How did Freud Jung and Adler Concieve of Trauma?

The conceptualization of psychological trauma has undergone significant evolution since the pioneering work of Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, and Carl Jung in the early 20th century. These founding fathers of psychotherapy each developed distinct theories regarding the origins and manifestations of trauma, with their perspectives shaped by their understanding of emotion, the unconscious mind, and the role of subjective experience in shaping psychological well-being. This paper aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the contrasting views of Freud, Adler, and Jung on these fundamental psychological constructs, examining how their theoretical frameworks inform our understanding of trauma and its treatment. By integrating insights from contemporary research in the field of traumatology, this paper seeks to highlight the enduring relevance of these seminal thinkers and their contributions to the evolving landscape of trauma-informed care.

Etiology and Teleology: Contrasting Perspectives on Causality and Purpose

In the study of psychological phenomena, including trauma, the concepts of etiology and teleology represent two contrasting perspectives on causality and purpose. Etiology, derived from the Greek words “aitia” (cause) and “logos” (reason), refers to the study of the origins and causes of a particular phenomenon. In the context of psychotherapy, an etiological approach focuses on uncovering the historical and developmental roots of an individual’s psychological distress, with the aim of identifying and addressing the underlying causes of their symptoms (Kudler et al., 2000). Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, with its emphasis on early childhood experiences and unconscious conflicts, represents a quintessential example of an etiological perspective (Freud, 1896).

In contrast, teleology, derived from the Greek words “telos” (end or purpose) and “logos” (reason), refers to the explanation of phenomena in terms of their apparent purpose, goal, or end state (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). A teleological approach to psychotherapy emphasizes the role of an individual’s subjective goals, values, and beliefs in shaping their psychological experiences and behaviors (Adler, 1929). Adler’s Individual Psychology, with its focus on the purposive nature of symptoms and the importance of conscious appraisals in shaping emotional experience, represents a paradigmatic example of a teleological perspective (Adler, 1931).

While etiological and teleological approaches may appear to be mutually exclusive, they can also be viewed as complementary perspectives that illuminate different aspects of the complex tapestry of human experience. An integrative approach to psychotherapy would recognize the importance of both causal and purposive factors in shaping an individual’s psychological development and well-being (Sollod, 1982). Such an approach would acknowledge the significance of early experiences and unconscious processes in laying the foundation for an individual’s psychological makeup, while also recognizing the role of conscious goals, values, and beliefs in shaping their present experiences and future aspirations.

Jung’s Analytical Psychology represents an attempt to reconcile the tensions between etiological and teleological perspectives by positing the existence of a collective unconscious that contains universal, archetypal patterns and potentialities that shape human experience across cultures and historical periods (Jung, 1936). Jung’s concept of the transcendent function, which refers to the psyche’s innate capacity to reconcile opposing tendencies and facilitate the emergence of a new, more integrated perspective, can be seen as a bridge between the causal and purposive dimensions of human experience (Jung, 1958). By engaging with the symbolic and mythological aspects of the psyche, individuals may be able to transcend the limitations of their personal history and connect with a sense of shared humanity and universal meaning (Kalsched, 2013).

In the context of trauma treatment, an approach that integrates etiological and teleological perspectives would recognize the importance of addressing both the root causes of an individual’s distress and their present goals and aspirations for healing and growth. Such an approach would explore the historical and developmental origins of an individual’s trauma, while also empowering them to take an active role in their own healing process and develop a sense of purpose and meaning in the aftermath of adversity. By drawing on the rich theoretical and clinical legacies of Freud, Adler, and Jung, while also incorporating the latest advances in trauma research and practice, clinicians can develop a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between causality and purpose in the lives of trauma survivors.

Freud’s Perspective: Emotion, the Unconscious, and the Etiology of Trauma

Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, placed significant emphasis on the role of unconscious processes in shaping human behavior and emotional experience. Freud posited that the unconscious mind serves as a repository for repressed memories, desires, and conflicts that exert a powerful influence on an individual’s conscious thoughts, emotions, and actions (Freud, 1915). In his seminal work “The Interpretation of Dreams,” Freud asserted that “the unconscious is the true psychical reality; in its innermost nature it is as much unknown to us as the reality of the external world” (Freud, 1900, p. 613). This idea laid the foundation for Freud’s understanding of the etiology of trauma and its manifestation in psychological distress.

