In an introduction to psychodynamic ideas, Jonathan Shedler (2022, p. 432) claims:
“If behavior were unavoidably determined, there would be no reason to practice psychoanalytic therapy or, for that matter, any form of therapy.”
Although I’m not sure about determinism, I think this assertion is false. I also believe it is important to understand why it is false for clients who do believe in determinism, such as the occasional philosopher.
Suppose behaviour were unavoidably determined. We still experience stuff, some of it fun, some of it not. Our accompanying conscientious sensations that go along for the ride doesn’t seem to care. Related to this, I think it’s interesting that we still go to the cinema and read books even though we know the ending has already been decided: we seem to derive great pleasure from finding out what happens next. “You should go on living, if only to satisfy your curiosity”, goes the Yiddish proverb.
Importantly for therapy, chatting with someone and feeling listened to partially determines what we do and how we feel. While it’s possible that therapy is merely another link in the massive causal network of the universe, it is hopefully more likely to improve someone’s life than other links, regardless of how predetermined going to see the therapist and its consequences might be. As Galen Strawson puts it (2010, p. 247, footnote 22):
“Naive fatalism holds that there is no point in doing anything because everything is predetermined […], hence nothing you can do can change how things will be. It is false, because one’s doings and deliberations can change things, being themselves real parts of the (possibly deterministic) causal process.”
References
Shedler, J. (2022). That Was Then, This Is Now: Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy For The Rest Of Us. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 58, 405–437.
Strawson, G. (2010). Freedom and Belief, Revised Edition.