I noticed another couple issues with the article. One, it doesn't mention the long psychotherapeutic tradition that this movement is clearly part of. Jung, Milt

I noticed another couple issues with the article. One, it doesn't mention the long psychotherapeutic tradition that this movement is clearly part of. Jung, Milton Erickson and R.D. Laing are three prominent examples and there are many more. The other issue is a bias toward childhood sexual abuse as the universal(ish) trauma that hypothetically leads to dissociation and thence to voices. It's not clear how much that is just the article's emphasis vs. the actual movement's bias, but if the latter, it is a gigantic and dangerous red herring. Not because sexual abuse of children doesn't happen or isn't traumatic (of course it does and is), but because the desire to seek it out as a hidden cause for therapeutic purposes is what led to the repressed-memory fiasco of the 80s and 90s. Once people have that preconception about the cause of trauma, they will invent imaginary abuse experiences because they believe finding them is the key to their healing. We've been down that road and it harmed a lot of people. More importantly, it misconstrues the therapeutic process. Factual research to dig up historical causes is not the point (besides being basically impossible). You can establish causes of trauma till the cows come home and it doesn't cure people. This was Erickson's objection to Freud. What heals is integrating experience now. You don't need factual causes to do that. It's a distraction to take therapeutic experiences literally. Their truth is emotional, not factual, and to approach them with preconceptions blocks the process. Those objections aside, I thought the article was really exciting – an oasis of sanity. We need a great deal more such humane ways of working.