tapraid5/int-int/int-int/int00308/int2054d08z dasilvat S⫽3 9/3/08 12:51 Art: 2008-0040

Toward the Unification of Psychotherapy:

An Introduction to the Journal Symposium
Jack C. Anchin
University at Buffalo, State University of New York

Jeffrey J. Magnavita
University of Hartford and Connecticut Center for Short-Term
Dynamic Psychotherapy

This article introduces the papers that compose this special issue, a journal
symposium designed to explore the unification of psychotherapy from multiple
perspectives. The authors briefly discuss both the historical background and
contemporary developments that contextualize this project, which is an expan-
sion of a symposium on psychotherapy unification presented by the authors at
the 2003 Annual Conference of the Society for the Exploration of Psychother-
apy Integration (SEPI). The present special issue comprises articles by four of
the individuals who presented papers at that SEPI symposium and four com-
mentaries that were subsequently invited specifically for this project.
Keywords: psychotherapy, unification

The ideas presented in a symposium should be permitted to speak for

themselves. The reader, exposed to an array of perspectives on an explicitly
defined theme, is afforded the opportunity to take in and process those
ideas, to critically appraise them along various dimensions shaped by his or
own particular interests in the area of study, and to react as he or she finds
most useful—for example, assimilating some ideas but rejecting others,
returning to deeply reflect on one or more points found especially com-
pelling, or responding with expressions of his or her own perspectives
vis-à-vis the topic at hand.
Now back to reality: The first sentence of this characterization repre-
sents a fantasy. The moment a symposium is introduced, those doing the

Jack C. Anchin, Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, State University of

New York; Jeffrey J. Magnavita, Department of Psychology, University of Hartford, and
Connecticut Center for Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jack C. Anchin, 4444
Main Street, Snyder, NY 14226. E-mail: anchin@buffalo.edu

1
Journal of Psychotherapy Integration Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association
2008, Vol. ●●, No. ●, 000 – 000 1053-0479/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0013556
tapraid5/int-int/int-int/int00308/int2054d08z dasilvat S⫽3 9/3/08 12:51 Art: 2008-0040

2 Anchin and Magnavita

introducing are speaking about the ideas, placing them in a context and
thereby influencing the reader’s initial, orienting perspective. The idea that
one can come at things with absolute objectivism is by now reaching the
point of untenability, since constructions seem unavoidable. Objectivity is
a phenomenon riveted with subtle nuances of subjectivity.
Acknowledging this state of affairs, contextualize we must, since we
believe it vital that the reader know the background that informs this
project. The initial spark for the series of articles to follow was a sympo-
sium presented by the coeditors at the 19th Annual Conference of the
Society for the Exploration of Psychotherapy Integration (SEPI) in New
York City in May 2003. Entitled “The Evolution of Psychotherapy: Is
Unification in Reach?”, that symposium sprung from our perspective,
different elements of which are unpacked in greater detail in our respective
articles, that thus far the evolution of psychotherapy has included two
major phases and that we may be standing upon the doorstep of the third
phase in this evolutionary process.
The first phase, representing the beginning of contemporary psycho-
therapy, began with Freud’s psychoanalysis and was followed, during over-
lapping periods, by behavior therapy, humanistic psychology, family sys-
tems, cognitive, and biomedical approaches. The second phase, a direct
outgrowth of the first and indeed already sprouting buds as this first phase
was steadily flowering through both fertile growth within approaches and
germinative inquiry between approaches, fully emerged in the 1980s in the
form of the psychotherapy integration movement. Initially emphasizing
exploration of commonalties and differences among major schools of
psychotherapy, this movement has itself dynamically evolved over the past
25 years, giving rise to an enormously productive and variegated wave of
theoretical and clinical syntheses and integrations among the potpourri of
modern-day approaches to psychotherapy. Poised, however, at the begin-
ning of the new millennium, we believe that a third wave in the evolution
of psychotherapy is building, which we characterize as a major trend
toward “psychotherapy unification.” This upsurging interest in unifying the
psychotherapeutic domain is currently flowing in at least three intermin-
gling directions. One entails tackling the challenging project of accounting
for, organizing, and meaningfully interrelating the vast array of major
variables and factors that have been theoretically, clinically, and empiri-
cally identified as essential to effective psychotherapeutic processes and
outcomes. A second direction is that of offering different sketches, in
various phases of development, of metatheoretical frameworks intended to
significantly advance the facility with which psychotherapy theorists, re-
searchers, practitioners, and trainers can creatively draw upon all domains
of accumulating scientific knowledge pertaining to personality, psychopa-
thology, and psychotherapy in the service of optimizing the processes and
tapraid5/int-int/int-int/int00308/int2054d08z dasilvat S⫽3 9/3/08 12:51 Art: 2008-0040

