The development of Integrated Psychotherapy (Knobloch & Knobloch,1
, Knobloch 2 ) , which started in 1940, was speeded up by the needs of
the newly-born National Health Services in Czechoslovakia in 1948- a country
with a low prestige of psychotherapy-aiming to establish a system of intensive
and cost-effective psychotherapy, accessible to all who might benefit.
At the same time I kept in mind the words of Kurt Lewin-that a good theory
is the most practical thing- and attempted to integrate the important
ideas of psychoanalysis, learning theories and ethology. This started
in 1937, when being split between my fascination with psychoanalysis and
the methodological warnings of the Prague logical empirists (R.Carnap,
P. Frank), and continued after my emigration to North America in 1968.
Here are the milestones of Integrated Psychotherapy. (Its practical achievements,
what I believe is the most cost-effective system of psychotherapy in seven
sequential stages- will not be dealt with here
(see, e.g.,Knobloch & Knobloch, 1, Knobloch 2 .
For evolutionary psychology, the two most
important ideas of psychoanalysis are perhaps those of repression- a
strategy of deception and self-deception (Knobloch,3 ) which will be
reformulated later in terms of group schema-and (not usually
mentioned) transference. Freud demonstrated, in a quasi-experimental
situation of treatment, how easy it is to shift an attitude from a kin
non-kin person.(If the stories about the dogs attached to their masters
can be trusted, this is much more difficult for some breeds of dogs.)
2. FROM MENTALISTIIC
PSYCHOTHERAPY TO PSYCHOTHERAPY OF THE
WHOLE ORGANISM. I became aware of the one-sidedness and resulting low
effectiveness of verbal psychotherapies in 1940, through I.H. Schultz
4, the author of autogenic training ("!the complexes do not sit only
in the mind, they are in the whole body"), who helped me to see psychotherapy
in the context of such activities as hypnosis, yoga, meditation, and expressive
dance. " A psychotherapist who
relies on talking only is like a soccer couch who has only interviews
with the players and never sees them really playing." (Knobloch,
5 )A useful model of the of the abreaction (catharsis) I found in the
"therapy" of Leyhausen, a student of K. Lorenz, who treated
a wild cat, serval named Freda, who because of bad rearing in a zoo did
develop the fixed action pattern of killing bite. In an elaborate procude,
after Freda was kept very hungry. she was overstimulated by a competition
for food with a conspecific, and the killing bite was finally activated
and functioned since then. Such dramatic changes in deeply inhibited patients
can often be achieved by abreaction, particularly in a ThC, provided the
consequences of abreaction are worked through.
FRAMEWORK TO INTERPERSONAL FRAMEWORK.
Freud described self-defeating behavior perfectly,as a repetition compulsion,but
explained it poorly. To my knowledge, it was Schultz-Hencke 6 in 1942
as the first who not only criticised the insufficiency of Freud's explanatory
one-person-framework, but who offered an interpersonal explanation, the
vicious circle of neurosis or the devil's circle. To be more clear than
the (somewhat clumsy) author, I will give
an example of an employee who, because of his experience with his father,
expects the worst from every boss, so that he unwittingly teases out from
every boss a behavior similar to that of his father, and that pseudo-confirms
his hypothesis about males in authority.
4. FROM INTERPERSONAL
TO SMALL- GROUP-SYSTEM FRAMEWORK.
When studying in England learning theories with H. Eysenck and psychoanalysis
with Anna Freud, I was fortunate to see the therapeutic community of Maxwell
Jones and appreciated immediately its potential. In contrast to his large
community, and his limited
psychotherapeutic goals, I designed small therapeutic communities with
the highest goals, of the size of 20-30 patients (the size of groups in
which we lived as hunters-gatherers for 99 % of the human existence and
which made us what we are today).I established four therapeutic communities
in Czechoslovakia and in Canada, two residential ones and two in the day
centres. I became persuaded that this kind of
therapeutic community (further ThC) is the most effective psychotherapeutic
treatment, giving best information about the self-defeating behavior,
and providing most powerful levers for change Knobloch & Knobloch
1 ,Knobloch 2). Also, it taught me to see every patient, even in individual
treatment, as part of an invisible group,
though making it visible by including others --family members, friends,
co-workers --in therapy, whenever needed. I came to the conclusion that
a small social group is the minimum behavioral system in which an individual
behavior can be uderstood. The concept of group schema will show how far-reaching
this statement is.