Freud initially sought to establish a direct causal link between an individual’s past experiences, particularly those of a sexual nature, and their current psychological symptoms (Freud, 1896). This perspective, known as the etiological approach, emphasized the importance of uncovering the historical roots of an individual’s distress in order to facilitate healing and symptom resolution. However, Freud soon realized that exposure to a potentially traumatic event alone was insufficient to explain the development of trauma-related disorders. Instead, he postulated that pre-existing psychological tendencies, rooted in early childhood experiences and unconscious conflicts, played a crucial role in determining an individual’s vulnerability to trauma (Freud, 1920). In his later works, such as “Beyond the Pleasure Principle,” Freud introduced the concept of the “repetition compulsion,” suggesting that individuals unconsciously seek to recreate traumatic experiences as a means of mastering and integrating them into the psyche (Freud, 1920).

From a Freudian perspective, emotions are viewed as the conscious manifestation of underlying unconscious drives and conflicts (Freud, 1915). Freud believed that the repression of unacceptable or threatening emotions, such as anxiety or anger, could lead to the development of neurotic symptoms and psychological distress (Freud, 1926). In his view, the goal of psychoanalytic treatment was to bring unconscious material into conscious awareness, allowing the individual to gain insight into their emotional conflicts and develop more adaptive coping mechanisms (Freud, 1914).

Implications for Trauma and Therapy

Freud’s emphasis on the etiological significance of past experiences and unconscious processes has had a profound impact on the field of trauma studies. His work laid the foundation for the development of psychodynamic approaches to trauma treatment, which aim to uncover and resolve unconscious conflicts and repressed memories that contribute to the maintenance of trauma-related symptoms (Kudler et al., 2000). However, critics have argued that Freud’s overemphasis on the causal role of past experiences, particularly those of a sexual nature, may inadvertently reinforce a sense of victimhood and hinder an individual’s ability to take responsibility for their present circumstances (Van der Kolk, 2014).

Freud’s conceptualization of emotions as the byproduct of unconscious drives and conflicts suggests that the subjective experience of trauma may be shaped by factors beyond an individual’s conscious awareness or control. This perspective highlights the importance of exploring the unconscious meanings and associations attached to traumatic experiences in the therapeutic process. However, it may also overlook the role of conscious appraisals and coping strategies in shaping an individual’s emotional response to trauma (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Adler’s Perspective: Emotion, Purposiveness, and the Teleology of Trauma

Alfred Adler, the founder of Individual Psychology, offered a radically different perspective on the nature of emotion and its role in the development of trauma. In contrast to Freud’s emphasis on the etiological significance of past experiences, Adler advocated for a future-oriented, teleological approach that emphasized the purposive nature of human behavior and emotional experience (Adler, 1927). The term “teleology” refers to the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than their cause. Adler believed that emotions serve a functional role in helping individuals navigate their social environment and pursue their goals, stating that “emotions are not causes but means-to-an-end, they are not drives but guiding lines” (Adler, 1929, p. 67).

Central to Adler’s theory was the concept of the “life style,” which refers to an individual’s unique way of perceiving, interpreting, and responding to life experiences (Adler, 1931). Adler posited that an individual’s life style is shaped by their early childhood experiences, particularly their perceptions of their place within the family constellation and their strategies for overcoming feelings of inferiority (Adler, 1929). He believed that traumatic experiences could disrupt an individual’s life style, leading to the development of maladaptive patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving that perpetuate psychological distress (Adler, 1931).

Adler rejected the notion of the unconscious as a separate realm of the psyche, instead emphasizing the unity and purposiveness of the human mind (Adler, 1927). He argued that all psychological phenomena, including emotions and symptoms, serve a purpose and should be interpreted within the context of an individual’s unique life goals and perceptions (Adler, 1929). In Adler’s view, “there are no ‘senseless’ psychic phenomena; even an emotional experience must not be evaluated by itself but in connection with the whole style of life” (Adler, 1931, p. 170). This perspective laid the foundation for cognitive-behavioral approaches to therapy, which emphasize the role of conscious appraisals and beliefs in shaping emotional experience and behavior (Beck, 1979).

