Neurolinguistic programming, EMDR, transactional approach, enneagram, emotional intelligence… Personal development methods follow one another according to the fashions and imagination of authors, “therapists” and coaches who claim to help us, support us, even cure us of our small and big ailments. And after all, why not, some will say. If they do no good, these practices certainly do no harm, and may perhaps bring comfort to those who practice them. Author of “The Commodification of Happiness” (The Harmattan), the psychologist Nicolas Sajus shows to what extent this is not the case. Specialized in supporting victims of pseudo-therapists (1), he was able to realize how toxic these practices could sometimes be. Explanations.
L’Express: In your book, you warn about pseudo-psychotherapies and their risks. What methods are you particularly concerned about?
Nicholas Sajus: All the holistic therapies from the “New Age” current that claim to soothe suffering. As the use of the title of psychotherapist has been regulated and cannot be used wrongly and through, we have seen the emergence in recent years of new practitioners, who call themselves “therapists” or “coaches”. They have transformed the management of psychological suffering into a veritable market. We find in their proposals, often pell-mell, techniques such as transactional analysis, EMDR, neurolinguistic programming, the enneagram, meditation, a little cheap psychoanalysis… All of this often mixed with influences spiritual ideas drawn from Buddhism and Hinduism. But it can also go as far as induced false memories, altered states of consciousness and “channelling”, defined as “communication with other entities”. They have in common the claim to be the solution to everything, in a kind of universalism, which can be dangerous.
“A simplistic thought, which plays on the vulnerability and ignorance of part of the public”
Do you have any examples of situations you have encountered?
Take care for people who are victims of psychotrauma after a particularly serious event. In this case, EMDR is today a very widespread answer. What are we talking about ? EMDR stands for “eye movement desensitization and reprocessing” which can be translated as “Desensitization and reprogramming by eye movements”. This method was invented in the 1990s by Francine Shapiro, an American psychologist who was part of the School of Palo Alto in California, from which emerged all the so-called brief psychotherapies, to which EMDR belongs. She observed that by making eye movements, she eased the pain caused by difficult events in her past.
There would exist, according to his theory, a storage at the neuronal level of the trauma, which it would be possible to destock through narrativity and eye movements. But Shapiro herself recognized that her approach lacked scientific arguments, and the work available to date still does not allow us to conclude on the interest of this technique. However, it is very widespread today, and applied to all kinds of ailments: anorexia, smoking, depression… This raises questions, especially since it is also a therapeutic label, with a whole game mercantile that has developed, since any practitioner of EMDR must have this label.
However, I recently received a patient treated like this for a psychotrauma: she had done 10 sessions at 150 euros each, to finally be told that she was showing resistance and that the practitioner could do nothing more. for her… You have to understand that the impact of a psychological trauma depends on the person who receives it, and that one and the same technique cannot be a response applied to all individuals. If EMDR worked as well, all victims would be cured today, which is obviously not the case. It’s a very simplistic thought, which plays on the vulnerability and ignorance of part of the public.
The risk is also to prevent patients from accessing other care?
Absolutely. They find themselves caught up in a dogma, when in reality, no method holds “the” truth. The victims are all the more weakened in the event of trauma, the question of meaning arises very quickly. They want to get out of it and faced with their suffering, they are often ready for anything, which is perfectly legitimate. It can go very far.
“Some patients are reinforced in beliefs that are no longer real and end up decompensating”
A young man I cared for, beaten as a child and rejected by his father, was sickly shy. To try to get out of it, he started following a coach on the internet. He watched all his videos on repeat, including at night. At first he had a sort of honeymoon, a phase of hyperexcitement where everything seemed simple to him, but he ended up decompensating, collapsed and I had to have him hospitalized. Today, he is on antipsychotic treatment. I’m not saying that the coach caused his pathology, but this episode was the triggering factor at the origin of the switch. This also happens with meditative or hypnotic approaches, which are very fashionable nowadays.
Depending on their psychic structure, some patients may not support them at all: this reinforces their beliefs that are no longer of the order of reality, and they decompensate. Not to mention the excesses linked to a certain enthusiasm for ever more esoteric practices.
What have you been able to observe in this area?
Some do not hesitate to turn to healers, mediums… I recently saw a couple on the verge of breaking up contact a magnetizer to try to resolve their difficulties. He told them that their problems were related to the ley zone on which their house was located. And they paid 190 euros for it! When it comes to the affective, there are no limits. I even received in consultation a magistrate who had paid 30,000 euros in cash to a marabout so that he could bring back his companion who had left her…
How can psychologists or psychiatrists intervene with victims of this type of grip or drift?
Support will vary from person to person. The professional posture comes from a benevolent listening and above all not moralistic or directive, which would participate in repeating the practices of the “gurus”. Paradoxical communication can be useful, especially for those close to the adept, in the mode: “I don’t agree with your choice, but I respect your freedom”. It is then a question of helping to restore critical thinking and autonomy. The work in therapy is comparable to the unrolling of a ball of wool, which is the life story of the subject. It is a question of accompanying him so that he can find the resources to make choices, to act, to say “I”, to allow himself to express his opinions. This is how he will be strengthened and made free, far from mental manipulation and the injunctions of “pseudo-therapists”.
(1) Nicolas Sajus is speaking this Saturday, October 1 at a symposium organized by the Gemppi (Study group on movements of thought with a view to the protection of the individual) in Marseille on “The causes and effects disengagement from mental or sectarian influence”.