencialno nezdrave. Z daljšim uvodom priznane britanske psihologinje Dorothy Rowe in v slovenski izdaji dodanim zaključkom dveh domačih ­strokovnjakov, dr. Perka in dr. Ruglja, knjiga kar kliče k »spremembi mišljenja« in v svojem izvirniku velja za enega temeljnih dokumentov o zgodovini psihoterapije, zaradi česar je njen prevod izjemen prispevek k slovenskemu družboslovju in humanistiki.Renate Štrucl

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Counselling, Psychiatry

340 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1988

About the author

He has written several books books critical of psychoanalysis, psychotherapy and psychiatry as well as books on animals, their emotions and their rights.

He currently lives in New Zealand with his wife, two sons, three cats and three rats.

Reviews

[Erica Verrillo · Rating 5 out of 5]

When an author puts forth the claim that all psychotherapy should be abandoned on the grounds that the entire field is inherently corrupt, one is tempted to dismiss him as a crackpot. But Dr. Masson is no crackpot. He is the former director of the Sigmund Freud Archives and a psychotherapist himself. Given those qualifications Dr. Masson's ideas are worthy of consideration--however radical they may appear.

By the time you finish this book, with its well researched history of psychotherapy, you will be convinced. The abuses of patients at the hands of psychotherapists and psychoanalysts over the past century and a half are so horrifying as to make some chapters almost impossible to read. But Masson's object is not to shock us with the details of the sexual, emotional and physical abuse that psychiatric patients have suffered, but to demonstrate that the entire field rests upon a false assumption which basically guarantees that patients will be mistreated. The assumption is that therapists know what sanity is. They do not--for the simple reason that nobody does.

The only thing that therapists can know is how their society defines sanity. (Even that is a stretch. Unlike anthropologists, psychologists are not trained to analyze social norms and mores.) As has been amply demonstrated, the notion of sanity changes substantially from one era to the next. A woman in the 19th century could be incarcerated for life in a mental asylum for "incurable pride" or for "moral insanity", terms which we find quaint nowadays, but, as they were taken seriously at the time, destroyed countless lives. And if we find these terms quaint, just imagine how such culturally specific concepts as "neurosis" will be viewed in the future.

The reason that Masson takes special aim at psychotherapy, of course, is that it is his area of expertise. In reality any situation in which one human being can decide the fate of another may lend itself to abuse. (As the saying goes: "Power corrupts.") What makes psychotherapy and related fields so unique is the degree to which they have become entrenched throughout the entire system. The diagnosis of mental illness sticks like glue, no matter who makes it, and no matter how little real evidence there is to support it.

Masson wrote this book in the 1980s, and it is tempting to think that since then we have come a long way in terms of patient rights, treatment for the mentally ill (however their illnesses may be defined), and general awareness of the pitfalls of psychological diagnoses. Most of us believe that the abuses of the past are now behind us. If you believe that, or that Masson's critique is out of date, think again.

In 1988, Ean Proctor, a young boy confined to a wheelchair with ME (known in the US as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) was forcibly removed from his parents on the grounds that they were "enabling" his illness. Ean was taken to a state hospital where to "prove" that his illness was "all in in his head" they threw him into a swimming pool. Ean sank to the bottom and had to be rescued. After several months of such torture, Ean was released to his parents. That was 1988. Have things improved since then?

In 2003, Sophia Mirza, who was also diagnosed with ME, was forcibly removed from her home and "sectioned". Her mother, who was a nurse, was accused of perpetuating Sophia's illness (Munchausen by proxy). After several weeks of being abandoned in a darkened room, Sophia was returned to her mother. But she was never to recover from her incarceration. Sophia died in 2005. The autopsy revealed that 80% of the dorsal ganglia of her spine had been damaged due to her illness. How did the "psychological treatment" prescribed for her condition help her?

And, most recently, in 2009, a 17-year-old boy from North Carolina, Ryan Baldwin, who had been diagnosed in 2004 and 2005 with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, was removed from his home on the grounds that his parents were enabling his illness (again, Munchausen by proxy). There is to date, absolutely no scientific evidence that Munchausen by proxy even exists. Yet ill children have been taken from their homes, tortured (in the case of Ean), neglected (in the case of Sophia), and traumatized on the basis of what amounts to a religious conviction. (That is, a belief which does not need to be justified, supported by evidence or even understood by a majority of its own adherents.) When a person is defined as mentally ill, whether or not the claim is substantiated, any kind of treatment--or mistreatment--is justified. The mere stigma of mental illness effectively nullifies civil rights.