Implications for Trauma and Therapy

Adler’s teleological perspective on trauma and emotion has important implications for the treatment of trauma-related disorders. By emphasizing the purposive nature of symptoms and the role of conscious appraisals in shaping emotional experience, Adler’s theory suggests that individuals have the capacity to reframe their traumatic experiences and adopt more adaptive strategies for coping with adversity (Mosak & Maniacci, 1999). This perspective empowers individuals to take an active role in their own healing process and focus on future goals rather than remaining fixated on past traumas.

However, critics have argued that Adler’s emphasis on the purposive nature of symptoms may inadvertently minimize the profound impact of certain traumatic experiences on the psyche (Carlson et al., 2016). By viewing symptoms as goal-directed strategies rather than the byproduct of overwhelming stress, Adler’s theory may overlook the neurobiological and psychophysiological dimensions of trauma that can impair an individual’s capacity for conscious control and self-regulation (Van der Kolk, 2014).

From an Adlerian perspective, the subjective experience of trauma is shaped by an individual’s unique life style and their perceptions of the event’s meaning and significance. This perspective highlights the importance of exploring an individual’s subjective appraisals and beliefs about their traumatic experiences in the therapeutic process. However, it may also underestimate the role of objective reality and the impact of external stressors on an individual’s emotional well-being (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Jung’s Perspective: Emotion, the Collective Unconscious, and the Archetypal Dimensions of Trauma

Carl Jung, the founder of Analytical Psychology, offered a unique perspective on the nature of emotion and its relationship to the unconscious mind that synthesized elements of both Freudian and Adlerian theory. Like Freud, Jung believed in the existence of the unconscious as a realm of the psyche that operates beyond conscious awareness. However, Jung’s conceptualization of the unconscious differed from Freud’s in several key respects. Jung proposed the existence of a “collective unconscious” that contains universal, archetypal patterns and images that shape human experience across cultures and historical periods (Jung, 1936). He believed that these archetypes represent inherited potentialities for experiencing and responding to life events, including traumatic experiences (Jung, 1954).

Jung viewed emotions as complex psychophysiological phenomena that emerge from the interaction between conscious and unconscious processes (Jung, 1907/1960). He believed that emotions serve a compensatory function, helping to maintain psychic equilibrium by drawing attention to aspects of the psyche that have been neglected or repressed (Jung, 1916/1957). In his work on psychological types, Jung proposed that individuals possess innate preferences for certain cognitive functions and attitudes, which shape their emotional experiences and coping styles (Jung, 1921/1971). He argued that the development of a well-differentiated and integrated personality requires the cultivation of both rational and irrational functions, as well as the integration of conscious and unconscious elements of the psyche (Jung, 1939/1958).

Jung’s perspective on trauma was influenced by his own personal experiences, including his confrontation with the unconscious during a period of intense psychological turmoil following his break with Freud (Jung, 1961/1989). Jung believed that traumatic experiences could activate archetypal patterns and images in the collective unconscious, leading to a sense of being overwhelmed by powerful, numinous forces (Jung, 1954). He viewed the process of individuation, or the development of a more integrated and authentic sense of self, as a potential pathway for healing from trauma (Jung, 1939/1958). Jung emphasized the importance of symbolic and mythological dimensions of experience in the healing process, believing that engagement with archetypal themes and images could help individuals find meaning and purpose in the aftermath of trauma (Jung, 1964).

Reconciling Opposites: The Transcendent Function and Depersonalization

One of Jung’s most significant contributions to the understanding of trauma and emotional healing is his concept of the transcendent function. The transcendent function refers to the psyche’s innate capacity to reconcile opposing tendencies and facilitate the emergence of a new, more integrated perspective (Jung, 1958). Jung believed that the tension between opposing psychic forces, such as the conscious and unconscious mind, could give rise to a symbol or image that transcends and unites the opposites, leading to a sense of wholeness and inner transformation (Jung, 1939/1958).