5. SOCIAL EXCHANGE.
Social life became the essential means of survival and social success
became the essential determinant of inclusive fitness. Therefore it is
understandable that calibrating the benefits and costs of the exchange,
and discovering the cheatears (the benefits embracing goods, servic7es,
status, love, information
and later also money), became vital, and led to a special modul, "Darwinian
algorithm", in brain (Cosmides 7, Cosmides & Tooby, 8.
Regrettfully, Cosmides regards, similarly as Alexander and others, social
exchange and reciprocal altruism as synonymous concepts ("it is the
same thing", she told me). However, following the use of 'social
exchange' as used in social psychology and sociology, I regard as important
to distinguish both concepts. According to de Waal, if you forget a broom
in the cage of a monkey, you have to go and get it. In
contrast, when dealing with chimpanzees, you can show them an apple and
point to the broom, and they will understand and participate in the exchange.
That I will call social exchange, the capacity which according to de Waal
the monkeys lack.
The idea of social exchange appeared in social sciences from the
beginning of the century. In marital and family therapy it was
introduced under the name of "motivational equilibrium" (Knobloch
Sefronova, 9 1954) and re-discovered and vulgarised two decades later
by behavior marital therapists (the therapist assisting in contracts such
as "sex for furniture"). But systematic theoretical work started
with Homans 10 in1958 and Thibaut and Kelley 11 in 1959.Social exchange
theories are accused of self-centred rationality (e.g.,
Caporael, 12 ), but that does not apply to sophisticated theories of
social exchange such as the interdependence theory of Kelley & Thibaut
13 . It is based on the fact that people are sensitive not only to their
own profit, but also to the profit of those interacting with them. The
authors use matrices as used in the theory of games and the given matrix
is transformed into an effective matrix. Human beings may strive
to achieve their own maximum profit in their interaction (max-self, as
in a zero-sum-game), but they are also often oriented to max-joint (the
maximum sum of profits of both), to min-dif (the smallest possible difference
of profits of both), or they may be oriented to a max-other (sacrifice).
Since in good marriages there is a max joint and/or min-dif, the partners
do not count the balances of every exchange, as is typical for bad marriages.
Permanent and cautious counting is inimical to any close relationship,
whether to a good marrainge or to a close friendship.
The concept of social exchange will emerge again when talking about group
schema and about the meta-selection. II also believe that the Darwinian
algorithm of social exchange is the basis of distributive and retributive
justice. And although I value the theory of history based on historical
materialism (Marx and Engels) and cultural materialism (M.
Harris) as first approximations, I believe that social exchange plays
an improtant role in history (including the drive to achieve "justice"
by revenge between neighbouring tribes and nations).
SCHEMA. We live in our natural habitat, small social group,even when we
are alone- in our thoughts, dreams and fantasies. It is assumed here that
the framework of group schema is innate- a group schema composed of role
schemas: male-female authorities, male-female peers, male-female subordinates,
and male-female intimate (sexual) partners. The individual group schema
is shaped in ontogenesis by learning, possibly including the process similar
Group schema consists
of Role Schemas:
Authorities MF, Peers MF, Subordinates MF, Intimate (Sex) Partners MF
group schema has three functions. It is a cognitive map of social relations.