Whether or not you come to the conclusion that Dr. Masson needed to include an alternative to psychotherapy in his book, or that he unfairly judged an entire field by a few bad apples, or that with more research the flaws in psychotherapy can be corrected, there can be no doubt that in 2010, the abuses which Dr. Masson so thoroughly documented are continuing. We are still in the dark ages.

[Rebecca · Rating 4 out of 5]

What not to do as a psychotherapist:

1. Do not assume your clients are delusional or question their reality / gaslight them
2. Do not tell your clients that having sex with you will cure them (10% of psychotherapists in a 1980s survey admitted to sleeping with patients)
3. Do not be a nazi
4. Do not assume you are an expert in being a human being
5. Do not assume you know more about someone than they know about themselves
6. Do not argue that because someone is ill and their life is in danger, nothing you do to them is wrong as long as there is some slight chance it might maybe help
7. Do not physically beat somebody up and call it therapy
8. Do not psychologically beat somebody up and call it therapy
9. Do not pathologize dissent
10. Do not pathologize adverse reactions to extreme circumstances ( I just have to mention the example of this... German psychotherapists and nazi sympathizers tried to convince Jewish people they were mentally ill for wanting Germany to apologise and pay reparations for the holocaust. )
11. Do not assume you know more than the client
12. Do no think your training makes you a better person
13. Do not think your training makes you better than other people
14. Do not try to influence your client's worldview
15. Do not force a treatment on someone who doesn't want it

It's scary how people who are still being taught as the heroes of psychotherapy (Freud, Jung and Pearls and more) were well and truly despicable. There are reviews complaining that it's not fair to criticise a few therapists and then say the field is broken, but these are the founders of the field and still being taught in training courses and still considered demi-gods. And all of the traps they fell into are still wide open for psychotherapists nowadays. It's a very important book and everyone in training needs to read it.

It's also worth knowing that there are still a lot of power-hungry bullies in psychotherapy and if you meet them and you feel like you are being bullied, you are right. It is them, it is not you. Do not let them gaslight you, find someone you feel you can trust.

We all know power corrupts, people often go into therapy at their most vulnerable, and there are those who will take advantage of that, we need to protect ourselves from that and we need to recognize it in ourselves if it rears its ugly head.

[Connie · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thought-provoking book about the abuse of power in therapeutic relationships. Mason describes extreme human rights violations, perpetrated within the mental health system, and justified as "therapeutic interventions" that are allegedly in the patient's "best interest". While Mason's book alerts one to the scope for perversion within therpeutic relationships, I am not convinced that it makes a case "against therapy". Power is everwhere, and temptations to abuse it are everwhere too. This should not lead us to become inactive as therapists or to give up. Rather, it should make us embrace the work and the responsibility that comes with it.

[Michael Palkowski · Rating 2 out of 5]

Masson in his analysis attempts to evaluate theoretical assumptions by focusing heavily on the individuals who advocated them and how within the context of their personal life, they were odious. These points although interesting from an investigative journalist perspective is certainly not conducive to academic disillusionment with the theory itself. This is a shame because there is a lot of ammunition and problems that could certainly be thrown in the face of psychotherapy, even exploring the nuances that constitute simple, taken for granted measures like a talking cure. There are issues of power relationships, of social context, of a kind of structural ableism, of a disavow with interpretation itself and how this is contingent wholly on the inter-personal relationship fostered between the client and the counselor. Such an analysis is available in books like "Deconstructing Psychotherapy" by Ian Parker, where there is a sustained attempt at finding solutions to these issues. Even when therapy doesn't seek to pathologize everyone into a singular corrupt sense of being, there are still major problems with congruence and artificial transference. These points are mentioned but ultimately secondary to a pervasive sense of "got ya!" in exposing the unethical and scandalous practices of those involved in disseminating the theory. I won't dismiss my appreciation of someones theory based on what they ate for breakfast because its largely irrelevant. Sure there are issues where it certainly is poignant to mention them but this is conflationism and a really easy, simplistic method of dismissing everything without the need to actually think critically about the theoretical structures themselves. I cannot apply to the unethical nature of Karl Marx to critique the labour process theory he put forward and so why is it acceptable to provide a book full of this here? Am i meant to say everything Jung said was bullshit because he had a strange reaction to anti-semitism? This is simply juvenile and bad analysis, despite the fact his points are occasionally merited and required. He doesn't propose an alternative model though or what we ought to do and his analysis of eclectic models is really empty and placed within a small chapter subheading. The reason for this is because his analysis would be flawed considerably if he considered that most therapists working today (almost 80%) use this model of focusing specifically on the patients needs and providing a service which suits them, plucking from a wide range of theoretical schools of thinking. His analysis therefore is immediately antiquated because he focuses solely on a reality which isn't a reality anymore!