In the context of trauma, the transcendent function can be understood as a natural healing process that allows individuals to integrate and make meaning of their traumatic experiences (Kalsched, 2013). By engaging with the symbolic and archetypal dimensions of their experience, individuals may be able to transcend the limitations of their personal history and connect with a sense of shared humanity and universal meaning. This process can be facilitated through various therapeutic modalities, such as dream analysis, active imagination, and expressive arts therapies (Kalsched, 1996).

However, the process of engaging with archetypal material can also be deeply depersonalizing, as it involves a confrontation with forces that are experienced as alien and overwhelming (Kalsched, 2013). This can be particularly challenging for individuals who have experienced severe or chronic trauma, as their sense of self may already be fragmented and destabilized (Van der Kolk, 2014). In such cases, it is essential for therapists to provide a safe and containing therapeutic environment that allows individuals to gradually integrate and make meaning of their experiences without becoming further overwhelmed or retraumatized (Kalsched, 2013).

Implications for Trauma and Therapy

Jung’s emphasis on the archetypal dimensions of trauma and the role of the collective unconscious in shaping individual experience has important implications for the treatment of trauma-related disorders. His work suggests that traumatic experiences may activate universal patterns and themes that transcend personal history and cultural context (Kalsched, 1996). This perspective highlights the importance of exploring the symbolic and mythological dimensions of an individual’s experience in the therapeutic process, as well as the potential for healing through engagement with archetypal images and themes (Kalsched, 2013).

However, critics have argued that Jung’s emphasis on the collective and archetypal dimensions of experience may overlook the unique, idiosyncratic aspects of an individual’s trauma history and personal narrative (Samuels, 1985). Moreover, the abstract and philosophical nature of many of Jung’s concepts may limit their practical applicability in the treatment of trauma-related disorders (Genslin & Stone, 1997).

From a Jungian perspective, the subjective experience of trauma is shaped by both personal and archetypal factors, reflecting the interplay between an individual’s unique history and the universal patterns and themes of the collective unconscious. This perspective highlights the importance of attending to both the personal and transpersonal dimensions of experience in the therapeutic process, as well as the potential for healing through engagement with symbolic and mythological material (Kalsched, 2013). However, it may also underestimate the role of objective reality and the impact of external stressors on an individual’s emotional well-being (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Integrating Perspectives: Toward a Comprehensive Understanding of Trauma and Emotion

The contrasting perspectives of Freud, Adler, and Jung on the nature of emotion, the unconscious, and the subjective experience of trauma offer a rich tapestry of insights into the complex and multifaceted nature of psychological distress. While each theory has its strengths and limitations, together they provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the diverse factors that shape an individual’s response to traumatic events.

Freud’s emphasis on the etiological significance of past experiences and unconscious processes highlights the importance of exploring the developmental and historical roots of trauma-related disorders. However, his overemphasis on the causal role of past events may inadvertently reinforce a sense of victimhood and hinder an individual’s ability to take responsibility for their present circumstances (Van der Kolk, 2014). Adler’s teleological perspective on trauma and emotion emphasizes the purposive nature of symptoms and the role of conscious appraisals in shaping emotional experience, empowering individuals to take an active role in their own healing process. However, his emphasis on the goal-directed nature of symptoms may minimize the profound impact of certain traumatic experiences on the psyche (Carlson et al., 2016).

Jung’s perspective on the archetypal dimensions of trauma and the role of the collective unconscious in shaping individual experience offers a unique lens through which to view the symbolic and mythological aspects of psychological distress. His work suggests that engagement with archetypal themes and images may facilitate healing and personal growth in the aftermath of trauma (Kalsched, 2013). However, the abstract and philosophical nature of many of Jung’s concepts may limit their practical applicability in the treatment of trauma-related disorders (Genslin & Stone, 1997).