Second, It is a playground for experimenting with social relations in
fantasy. And third, ii functions as a parallel market of social exchange-imagined
rewards are also rewards and similarly are punishments. One product of
group schema, based on the interaction with role schemas, is conscience
and feelings of guilt. (According to K. Lorenz, dogs have conscience and
feelings of guilt- they originate from wolves living in hierarchical packs,
in contrast to cats, as de Waal notices, who do not show any feelings
of guilt at all- their ancestors were solitary hunters.) Through group
schema, society indoctrinates the individual day and night.(To the full
understanding of group schema, the knowledge of the criticism of the intrapsychic-interpersonal
fallacy is necessary (Knobloch & Knobloch, 1,14 ).
In contrast to what has been said so far, the hypothesis of meta-selection
goes far beyond established facts. But if it will be confirmed, it will
give new meaning to all what has been said before creating a foundation
for a far-reaching theory connecting dispersed themes of behavioral sciences.
A year ago, I postulated
(Knobloch, 15; Exchange debate JM Barkow- F Knobloch, 16; DS
Wilson-F Knobloch, 17) meta-selection as the kind of selection beside
selection and sex selection, a selection which is intra-specific as sex
selection, but is a kind of group selection. As powerful as a superordinate
breeder, the group-as-a-whole exerted one-directional selective pressure
in the evolution of humans and pre-humans, and produced pro-social dispositions,
altruism beyond reciprocity to one's group and to it members. The pro-social
behavior developed as an
equivalent of club membership fee, or taxes paid to the government.
(Informative in this regard are the results of marital studies: whereas
problem marriages the spouses count rewards and costs, the spouses
in good marriages do not: an exchange orientation, counting of give-
and-take, is inimical to marital happiness.)
How did the meta-selection
develop? In fierce competition, the better organised and better living
groups survived. The group organisers (those with systematic power to
influence and coerce the group : power coalition, power elite, ruling
class, governing class, economic and cultural brokers such as shamans)
set and reinforced the rules of
conduct and the rules of social exchange determining what was fair and
What motivates the group organisers? Beside the interest which every group
member has, they enjoy special bonuses (even if of smaller size during
the evolutionary relevant era of hunters-gatherers than later when a king
had 1000 concubines).
What pressure do they exert? They set the rules of conduct and the rates
of social exchange (fairness, justice); they supervise social exchange.
they favor regarding non-kin as kin (with self as possible exceptions).
they cultivate group morale stressing certain kinds of altruism, particularly
for the group-as-a-whole. Social exchange has
general support (including moral anger for rule breakers), with self as
possible exception. Elementary examples can be found in de Waal's 18,
19, 20) observations on chimpanzees.
The genetic outcome? Altruism beyond reciprocity (sympathy, empathy, group
concern)- Sensitivity to social approval and to gratitude- The development
of group schema (group takes over private fantasy life)-Submissivenes
to authority-Techniques of
deception and self-deception (repression, "social filter": E.
Fromm)- De-emphasise of the difference between kin and non-kin (Freud's
transference being one example).
As the sex selection may be in conflict with natural selection (the color
and ornaments of male birds and fish may decrease the protection against
predators), so features selected by meta-selection may conflict both with
those selected by natural and sexual selection. The struggle to achieve
a harmony among tendencies stemming from
the three selections is our everyday destiny. Egoists, erotomans losing
life pursuing sexual goals, and kamikazes represent three extreme ways
missing the balance.
8. DARWINISM -A DANGEROUS
IDEA? The core of the theory of evolution is dangerous only to those who
value superstitions more than science. However, an unconfirmed interpretation
of the evolution theory held as a dogma can be socially dangerous and
damaging, as social Darwinism (or rather social Spenserism) was. A contemporary
example is the misinterpretation of "selfish gene"-the concept
which is semantically correct, but pragmatically disastrous. Even its
author Dawkins 21 mixes its evolutionary and psychological meanings. "I
am not advocating morality based on evolution...We are born selfish.."