His analysis is apparently laudable due to his previous association with psychotherapy. He went "rogue" and disavowed the whole thesis. This again is merely a subjective biographical contention which ultimately is not providing weight to his argumentative analysis. I shouldn't care where he is coming from as long as his evidence is justified and backed up within the context of his argument. We get nothing that is really substantial or groundbreaking in his analysis instead we get a sustained confusion about particular concepts and ideas. His analysis of Carl Roger's for example makes the point that unconditional positive regard is not a palpable and realistic proposition as its the opposite of being genuine. This is a good point only if you view this is a mono-interpretative fashion. Roger's would in his sessions mention to patients that he was bored or discontented or frustrated. This surely is a situation where the core conditions of genuineness and unconditional positive regard overlap to make things slightly more complex. This nuanced perspective or analysis is nowhere to be found. Instead as a reader we are meant to believe that Roger's was flawed in his analysis because he viewed everything in a positive light regardless of their ailment. This again is a misreading as Roger's stated that boundaries can be set up and the analyst does not have to view everything positively. It is merely a philosophical point of view, a way of being in the therapeutic setting. If you act in a positive way to your patients it is projected that you will get a much greater sense of congruence. This is positive in terms of how you act, not how you approach every single aspect of the session nor the actual words or stories the clients tell. This is deeply amusing as Roger's methodology is deliberately simplified and accessible for mass application and yet Masson misunderstands it.

[AC · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jeffrey Masson, in ‘Against Therapy’, tackles the questions: 'Is there a power balance inherent in psychotherapy?' and 'Should therapists impose an idea of reality on their patients?'. His central claim is that the basic structure of psychotherapy is such that it diminishes the ‘dignity, autonomy and freedom’ of those who seek help.
When the therapist is seen as a figure of authority, Masson argues that this affects the judgement and perception of the party with less power, putting them in a position of vulnerability that can be exploited.
Despite modern therapies that prohibit or discourage the impostion of the therapist’s world view on the patient, and that try to foster an environment of co-creation between individuals, arguably there is always a perceived power imbalance produced discursively through cultural, binary divisions between the ‘Healthy’ practitioner/’Unwell’ Patient, ‘Mentally well’ and ‘Mentally ill’- this real or perceived power imbalance is something that needs to be addressed.

Unfortunately, Masson does not dig much into this foundational critique of psychotherapy, and rather gives case studies of examples in which therapists have abused their power. He begins with recounting case studies of the 19th century diagnosis of ‘moral insanity’ to highlight the way in which people have been, and often still are pathologised for their displeasure with the current social order. Whilst this is useful, highlighting an issue with the contingency of diagnostic categories and the imposition of worldviews, the early cases given, rather than concerning therapeutic abuse, described psychiatric abuse- which arguably merits a whole book of its own.

Through other case studies, Masson highlights various historical issues within psychotherapy, some of which persist- the disbelief in sexual abuse, wavering of therapeutic boundaries, the individualisation of issues caused by social problems. However, because he focuses on individual, detailed cases of abuse, polemical and clearly described to shock the reader, the book reads more as an exposé of extreme and historical cases in which power has been abused within a therapeutic relationship, rather than a sustained critique on the institution and practice of therapy itself.
This weakens his argument against the general practice of therapy because it draws attention away from his argument that there are problems endemic to the nature of psychotherapy, and shifts the focus to individual cases. Arguably, there are extreme abuses of power in every profession- even now, ‘conversion therapy’ is practiced across the world, an example of the manipulations and atrocities committed in the name of therapy. Masson does, at the end, criticise Carl Rogers’ Humanistic therapy to posit that even therapies seen as benign still aims to distort a patient’s reality, however the arguments against therapyies' philosophical systems feel underdeveloped as Masson focuses his attack on the lives and practices of individual therapists.

Unfortunately, although it’s important for views such as Masson’s to be illuminated, to encourage calls to examine the responsibilities involved in practicing psychotherapy, he seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater in his blanket attack on psychotherapy. He calls for self-help groups and community support, whilst ignoring that power dynamics can also arise within groups, and perhaps, be even messier to deal with there. Whilst power dynamics are inevitably present within the therapy room, making power relations a central theme and allowing a patient to express their thoughts and feelings about them can prove to be useful for the patient.

Ultimately, whilst criticising psychotherapies for imposing worldviews on patients, Masson imposes his own view of how somebody should be helped (or not). Masson doesn’t even seem to trust psychotherapy clients to decide whether or not they were helped by therapy; in the foreword, he claims that he doesn’t ‘question that some people believe that they are helped in therapy, he questions ‘whether they are in fact helped by therapy’- and for someone who seems concerned about the autonomy of psychotherapy clients, perhaps he should let them decide for themselves what it means to be ‘helped’, as many people would argue that they have been helped by therapy, in different dimensions and in different ways.

