- x: Yalom（書序）

Was Irvin Yalom influenced by interpersonal psychoanalysis of Harry Stack Sullivan? (ChatGPT, 2025-4-12)

| Yes, Irvin D. Yalom was indeed influenced—though indirectly and selectively—by Harry Stack Sullivan and the tradition of interpersonal psychoanalysis, even though Yalom himself did not explicitly identify as an interpersonalist.

Let’s unpack the connections:

1. Sullivan’s Core Ideas in Interpersonal Psychoanalysis:

Harry Stack Sullivan (1892–1949) emphasized:

The primacy of interpersonal relationships in shaping the self.
The belief that personality is the pattern of recurrent interpersonal situations.
That anxiety arises from disruptions in interpersonal relations rather than intrapsychic conflict alone.
That the therapist’s role is to participate in a mutual, co-constructed field with the patient (not a neutral observer).

This laid the groundwork for what would become relational and existential-humanistic approaches later on.

2. Yalom’s Resonances with Sullivan:

Although Yalom came from an existential-humanistic tradition (drawing more directly from Heidegger, Sartre, Buber, May, and Rogers), his clinical stance reflects deep overlaps with Sullivan:

The therapeutic relationship as central to healing
→ Yalom consistently emphasizes the here-and-now in the therapeutic encounter, much like Sullivan’s focus on real-time interpersonal dynamics.
Co-construction of meaning
→ In group therapy especially, Yalom’s idea that the group is a “social microcosm” closely mirrors Sullivan’s belief that interpersonal patterns repeat in all contexts.
Anxiety as relational
→ Yalom agrees that existential anxiety is amplified or mitigated through relational contexts. He is less focused on Freudian drives and more on relational and existential threats (e.g., isolation, death, meaninglessness).
Therapist authenticity and mutual influence
→ Yalom’s transparent, personal engagement with patients echoes Sullivan’s belief that the therapist is in the field, not outside it—which was radical in both their times.

3. Yalom’s Own Reflections:

While Yalom doesn’t often name Sullivan as a key influence (he more frequently cites Rollo May, Viktor Frankl, and Emmy van Deurzen), he does implicitly inherit the interpersonal tradition—especially in his group psychotherapy work, where Sullivan’s shadow is unmistakable.

In The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy, Yalom writes extensively about the corrective emotional experience and interpersonal learning as curative mechanisms—both ideas with clear Sullivanian ancestry.

In Summary:

Yalom is not formally within the Sullivanian school, but:
He absorbed many key interpersonal insights through the broader American psychotherapy milieu.
His relational-existential practice overlaps substantially with interpersonal psychoanalysis, particularly in group work and the centrality of the therapeutic relationship.

Would you like a brief comparative table of Sullivan vs. Yalom in their approaches to anxiety, therapy, and the self? Or perhaps a poetic fusion of their philosophies, à la “存在即他者，即關係”？

Since International Psychoanalysis evolved into Relational Psychoanalysis, from 1983 till now, was Yalom influenced by Relational Psychoanalysis, or ever cited them? (ChatGPT, 2025-4-12)

Excellent and timely question.

Short answer:

Irvin Yalom was not directly influenced by the Relational Psychoanalysis movement, nor did he significantly engage with or cite its key theorists (e.g., Stephen Mitchell, Jessica Benjamin, Lewis Aron, Emmanuel Ghent). His own theoretical lineage remained existential-humanistic, with strong clinical and philosophical underpinnings outside of traditional psychoanalytic schools.

However, there are deep convergences in clinical sensibility—and one might say that Yalom’s work was “parallel” to the Relational turn, and in some ways even anticipatory.