And Hrdy warns that the message of socio-biology is oriented toward the
success of the individual, is Macchiavelian and should not be taught in
high schools and perhaps not even in undergraduate classes. Thiessen
22 disagrees and quotes Alexander that children should be taught about
the selfish gene and when and when not to extend co-operation. "Since
genetic fitness is enhanced by helping relatives, parents should reinforce
children more for helping close relatives than for helping distant relatives
or strangers. The concept of "right" and "wrong" would
be instilled into children in a fashion that would increase their reproductive
potential and that of their relatives with whom they share genes....Fortunately,
children seem to follow the Selfish Gene more than they do the Golden
Rule... "( pp. 286-289).
This is an abhorrent example of an uncontrolled speculation and of deriving
"an "ought" from an "is" (an is, which is questionable
and likely wrong). If the meta-selection hypothesis is valid, Hrdy"
s concerns are unfounded and Thiessen"s views are totally wrong.
Humans have innate tendencies both of egoism and altruism beyond reciprocity
and struggle every day with the difficult task of finding the balance.
1 Knobloch,F.,& Knobloch ,J. Integrated Psychotherapy. New York: J.
Aronson, 1979.( German, 1983; Japanese, 1984; Czech, 1992; Chinese, 1996).
2 Knobloch,F. Toward integration through group-based psychotherapy: Back
to the future. J. of Psychotherapy Integration, 6 (1). 1-25, 1996. 3 Knobloch,
F. Toward a conceptual framework of group-centered psychotherapy. In B.F.
Ries (Ed.), New Directkons in Mental Health.(pp.118-132). New York: Brune
4 Schultz, I.H. Das Autogene Training. Leipzig, Germany: G. Thieme, 1939.
5 Knobloch,F. The system of group-centered psychotherapy for neurotics
in Czechoslovakia. Am. J. of Psychiatry, 124, 1227-1231, 1968.
6 Schultz-Hencke, H. (1942). Der gehemmte Mensch. Lepzig:G. Thieme, 1942.
7 Cosmides, L. The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped
how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition,31,
8 Cosmides, L., Tooby, J. Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. J.H.
Barkow, L. Cosmidkes, &J. Tooby,Edts. Adapted Mind: Evolutionary psychology
and the evolution of culture. New York:
Redford Press, 163- 2o28, 1992.
9 Knobloch, F. & ©efrnová, P»íspąvek k technice rodinné psychoterapie.
[A contribution to the technique of family psychotherapy.] Neurologie
a psychiatrie csl., 17, 217-224, 1954.
10 Homans, G.C. Social behavior as exchange. Am. J. of Sociology,63, 597-606,
11 Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. The social psychology of groups.
New York: Wiley, 1959.
`12 Caporael, L.D., Dawes, R. M. & al. Selfishness examined: Cooperation
in the absence of egoistic incentives. Behav. & Brain Sciences, 12,
13 Kelley, H.H., & Thibaut,J.W. Interpersonal relations-A theory of
interpdependence.New York: Wiley, 1978.
14 Knobloch, F., & Knobloch, J. Toward a new paradigm of psychoanalysis.Journal
of the Am. Academy of Psychoanalysis, 7, 499-524,1979.
15 Knobloch, F. Individual, group , or meta=selection? ASCAP.9 (5),15-16,
16 Barkow, J.M., and Knobloch, F. Natural, sex, and meta-selection (an
exchange debate). ASCAP, 9 (8), 13-16, 1996.
17 Wilson, D. S., Knobloch,F. Exchange debate. ASCAP,10 (1), 11-12, 1997.
18 de Waal, F. Chimpanzee politics. New York: Harper& Row.. 1982
19 de Waal , F. Peacemaking among primates. Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard University Press, 1989.
20 de Waal, F. Good natured. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Unviersity Press,
21 Dawkins, R. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.
The Selfish Gene. New edition, 1989.
22 Thiessen D. Bittersweet Destiny. New Brunswick, U.S.A.:Transcation
23Alexander, R.D. Natural selection and social exchange. In R.L. Burgess
& T.L.Huston, (Eds.) Social exchange in developing relationships (pp.
199-221). New.// York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1979.