[Lara · Rating 4 out of 5]

Queria se pá 1 dia sentar no bar com esse autor o nosso role inteiro ia rola mta treta mas ia ser mto toppppp

[Shane · Rating 4 out of 5]

This provocative book cries out to be read by anyone giving or getting therapy, and might also interest many who know any therapists or their clients/patients. Although first published in 1988 (so some of the info has dated), Jeffrey Masson’s basic argument hasn’t lost its relevance. In some ways it may even be more relevant than ever, given the increasing medicalisation of emotional pain, and our changing (and debased?) understandings of concepts like ‘friend’ and ‘connected’.

A warning: this lucid book may offend therapists of all types, as well as those they’ve treated who believe therapy has saved their life. It’s less likely to upset a reader who can’t afford the luxury of treatment, or who has access to even just one or two trusted friends. Masson, a former psychoanalyst, prefers not to define ‘nonconformists’ with loose diagnostic labels like ‘schizophrenia’, which might best serve the interests of, e.g., families or spouses of those in treatment.

Masson set out to demonise therapists at a time when such critiques were needed. As black-and-white as his style may seem, it reverses the norm: the demonised patient. His catalogue of historical and recent therapeutic horrors rivals true crime for readability. A polemical writer by nature, he takes an extreme position. And such an impassioned approach, however well researched, invites attack, especially if one’s ego has something to defend.

As someone who’s earned a living counselling others, I found his thesis confronting. And as someone who’s consulted (though not lately) a wide range of psych professionals – with varying, if often useful, results – I found his argument positively cathartic. Over many years I’ve had friends who were therapists, and still know quite a few through the social circles in which I move. And, frankly, Masson’s at times brutal critique vindicates my own perceptions. None of these well-meaning and well-educated professionals impresses as emotionally functional, let alone healthy, while my sanest-seeming friend (and no degrees qualify me to assess this) may be the only person I know with no desire (or funds) for therapy.

More than any other subculture with which I’m familiar (except perhaps the new age; the two overlap), the therapeutic community seems curiously apolitical. This bothers Masson, and fair enough. Take Carl Jung, the introspective shrink who gave us ‘individuation’. Masson notes his widespread fame then proceeds to cite some of his lesser-known statements, e.g.: ‘The Jews have this peculiarity in common with women; being physically weaker, they have to aim at the chinks in the armor of their adversary.’

Eek! Why must so many Jungians revere Jung as a guru – a class-conscious patriarch who sucked up to the Nazis? Aren’t his theories still worthy of study if we throw out the kindly old wise-man persona? Most of the therapists/shrinks whom Masson examines have enjoyed guru status, a fact which supports his essential, political stance: real healing – through authentic acceptance, empathy, understanding – is more likely to come from an equal than from someone who calls all the shots despite obvious if unspoken reliance on regular receipt of fees.

Yes, it’s a little simplistic. If we’re to write off therapy – and Masson burns to eradicate it – due to its inbuilt potential for abuse, then every unequal social dynamic (parent–child, teacher–student, boss–worker etc.) must likewise be dubious. In fact, Masson’s protective instinct towards the disadvantaged fuels a different project today – the similarly under-supported cause of animal liberation. He defends the victim who can’t fight his/her own case – making most of us, on the evidence of what we eat, perpetrators. His solution: go vegan. Abolish therapy. Half measures won’t do. Which means his gripping and rigorously researched writing, for all its compassion, lacks nuance.

For instance, he says: ‘I am skeptical of anybody who profits from another person’s suffering.’ Does this include ambulance drivers, nurses and paramedics? But that’s not a reason to overlook this important book. If more thinkers had the courage to interrogate the status quo, Masson wouldn’t need to rant on a soapbox.

[Ekaterina Anguelova · Rating 4 out of 5]

Against Therapy is a passionately argued, thoroughly researched and refreshingly honest case against the perceived benefits of psychotherapy.

Though nearly 30 years old, the book remains relevant for two reasons. Firstly, it documents the failings of the still influential Freud, Jung and Rogers, amongst others, and extends the conclusion to the field in general, claiming that should the exemplars in a sphere be fault-ridden, there is little doubt that their mistakes will be emulated by their less acclaimed colleagues. Second, the baseline argument is atemporal in its nature, and would be applicable in any setting in which there is a dynamic including a professional psychotherapist and a client/patient involved, regardless of the theoretical underpinnings.