Introduction: Symposium on Psychotherapy Unification 3

outcomes of their respective crafts. Born of these first two, a third, vital
direction entails raising issues and offering critiques regarding different
facets of the unificationist venture itself.
From an historical perspective, it is important to note that serious
exploration of unification and its attendant issues is not novel to the field
of psychotherapeutic science and practice. Philosophical treatments of
unity as it pertained to the sciences of the time date back to ancient Greece,
occupied the brilliant mind of Immanuel Kant during the age of the
Enlightenment, and continue to engage the keen intellect of contemporary
philosophers (see, e.g., Hacking, 1996; Hooker, 2000). Within the sciences
themselves, Galison’s (1996) “sense is that modern talk of unification-
. . .originates in the German-speaking countries of the mid-nineteenth
century. For it was there, amidst the protracted political struggle for
German unification, that scientific unity was raised to a scientific-
philosophical ideal” (p. 3).
Fast forward to the heyday of the Vienna Circle during the 1920s
through the 1930s, and we find a remarkably talented collective of philos-
ophers and scientists—Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath, and
Charles Morris, among others— engaged in the highly influential Unity of
Science movement, underpinned by their strongly shared commitment to
the logical positivist paradigm (see, e.g., Galison, 1996; Hooker, 2000; Ray,
2000). With the estimable International Encyclopedia of Unified Science
(Neurath, Carnap, & Morris, 1938) remaining as one of its most enduring
contributions, the Vienna Circle’s spirited effort to forge unity among all of
the sciences has most recently been embodied by E. O. Wilson’s (1998)
bold call for consilience, entailing nothing less than the synthesis and
unification of knowledge across all of the natural sciences, social sciences,
and humanities (cf. Henriques, in press).
As well summarized by Yanchar and Slife (1997) and Sternberg and
Grigorenko (2001), within the discipline of psychology itself, proposals for
and debates about unifying psychology’s strikingly diverse fields, theories,
and methods began over a century ago—indeed within the first 20 to 30
years of the discipline’s founding—and they have populated the psycho-
logical literature ever since. This continuous strong interest in bringing
distinctly greater coherence to psychology’s marked diversity is most re-
cently reflected in the highly substantive and compelling proposals for the
methodological and theoretical unification of psychology offered by Stern-
berg and Grigorenko (2001) and Henriques (2003), respectively. The ques-
tion may be raised as to whether exploring unification of a specific field
within psychology, as undertaken here, contradicts this quest to unify
psychology as a whole. We firmly believe this not to be the case. In
pursuing unification in any specific psychological field, more compact and
cohesive bodies of knowledge can be formulated, which may not only
tapraid5/int-int/int-int/int00308/int2054d08z dasilvat S⫽3 9/3/08 12:51 Art: 2008-0040