1. What is Relational Psychoanalysis (1983–present)?

Emerged in the early 1980s with Stephen Mitchell’s Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory (1983) as its founding text.
Sought to synthesize interpersonal psychoanalysis (Sullivan, Fromm) with British Object Relations (Fairbairn, Winnicott) and American self psychology (Kohut).
Emphasized:

Intersubjectivity
The mutual construction of experience
The therapist’s subjectivity and participation in the analytic dyad
Relational trauma as foundational

2. Yalom’s Timeline and Influences:

By the 1980s, when Relational psychoanalysis was crystallizing, Yalom was already well-established.
His major works (e.g., Existential Psychotherapy, 1980; The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy, 5th ed. 1995) do not engage directly with relational analysts or cite them.
Instead, he drew from:

Existential philosophers: Heidegger, Sartre, Buber
American humanism: Carl Rogers, Rollo May
Group dynamic theorists: Bion, Moreno
Psychoanalysts he respects: Freud, Schopenhauer, but more as “characters” than contemporary interlocutors.

3. But—Clinical and Theoretical Overlaps:

Despite the lack of citation, Yalom’s approach shares profound affinities with Relational psychoanalysis:

Theme	Relational Psychoanalysis	Irvin Yalom
The therapist is not neutral	Emphasizes mutuality and enactment	Therapist discloses, engages, relates
Intersubjective field	Two-person psychology	Here-and-now co-construction
Real relationship matters	Analyst’s subjectivity is part of therapy	Yalom emphasizes authenticity and immediacy
Corrective emotional experience	Re-working early trauma through new relational patterns	Central mechanism in group therapy
No single Truth	Meaning is co-constructed	“Meaning must be made, not found”

So even though Yalom never formally joins or references the relational movement, his style, ethics, and ontology are deeply compatible.

4. Why Didn’t Yalom Join or Cite the Relational School?

Several likely reasons:

Different intellectual circles: Yalom’s base was Stanford (psychiatric, academic), while the relational school arose in East Coast psychoanalytic institutes.
Different self-definition: Yalom never identified as a psychoanalyst. He often saw psychoanalysis as too insular, jargon-laden, and rigid.
Philosophical leanings: He preferred existentialism, philosophy, and literature to psychoanalytic theory.
Audience: Yalom’s writing always aimed at therapists across modalities, not insiders of any one school.

5. Final Reflection:

So while Yalom was never “of” the relational school, many in the relational movement have read Yalom with admiration. His insistence on mutuality, authenticity, and emotional presence is perhaps more relational than some relational analysts.

As one might say:

Yalom practiced Relational Therapy before it had a name—only he called it “existential,” and lit it with the glow of literature.

Would you like a poetic synthesis titled：

〈存在治療，亦是關係治療：Yalom 與 Relational Psychoanalysis 的無名會面〉？

Or a comparative article draft for your seminar?

Yalom did not pursue to be trained as a psychoanalyst, why? (ChatGPT, 2025-4-12)

Yalom never pursued formal training as a psychoanalyst—and he was quite open about why:

1. He found classical psychoanalysis too rigid, hierarchical, and dogmatic.

In his memoir Becoming Myself (2017), Yalom describes his early exposure to psychoanalytic institutions (in the 1950s–60s) as intellectually stifling and emotionally sterile. He was repelled by:

The authoritarian structure of training institutes
The endless interpretation of childhood and unconscious drives
The relative absence of real emotional engagement with the patient

He felt that the psychoanalytic orthodoxy of his time was more focused on theory than people, and that it treated the patient as an object to be interpreted, rather than as a fellow human being to be encountered.

2. He was drawn instead to existentialism, group therapy, and the lived moment.

Yalom found inspiration not in Freud, but in:

Existential philosophers: Heidegger, Sartre, Kierkegaard, Buber
Group dynamics: Moreno, Bion, and his own direct clinical experiences
Literature and narrative: He believed stories revealed the human condition more than case presentations did

In many interviews and writings, he recalls how discovering Rollo May, Viktor Frankl, and Martin Buber opened up a more human, dialogical, and meaning-based approach to suffering—one that psychoanalysis lacked, in his view.

3. He believed the therapeutic relationship—not technique—was the healing factor.

Yalom saw psychoanalysis as too invested in neutrality and abstinence, whereas he believed in:

Authenticity of the therapist
Mutual presence
The here-and-now encounter as the engine of change

In this, he was closer to Carl Rogers, Sullivan, and eventually to what would become relational and humanistic approaches.