The author, who himself spent 8 years in training to become a psychotherapist, only to eventually reject the method entirely, pays explicit attention to the vulnerability of women and children in therapy. Through late 19th century asylums for the "morally insane", and Freudian disbelief in sexual abuse allegations, to the explicit sadism of John Rosen, Masson unearths a long-silenced history of medically-endorsed violence. He smartly rejects the rebuttal that in addition to his criticism there is a need to provide an alternative to psychotherapy, arguing that faulty practices and schools of thought, like racism for instance, are not in need of an alternative but of complete cessation. How viable this proposition is, especially for persons who have fragile support networks to assist them in coping with their mental health, is a question which remains unanswered.

"My criticism is directed both at the profession at large and at individual therapists. For they have fostered this myth when they know it is false. They know, often in exquisite detail, the failings of their colleagues and often regale each other with horror tales from the battlefield of psychotherapeutic practice. They also know enough of their own faults and inadequacies to realize that their 'clients' are bound to get less than they hoped or had been led to expect. Many times I sat behind a patient in analysis and became acutely and painfully aware of my inability to help. Many times, indeed, I did feel compassion. But at times I also felt bored, uninterested, irritated, helpless, confused, ignorant, and lost...My life was in no better shape that that of my patients. Any advice I might have had to offer would be no better than that of a well-informed friend (and considerably more expensive)."

[Ronald · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book back in the early 1990s, and I have it on hand to refresh my memory.

The author, Jeffery Moussaieff Mason, graduated as a psychoanalyst, had a private practice in psychotherapy and psychoanalysis, and was briefly projects director of the Sigmund Freud Archives. He became disillusioned with the field and left it.

The main fault I have with the book is that the author, ironically, does something which his opponents do: tie a person's ideas to their personal characteristics. Recently, I read a 5 star review, by a goodreads friend, of a psychoanalytical analysis of Martin Luther and his ideas. This is, however, the fallacious argument of the ad hominem.

The book gives some shocking examples of bad behavoir by therapists. Some of Jung's letters do indeed seem racist. Jung had a romantic relationship with a patient. John Rosen was charged with numerous accounts of physical abuse of his patients and surrendered his medical license. Fritz Perls, the creator of Gestalt Therapy, had sex with his patients and was a egomanic (Perls wrote "Either American psychiatry would one day accept Gestalt therapy as the only realistic and effective form of understanding, or else it would perish in the debris of civil war and atomic bombs.) Some therapists, such as Milton Erickson, had male chauvinist attitudes toward their female patients. Ewen Cameron was one of the most highly praised psychiatrists of his time. He was also in charge of the MK-Ultra program, in which people, without their consent, were injected with LSD and underwent mind control. (I remember TV news stories about this in the 1980s) There are more examples, which I can come up with and which the author did not bring up.

Nevertheless, the author makes some valid points besides the main ad hominem thrust of the book. Jung might have been too preoccupied with archetypes, mythology, coincidences, and even UFOs and failed to recognize that a patient's problems might be caused from "the outside", not from the "inside." The author critically address the claims made by John Rosen's published papers: John Rosen claimed he would spend 10 hours a day for a couple of days with a patient. Really? Rosen claimed in his papers remarkable results in his new treatments of schizophrenia. The author cites studies showing that others used Rosen's treatments but found them to be a great deal less positive than Rosen had claimed. The author cites a study that therapy from college professors, who were not trained, was just as effective as therapy from professional psychotherapists.

To conclude, because of the main ad hominem thrust of the book, I cannot give it 4 or 5 stars. However, other interesting point are made, and the recounting of the shocking behavior by some prominent therapists has value.

[Harvey Lidstone-Lane · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very thought provoking and interesting book. I thought, being I therapist myself, that I would struggle with my inherent bias reading this. It was, however, not too painful and I would definitely recommend this as an important book for any other therapists (or anybody working in mental health for that matter) to read.
My two criticisms/observations of this book are; 1. it is a bit dated and 2. the focus was more on individual cases and not on therapy as a whole. Let me address these two points in more detail.
1. The book was published in the 80's. While a lot of Masson's points are important to keep in mind the practice of therapy has changed dramatically in the last 30 years, therefore some of the arguments he puts forward are outdated.
2. Mason outlines examples of different therapists who have abused there position (included in these example are Freud and Jung). He then seems to make a bit of a leap in suggesting that therapy is always and inherently detrimental. He also does not suggest any alternative to therapeutic intervention.
Despite this two observations, this is a well written and a thoroughly enjoyable read. It highlights some issues within therapy that needed (and still need) to be addressed. I can get behind a lot of what Masson is saying, I can just not join him in his conclusion that therapy is inherently abusive and should be stopped. The emphases needs to be on how best we can support and empower those in distress, whether that's therapeutically or via some other channel.