4 Anchin and Magnavita

advance the work of those who study and practice within that particular
field but may also significantly facilitate the process of drawing unifying
connections among the different fields that compose the discipline.
With this backdrop of both historical and more contemporary interest
in unification operating as excitants, three creative clinical theorists—
Diana Fosha, Frank Knoblauch, and Barry Wolfe—were invited to join us
in the SEPI symposium to present their respective views in relation to some
of the salient directions and issues that we perceived to be associated with
the rising interest in psychotherapy unification (cf. Anchin & Magnavita,
2006)—for example, the distinct challenges inherent in developing a unified
psychotherapy, the extent to which this new paradigm may actually be
achievable, advantages and disadvantages of a unified psychotherapy, and
what kinds of metatheoretical models might be useful in achieving this
unification. The intriguing nature of the topic, its strikingly heuristic char-
acter, and the enthusiastic responses of many of the symposium attend-
ees fueled our subsequent decision to expand the project into a journal
symposium, principally by having each of the participants develop
further the ideas she or he presented in the conference symposium.
Fosha was regrettably unable to join us in this venture because of
previous commitments, and rather than replacing her contribution with
another single article, we shifted gears and invited reflections on the
topic from a group of additional notables who have also grappled with
and offered distinct perspectives on unification and accompanying is-
sues. Those reflections are contained in the commentaries offered by
Andre Marquis and Ken Wilber, Theodore Millon and Seth Grossman,
Stanley Messer, and Michael Mahoney.
Four questions were posed to this distinguished group of theorist-
practitioners in order to provide an orienting framework for their thinking:
1. How do you interpret the concept of a unifying paradigm for
psychotherapy, and in your opinion to what extent is development
of such a paradigm desirable or feasible at this particular time-point
in the evolution of the science and practice of psychotherapy?
2. What do you see as especially salient issues, for example, of a concep-
tual, methodological, empirical, clinical, or philosophical nature, that
any efforts at developing a unifying paradigm must grapple with?
3. What substantial benefits can potentially accrue to the field of
psychotherapy from pursuing development of a unifying para-
digm, and what are the potential, significant costs that can ensue
from such a pursuit?
4. What other considerations do you see as essential to bear in mind as
it pertains to the question of developing a unifying paradigm for
psychotherapy?
tapraid5/int-int/int-int/int00308/int2054d08z dasilvat S⫽3 9/3/08 12:51 Art: 2008-0040

Introduction: Symposium on Psychotherapy Unification 5

As will be evident, each of the contributors elected to respond to and

springboard from these questions in different ways, creating a rich and
stimulating blend of philosophical, theoretical, and clinical commentaries
regarding psychotherapy unification.
In concluding this Introduction, we note with sadness the passing of
Michael Mahoney on May 31, 2006, and feel it fitting to end by recalling
some highly pertinent and poignant observations that he offered in 2005:
Science does not foreclose. It is a creative “muddling through“ that is aided by large
doses of luck, intuition, well-harvested mistakes, and chance encounters in a widely
distributed network of fellow sleepwalkers (Fortun & Bernstein, 1998; Koestler,
1959). Good science transcends the objectivity/subjectivity binary. . .. Above all,
science is a humble openness to discourse— especially in the presence of strong
feelings, different assumptions, and characters who may deeply dislike one another.
Real science is a reverence for the process of inquiry. . . . (p. 345)

In the spirit of this perspective, we invite you, the reader, to engage in

serious intellectual discourse with the many ideas that follow. Agree,
disagree, challenge, embrace, modify, or elaborate: Whatever the nature of
your reactions, our fervent hope is that, overarchingly, your studious
participation in this journal symposium’s broad-ranging inquiry into the
unification of psychotherapy will yield beneficial consequences for your
own psychotherapeutically related activities and processes.

REFERENCES

Anchin, J. C., & Magnavita, J. J. (2006). The nature of unified clinical science: Implications for
psychotherapeutic theory, practice, training, and research. Psychotherapy Bulletin, 41, 26 –36.
Galison, P. (1996). Introduction: The context of disunity. In P. Galison & D. J. Stump (Eds.),
The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power (pp. 1–33). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Hacking, I. (1996). The disunities of the sciences. In P. Galison & D. J. Stump (Eds.), The disunity of
science: Boundaries, contexts, and power (pp. 37–74). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Henriques, G. R. (2003). The Tree of Knowledge System and the theoretical unification of
psychology. Review of General Psychology, 7, 150 –182.
Henriques, G. (in press). The problem of psychology and the integration of human knowledge:
Contrasting Wilson’s Consilience with the Tree of Knowledge System. Theory and Psychology.
Hooker, C. A. (2000). The unity of science. In W. H. Newton-Smith (Ed.), A companion to
the philosophy of science (pp. 540 –549). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Mahoney, M. J. (2005). Suffering, philosophy, and psychotherapy integration. Journal of
Psychotherapy Integration, 15, 337–352.
Neurath, O., Carnap, R., & Morris, C. (Eds.). (1938). International encyclopedia of unified
science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ray, C. (2000). Logical positivism. In W. H. Newton-Smith (Ed.), A companion to the
philosophy of science (pp. 243–251). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Unified psychology. American Psychologist, 56,
1069 –1079.
Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Vintage Books.
Yanchar, S. C., & Slife, B. D. (1997). Pursuing unity in a fragmented psychology: Problems
and prospects. Review of General Psychology, 1, 235–255.