Contemporary research in the field of traumatology has provided empirical support for many of the key insights of Freud, Adler, and Jung, while also highlighting the need for a more integrative and multidimensional approach to understanding and treating trauma-related disorders. The work of Bessel van der Kolk (2014) and Peter Levine (2010), among others, has illuminated the profound impact of trauma on the body and the brain, underscoring the importance of integrating somatic and neurobiological perspectives into trauma treatment. Attachment theory and research on the interpersonal dimensions of trauma have emphasized the significance of early relational experiences in shaping an individual’s vulnerability to and resilience in the face of traumatic stress (Schore, 2012). Cognitive-behavioral approaches have provided evidence-based strategies for targeting maladaptive beliefs and appraisals that maintain trauma-related symptoms (Foa et al., 2007).

In light of these developments, a comprehensive approach to understanding and treating trauma-related disorders must integrate insights from multiple theoretical perspectives and empirical traditions. Such an approach would recognize the complex interplay between objective reality and subjective experience, the conscious and unconscious dimensions of the psyche, and the personal and collective aspects of trauma and healing. It would attend to the developmental, historical, and relational contexts in which trauma occurs, while also empowering individuals to take an active role in their own healing process. By drawing on the rich theoretical and clinical legacies of Freud, Adler, and Jung, while also incorporating the latest advances in trauma research and practice, clinicians can develop more nuanced and effective strategies for alleviating the suffering of trauma survivors and promoting resilience in the face of adversity.

Legacy of the Founders

The pioneering work of Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, and Carl Jung laid the foundation for modern understandings of trauma, emotion, and the unconscious mind. While their theories differ in important respects, each offers valuable insights into the complex and multifaceted nature of psychological distress. Freud’s emphasis on the etiological significance of past experiences and unconscious processes, Adler’s teleological perspective on the purposive nature of symptoms, and Jung’s exploration of the archetypal dimensions of trauma and the collective unconscious all contribute to a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the subjective experience of trauma and its treatment.

However, the limitations and potential pitfalls of each theoretical perspective must also be acknowledged and addressed. Freud’s overemphasis on the causal role of past events, particularly those of a sexual nature, may inadvertently reinforce a sense of victimhood and hinder an individual’s ability to take responsibility for their present circumstances. Adler’s emphasis on the goal-directed nature of symptoms may minimize the profound impact of certain traumatic experiences on the psyche. And the abstract and philosophical nature of many of Jung’s concepts may limit their practical applicability in the treatment of trauma-related disorders.

Contemporary research in the field of traumatology has provided empirical support for many of the key insights of these seminal thinkers, while also highlighting the need for a more integrative and multidimensional approach to understanding and treating trauma-related disorders. By drawing on the rich theoretical and clinical legacies of Freud, Adler, and Jung, while also incorporating the latest advances in trauma research and practice, clinicians can develop more nuanced and effective strategies for alleviating the suffering of trauma survivors and promoting resilience in the face of adversity.

Ultimately, the enduring significance of Freud, Adler, and Jung lies not only in their specific theoretical contributions, but also in their shared commitment to exploring the depths of the human psyche and alleviating the suffering of those who have experienced psychological distress. By engaging critically and creatively with their ideas, while also remaining open to new perspectives and empirical findings, we can continue to advance our understanding of the complex interplay between trauma, emotion, and the unconscious mind, and develop more effective and compassionate approaches to healing the wounds of trauma.

The integration of Freudian, Adlerian, and Jungian perspectives on trauma and emotion highlights the importance of adopting a holistic and multifaceted approach to trauma treatment that addresses the biological, psychological, social, and spiritual dimensions of human experience. Such an approach would recognize the importance of exploring the historical and developmental roots of an individual’s distress, while also empowering them to take an active role in their own healing process. It would attend to the symbolic and mythological aspects of trauma, while also grounding treatment in evidence-based practices and empirical findings. And it would strive to create a safe and containing therapeutic environment that allows individuals to process and integrate their traumatic experiences in a way that promotes growth, resilience, and the emergence of a more authentic and integrated sense of self.