[Russell · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book continues what the Assault on Truth: Freud's Suppression of the Seduction Theory started. Masson peices together a stunning and arousing viewpoint with logic and anecdote that support what sounds like something, (being Against Therapy), to which noone could ever agree. After reading this book, it is clear that the interest of a good friend would be closer to the individual than a therapist. Think about it.

[Justin Podur · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the kind of book that can change how you think about a whole field. Very well documented, full of stranger-than-fiction and heartbreaking and enraging stories, this book makes the case against the whole practice of therapy as it evolved in the 19th and 20th centuries, and the way it was practiced as a means of control. Still very relevant today.

[Deb Lancaster · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating, terrifying, and skewed. Absolutely annihilates Freud and his very broken theories. Masson argues that therapy can never be beneficial as it is impossible for a therapist to interact with a patient without bringing their own baggage.

[Maša Bratuša · Rating 2 out of 5]

i thought this book was going to be about some of the things it ends up being about, but i wouldn't have thought, not even in my wildest dreams, that it would come to the conclusions it comes to. i believe this book is so horrible and, ironically, harmful, that it needs to be dissected chapter by chapter.
ch. 1: the stories of hersilie ruoy and julie la roche are heartbreaking, for sure, but it would be terribly stupid to assume that the mistakes that kept them in confinement were strictly professional errors. it is more than clear that what kept them locked was the nightmarish alliance of psychiatry and state power. to this day, this alliance persists, but experience suggests that today state power uses psychiatric research to push various questionable ideological narratives — into which i will not be getting here... iykyk. there is no word of that in the book, however. the book conveniently starts with these compulsory "therapies" and, by doing so, muddles the waters by mixing these apples with the oranges of voluntary therapy, but i'll get to that.

ch. 2: here it gets interesting. i wholeheartedly agree that the peak of psychoanalysis, which disregarded the reality of trauma in favor of hidden theoretical motifs (that could only be known to the analyst), was at least unhelpful, if not outright hindering the recovery of clients. although i'm not entirely against the psychosexual interpretative framework, i think it should be: one, reserved only for understanding the most distressed, who are stuck at the earliest stages, and two, not disclosed to the client until the very end of therapy, more as an afterthought — as there is a genuine danger that they will be unable to process it as a theoretical curiosity and instead take it as a banalization of their personality, to which they are already too prone. crucially — and making masson's point moot — this has been extensively explored in later therapeutic research, and out of that we got both "sometimes a pipe is just a pipe" and the client-centered approaches! modern psychoanalysis is aware that it used to be a hammer to which everything looked like a nail!
as an aside, there is an inherent paradox in dora's treatment — could it be that if freud had confirmed the reality of her trauma, a shade of doubt would have remained, and she could have only truly ended the (neurotic) urge for recognition of reality by rejecting his (false) point of view?

ch. 3: i'm absolutely baffled by how masson could have possibly written this chapter about ferenczi and still maintain his final stance. in this chapter, contemporary therapists whose desire to help is greater than the desire for power get a rather finalized set of honest truths that they ought to disclose to any client prior to the beginning of therapy. most notably — that therapy is by definition an artificial, infantalizing procedure, but that there is nothing inherently immoral about that, as the whole point of therapy — as a sort of belated upbringing — is to develop a psyche that can resist all and any attempts of others (or oneself) to become infantilized! therefore, all rational questioning of the therapist’s interpretation or advice is actually encouraged! ferenczi wanted democratization, and this chapter makes it clear that transformational honesty is absolutely possible.

ch. 4: luckily, i get to write this after the events of october 7th and its aftermath, where it became clear that the hebrew (cultural, not genetic!) psyche is the only one in the world that is capable of believing at the same time that god both does not exist and that he has made them the chosen people. this is by no means a call to any type of violence, but it seems that all other cultures would probably do well to question all speculative theories that come out of that cultural milieu, as they are most likely colored by the distinct religion and historical traumas. it is unclear to me why suggesting the possibility of a differential psychological constitution of this nation should be shocking. so yes, i think jung did not apologize, because he saw no reason to withdraw what he said! as both masson and i have claimed previously — he was actually more than right in his assessment that freudians have unnecessarily dragged many things into the infantile-perverse swamp of crude jokes!
it does remain a mystery to me as to how masson finds fair significant fault (of violence) with freud, rosen, honig, perls, and other jewish theorists but is unable to connect the dots about where the violence stemmed from. secondly, had masson really thought about the source of psychological ails, he would have probably discovered that premodern societies are largely spared from these due to extensive metaphysical systems of thought they have in place. and then maybe he wouldn't hold it against jung that he was trying much more than to just treat the symptoms. but that would require masson to think — something that, by this point in the book, seemed entirely unlikely to me.

