Mike,

I would say that to the extent that therapists deal with issues like choice,
responsibility, autonomy and the like, and to the degree that they see their
patients/clients as more than just a bundle of psychodynamic mechanisms, they
are existential.  My impression is that the existential movement has had a
major impact on the "humanization" of psychoanalysis in recent decades (along
with more experience-near conceptualizations as found, for example, in some
object relations thinking).

However, in my 14-year journey into psychoanalytic thought and practice, I
have rarely heard the existential analysts referenced.  Perhaps they are
unpopular, or written off as too philosophical and thus "unscientific."  And
yet, I think it crucial that we consider the human and philosophical
dimensions of the work;  perhaps this would be easier if psychotherapy and
psychoanalysis were more aligned with the arts, history, philosophy,
anthropology, and perhaps the social sciences, rather than with medicine and
the hard sciences where they don't belong.

There is a national movement underway (primarily through sections of the
Division of Psychoanalysis/Div. 39 of the American Psychological Ass'n)
toward that end.  The section in Michigan is called The Academy for the Study
of the Psychoanalytic Arts.  It is a section of the Michigan Society for
Psychoanalytic Psychology, the local chapter of Division 39.  Here are some
excerpts from one of their recent flyers:

"It's members view psychoanalysis as a creative, highly personal and
individualized venture into communication that is privately and mutually
undertaken. The purpose of psychoanalysis is considered to be the exploration
and discovery of personal meaning to be found in human experience and
discourse.  The Academy promotes the perspective that essential freedoms are
lost when individual ways of thinking, perceiving, and behaving become
"managed", and when differences between people are labeled in terms of
"illness", "pathology" and "disorder".  As an alternative to viewing
individuals as "healthcare commodities" to be "managed" within a healthcare
industry, the Academy supports methods and theories that celebrate the human
spirit, appreciating the processes through which individuals work to uniquely
create and direct the performances of their everyday lives."

Thus, as you can see, this is a view of psychoanalysis that addresses what is
human in people, and is to that extent existential.  A view that values the
phenomenology of the human experience, and that respects differences between
people without getting caught up in conventional standards of sickness,
disease, pathology, normality, and the like.  A view that looks seriously at
people and their suffering as a part of the drama and "theatre" of their
existence, and that celebrates their means of survival (no matter how "crazy"
or "sick" they may appear), while respecting the possible costs of their
methods of coping with themselves and the world (a view of "pathology" that
is rooted in the subjective experience of the person, rather than one that is
based on some external, societally-validated standard of sickness).

I realize, however, that this is very much a minority view, not only in
analytic circles, but in mental health in general these days; APA has
declared this as the decade "of the brain", human suffering is codified more
than ever as "disease", managed care expects us to alleviate our "patient's"
symptoms, etc.

There is a great controversy brewing about whether psychoanalysis and
psychotherapy ought to be considered "healthcare" professions.  I suspect the
members of this forum will have diverse and strong opinions about this in
various directions.

Regards,

David