By drawing on the wisdom of the past while also remaining open to the insights of the present, we can continue to deepen our understanding of the complexities of trauma and develop more effective and compassionate approaches to healing the wounds of the soul. The legacy of Freud, Adler, and Jung serves as a reminder of the transformative power of the therapeutic encounter and the enduring human capacity for growth and resilience in the face of even the most profound adversity.

References

Adler, A. (1927). Understanding human nature. Greenberg.

Adler, A. (1929). The science of living. Greenberg.

Adler, A. (1931). What life should mean to you. Little, Brown, and Company.

Beck, A. T. (1979). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. Penguin.

Carlson, E. B., Palmieri, P. A., Field, N. P., Dalenberg, C. J., Macia, K. S., & Spain, D. A. (2016). Contributions of risk and protective factors to prediction of psychological symptoms after traumatic experiences. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 69, 106-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2016.04.022

Foa, E. B., Hembree, E. A., & Rothbaum, B. O. (2007). Prolonged exposure therapy for PTSD: Emotional processing of traumatic experiences. Oxford University Press.

Freud, S. (1900). The interpretation of dreams. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vols. 4-5). Hogarth Press.

Freud, S. (1914). Remembering, repeating, and working through. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 12, pp. 145-156). Hogarth Press.

Freud, S. (1915). The unconscious. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14, pp. 159-215). Hogarth Press.

Freud, S. (1920). Beyond the pleasure principle. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 18, pp. 1-64). Hogarth Press.

Freud, S. (1926). Inhibitions, symptoms, and anxiety. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 20, pp. 75-176). Hogarth Press.

Genslin, J. M., & Stone, A. A. (1997). Jungian psychology and modern life. In P. Young-Eisendrath & T. Dawson (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Jung (pp. 239-254). Cambridge University Press.

Jung, C. G. (1907/1960). The psychology of dementia praecox. In H. Read, M. Fordham, & G. Adler (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (Vol. 3). Princeton University Press.

Jung, C. G. (1916/1957). The transcendent function. In H. Read, M. Fordham, & G. Adler (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (Vol. 8, pp. 67-91). Princeton University Press.

Jung, C. G. (1921/1971). Psychological types. In H. Read, M. Fordham, & G. Adler (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (Vol. 6). Princeton University Press.

Jung, C. G. (1936). The concept of the collective unconscious. In H. Read, M. Fordham, & G. Adler (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (Vol. 9i, pp. 42-53). Princeton University Press.

Jung, C. G. (1939/1958). On the psychology of the unconscious. In H. Read, M. Fordham, & G. Adler (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (Vol. 7, pp. 1-119). Princeton University Press.

Jung, C. G. (1954). On the nature of the psyche. In H. Read, M. Fordham, & G. Adler (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (Vol. 8, pp. 159-234). Princeton University Press.

Jung, C. G. (1958). The transcendent function. In H. Read, M. Fordham, & G. Adler (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (Vol. 8, pp. 67-91). Princeton University Press.

Jung, C. G. (1961/1989). Memories, dreams, reflections. Vintage Books.

Jung, C. G. (1964). Approaching the unconscious. In C. G. Jung (Ed.), Man and his symbols (pp. 18-103). Doubleday.

Kalsched, D. (1996). The inner world of trauma: Archetypal defenses of the personal spirit. Routledge.

Kalsched, D. (2013). Trauma and the soul: A psycho-spiritual approach to human development and its interruption. Routledge.

Kudler, H. S., Blank, A. S., Jr., & Krupnick, J. L. (2000). Psychodynamic therapy. In E. B. Foa, T. M. Keane, & M. J. Friedman (Eds.), Effective treatments for PTSD: Practice guidelines from the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (pp. 176-198). Guilford Press.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.

Levine, P. A. (2010). In an unspoken voice: How the body releases trauma and restores goodness. North Atlantic Books.

Mosak, H. H., & Maniacci, M. P. (1999). A primer of Adlerian psychology: The analytic-behavioral-cognitive psychology of Alfred Adler. Brunner-Routledge.

Samuels, A. (1985). Jung and the post-Jungians. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Schore, A. N. (2012). The science of the art of psychotherapy. W. W. Norton & Company.

Van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.