ch. 5: having had personal experience with schizophrenics, i would bet my right hand that the confrontational approach, especially of the exposing-the-double-bind flavor, is more productive than the polite, enabling approach. it has to be noted that part of achieving a sound(er) personality structure is also the capacity to have a welcoming approach to our own faults — which is something that psychotics are known to be running away from. the process of acquiring this skill — via a sometimes forceful prevention of repression — is unpleasant and can be experienced as "violent," but it is necessary — unless we are just locking them up and letting them rot? and i'm not sure how masson wants us to behave around psychotics (as he does not disclose this), but i got the feeling that he has zero actual experience with them and from that, thinks it's just another matter of "let's all just find friends and get along."
here, i would like to point out that african tribes either nip psychosis in the bud with procedures that are just as non-humanistic as rosen's, or they channel that psychosis in a jungian way. and in the long run, they're getting along with their schizos much better than we are! here, masson just lists his feelings and values as "arguments" against the (belated) confrontational upbringing, but does not list any statistics that would rule direct psychoanalysis out of favor.

ch. 6: just more virtue signaling, a never-ending and nauseating mental heritage of the enlightenment that again treats all unquestionable mental misery as some sort of noble savagery. the listing of instances where therapists have taken the fast and simple approach of creating a solid superego — as regrettable as they are — is in no way indicative of the practice as a whole, especially today when the threat of liability lawsuits hangs above everything and everyone. and again — if miss spielrein could get over it, why couldn't everywoman?

ch. 7: it speaks volumes how the author takes great care to omit the advances made by bateson, laing, and szasz (and the whole of transactional analysis!), as they have developed approaches that contradict masson's theory that therapy is necessarily evil, abusive, and unhelpful. further — and what is almost the most reprehensible thing in this book — he ascribes all sorts of "hidden truths" to rogers and, by doing so, carries out the same act he considers violent when done by interpretative therapists to their clients!

ch. 8: masson displays a wide array of misconceptions about various forms of therapy and finally discloses what his main issue is: therapists are not politicians! yes, dogs are not cats! and you prefer dogs, but does that mean that cats have no right to exist, just because you don't have a mouse problem? of course not! and although i would agree that there could be a wonderful book written on this exact topic — i.e., how social norms of the status quo are partially yet progressively upheld by the culture of therapy and how that enables the current sicknesses of modern capitalism, e.g., individualism, commodification, consumerism, alienation — masson did not write that kind of book. he could not.

instead, he wrote a wonderfully stupid book! the main stupidity of it is the mixing up of a very valid critique of compulsory psychiatry with voluntary therapy! what is even more nauseating is that he even recognizes the testimonies of people who openly claim that they were helped by therapy and renders them null! he takes up the exact moralizing, paternalistic, i-know-better-than-you attitude that he despises in others and tells his readers that they should have just "gotten a benevolent friend with insight." what if the person's traumas made them act in such a way that they are now devoid of any such people? what should they do?
he also vilifies therapists for "imposing their values" while failing to see that this is exactly what he does throughout the book! and honestly, those are the most cliché, reddit-core liberalisms of the worst progressive kind that would, given the chance, no doubt produce at best reactionary and at worst unrealistically utopian "improvements" of the current social contract. unsurprisingly, he also displays his philosophical naïveté through his agreement with the quote that states that people can only be experts in technical fields, because techne is "free of values." looks like somebody needs to pick up a book for something more than merely listing it in his footnotes...
furthermore, he displays the most profound misconception about relationships whereby he repeatedly fails to recognize the humanity of those he calls "abusers" — supposedly, victims of abuse cannot find closure through the awareness that all violence, even the violence done to them, was also born of trauma! instead — and which makes me doubt his expertise overall — he insists on the premise that there are ontologically unshakable positions of abuser, victim, and savior. and he himself, is the greatest of all saviors! how exactly he then plans to save us remains unknown. there is no plan — there is just bad faith reading of an emotional teenager with a worrying antagonism toward the name of the father. antiguru, antifreud, antitherapy, antimeat. anti anti anti.
but overall, a good book to read if you want a mental exercise of spotting logical fallacies and sniffing out persistent cognitive dissonance.

[Heidi Garrett · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this to be a pretty nauseating read. I think the whole time I read it my stomach was upset! Erg! Although I've been exposed to Thomas Szasz years ago, I've never stumbled on anything like this book: i.e. Therapy is just plain bad. The truths in this book are just unsettling. Reading this after reading and was a big, huge bitter pill to swallow. It's probably a good book to read before considering entering any type of therapy: individual, group, counseling, blah, blah, blah, so at least you could go in with your eyes wide open. Due to some trauma I went through when I was younger, I did go to therapy. I've always felt the whole experience was quite mixed. I have to agree with Masson here: the things Freud "discovered"around accessing the unconscious, as well as our resistance to doing so have merit. But his application of his theories were damaging. This one definitely left me re-considering and re-evaluating some of my own experiences.