4. He wanted to speak to the world, not just to the analytic elite.

Yalom was a literary and philosophical writer at heart. Becoming a psychoanalyst in the 1950s–60s meant joining a tight guild, adopting a specialized jargon, and publishing for a narrow audience.

He wanted to write for:

Patients
General therapists
Philosophers
Readers of fiction and memoir

Becoming an analyst might have meant losing that freedom of voice.

Yalom once said

(paraphrased):

“I always felt that we heal not through interpretations, but through a certain kind of human presence. That didn’t need to be called psychoanalysis—it just needed to be honest.”

So in short:

Yalom didn’t reject psychoanalysis with hostility—he simply found that it didn’t speak his language of authentic presence, existential courage, and narrative truth.

Would you like a short reflective essay titled：

〈為什麼 Yalom 沒有成為精神分析師：自由、真誠與存在的選擇〉？

Or something even more literary, like：〈一個未成為分析師的故事〉？

Was Yalom’s view of Existential Psychotherapy influenced by Paul Tillich? (ChatGPT, 2025-4-12)

Yes—Irvin Yalom was indeed influenced by Paul Tillich, especially in the formulation of existential anxiety and the human confrontation with death, freedom, meaninglessness, and isolation.

While Yalom does not frequently cite Tillich in the way he does Rollo May, Viktor Frankl, or Martin Buber, Tillich’s theological-existential ideas form part of the intellectual soil from which Yalom’s Existential Psychotherapy (1980) grows.

Let’s explore their intersection:

1. Core Themes They Share

Theme	Paul Tillich (e.g. The Courage to Be, 1952)	Irvin Yalom (Existential Psychotherapy, 1980)
Existential anxiety	Anxiety is the awareness of non-being; an ontological condition	Anxiety is the price of awareness of death, freedom, isolation, and meaninglessness
Courage vs despair	“The courage to be” is the act of affirming life despite non-being	Therapy is an encounter that supports the patient in facing existential givens
Ground of Being / Ultimate Concern	God is not a being but Being-itself; spiritual depth as existential depth	Human beings search for meaning, connection, and confrontation with finitude
Facing death honestly	Faith begins where courage faces death	Avoidance of death leads to neurotic defense; confronting it leads to growth
Freedom as burden	Freedom can lead to anxiety, groundlessness	Freedom is one of the four existential givens; patients fear the burden of choice

2. Rollo May as the Bridge Between Tillich and Yalom

Rollo May, a student and friend of Tillich, brought Tillich’s theological existentialism into American psychological language.
May’s book The Meaning of Anxiety (1950), heavily influenced by Tillich, was one of Yalom’s major early inspirations.
Through Rollo May, Yalom inherited a secularized version of Tillich’s theology—transforming ultimate concern into existential concern, faith into courage, and sin into avoidance.

3. Yalom’s Own Words About Tillich

In The Gift of Therapy and various interviews, Yalom mentions Tillich approvingly, though briefly. For example:

“Tillich, in The Courage to Be, gave me language to think about non-being—not in a religious way, but as something that always shadows human existence.”

Yalom respected Tillich’s depth ontology and moral courage, but reframed his insights in non-theistic, psychotherapeutic language.

4. Key Difference: Theistic vs. Secular Grounding

Tillich remains a Christian existentialist, concerned with faith, grace, and Being-itself (the God beyond theism).
Yalom is secular, grounded in Spinoza, Camus, Sartre, and clinical pragmatism.
But both treat anxiety not as pathology but as the pulse of human awareness—and both believe in courageous confrontation rather than avoidance.

Conclusion

So yes, Tillich’s existential theology indirectly influenced Yalom, primarily via Rollo May and the broader existentialist tradition.

Even though Yalom secularized the terms, the spirit of “the courage to be” permeates his entire therapeutic stance.

Would you like a short poetic meditation comparing Tillich’s Courage to Be with Yalom’s Staring at the Sun? Something like：

〈神學的深處與診間的光影：Tillich 與 Yalom 的對話〉

I think it would be a beautiful dialogue between theologian and therapist.

- x

Saturday, April 12, 2025

Yalom（書序）

Blog Archive