[QC · Rating 3 out of 5]

Important read no doubt, but it's hard to ignore the writer's own biases.

After pointing at the horrors (truly, some of it was hard to read and made me tear) in the history of psychotherapy (still, the book was published in 1985 so it's all history), and at some inherent problems in the imbalance of power that exists in therapy, the writers goes ahead to take down the whole of idea and institution of therapy.

He refuses to consider changes or balances that might be implemented, and offers no alternative at all to all the people who still seek help outside of their existing social circles.

He mentions something along the lines of "Myself, in my work as a therapist, often realized that the advice I could give was no better than that of a well informed friend, only one that costs a lot".

Well, what of those who have no informed friends, or no friends at all that might hear them out? And if a person gives time, thought, effort, attention and continued learning to trying to help improve strangers' lives, are they not allowed to make a living while at it? Does that make them inherently opportunistic?

[Bradley · Rating 2 out of 5]

Just because a profession and the practice of a profession have been abused does not make it inherently bad. This book fails to take into account the research and work that has been done regarding mirror neurons, empathy, and the right brain work that happens in therapy. It starts from the premise that therapy is bad and argues back to that. It creates a strawman and then vehemently and swiftly knocks it down. I think the questions and concerns that Jeffrey raises are worth examing and wrestling with, but to knock down the whole profession based on one particular presentation of the profession is not the way to go. I'm not trying to preserve the profession per se, but it would need a much more convincing argument than "the profession has power, and power gets abused" to want to stop completely work that helps many people. Politics has power, education has power, trades have power. Its not power that's evil its power mishandled. The answer isn't to get rid of power but to work together to handle it well and protect those vulnerable to it.

[Rich Castles · Rating 4 out of 5]

A catalogue of horrors inflicted in the name of psychotherapy. However, Masson doesn't see these as individual aberrations, but as illustrative of foundational flaws in the whole concept of therapy. It's quite compelling, challenging and frightening. As much as the scandals and conflicts make for juicy reading, many of the abuses are difficult to read about. No one really comes out of the history of psychotherapy looking good, including Freud, Jung, Bettelheim, even Rogers. Masson himself is an interesting character. His removal from the Freud Archives and law suit with Janet Malcolm are fascinating dramas. He quit as a psychoanalyst to become an animal rights campaigner. One might be psychologically interested in his desire to tear down the temple of psychotherapy, and his views are extreme, but they are important.

[Roberto Yoed · Rating 2 out of 5]

What a difficult book, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, and sometimes plain dull.

Right of the bat, according to Masson, mental illnesses don't exist. I believe more on the empirical data, that even Marx studied (see 'On Suicide'), rather than on the nonexistent proof Masson shows.

Nonetheless, his "critiques", more like pointing outs, of Freud (his supression of abuses) and Jung (his collaboration with fascists), are, historically, relevant (not so psychoanalytically speaking).

Also, his interpretation of Ferenczi's diary is pathetic: he claims that Ferenczi started to doubt the whole milestones of therapy from just some scrabbles of an old man that was tired of a whole life of working as an analyst. Never on the cited notes one can see a truly regret or remorse from Ferenczi's part. This is to me the most weakest part of the book.

At the end, Masson conclusions are correct: therapy has ignored political issues, but that is not enough evidence to discredit psychoanalysis (both it's theory and practice). On the contrary, one should put the achievements of psychoanalysis upside down (from a marxist perspective for example) to see the depths of the human mind in relation with the society structure.

[Krystl · Rating 2 out of 5]

I only read the last 3 chapters as they were the only ones of interest to me (on the person-centered approach) but they were full of post hoc fallacies, straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks. He also comes across a little bitterly.
Still an interesting read though and leaves you with plenty to think about, despite being fairly outdated.

[Th · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book, published 1992, doesn't reflect the more evidence-based somatic therapies, especially in regard to treating trauma.

[Ramiz Zamir]

"I am skeptical of anybody who profits from another person’s suffering."

[Renetta Neal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lots to think about and consider, looking at the core weaknesses in therapy.
Another side to therapists like Freud, Jung and Ferenczi, a must read for all in the profession I think.

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

Short, but concise in what it reveals. Was surprised to learn of his experiences...such as meeting and working with Anna Freud. The type of culture he describes, both in terms of its theories as well as its various attitudes, dispositions and politics pervades the contemporary humanities. These observations deserve to be formally hammered out.

[Lynne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Essential reading for anyone connected with the helping professions, paricularly in mental health

[Marko]

I have the german edition: Anschaffung der Psychotherapie