Interesting Quotes, Vol. 4

Excerpts from Dąbrowski's unpublished manuscript, Developmental Psychotherapy

In May, we released a podcast episode called Mental Health Awareness, and it led to lovely feedback from listeners who shared their condolences and said that the grief from losing Dr. Frank Falk was evident in my voice. One of the things I enjoyed sharing with Frank over the past couple of years was Dąbrowski's unpublished book Developmental Psychotherapy. It significantly impacted our thinking and understanding of the application of positive disintegration in clinical practice.

Frank’s keynote at the 2022 Dąbrowski Congress was informed by reading this book. He wanted people to understand that Dąbrowski’s theory has hugely important implications for mental health and that his clinical work needed more study and exposure outside the field of gifted education. Frank was a social psychologist and statistician, not a clinician, but he studied and grappled with this theory for over 40 years.

When I visited Frank’s wife, Dr. Nancy Miller, on his birthday in May, I discovered that he had printed out the entire manuscript of this book and made marks and notes while reading. It was a happy discovery, and Nancy let me take the book home to reread it this summer.

My study group was also interested in reading it, so we began our discussion last month. I had to apologize for my slow pace because, while I was reading, I couldn’t help but stop to write down excerpts in my journal. But it means I’m well-prepared to share from the book in the Interesting Quotes series on Substack.

On the title page, it’s made clear that the book was prepared “in collaboration” with Dr. Marlene King [Rankel]. ¹

On page 4, we learn about who experiences positive disintegration:

“Positive disintegration takes place in sensitive, nervous and psychoneurotic individuals. They are receptive to “mental wounds”²; their psychic excitability is greater, their threshold of frustration is lower—that is to say, they are more sensitive; they do not easily forget their experiences, and they do not adjust easily to new situations. They often display mild symptoms of depression and anxiety. They manifest existential attitudes and express—using Kierkegaard’s term—“fear and trembling”. This allows such individuals a wider, deeper and more authentic understanding of a multidimensional reality. It gives them astonishment with and anxiety towards themselves and the world; it gives them an original, rich and creative attitude to reality.”

There’s substantial overlap in this text with other works from Dąbrowski, which is no surprise. If you read the first post in this series with quotes from KD, you’ll see the similarity between this excerpt and the definition of OE I shared from 1972.

In the following excerpt, he talks about the impact of developmental potential on those who are “experiencing disharmony and unilevel, more primitive, increased sensitivity” but who are searching for “new tensions” on the path to multilevel disintegration:

“They search for a higher hierarchy of values and aims. Developmental potential simply cannot be stopped. They always search for positive methods, and sometimes (when the influence of the environment is strong) for negative ones. This phenomenon is fundamental in development, education and education of oneself, in psychotherapy and autopsychotherapy.

The existence of such forces, even in their nuclei, is a basis for human development. It gives the psychotherapist (eventually it can be the patient himself) prophylactic and psychotherapeutic weapons. Psychotherapy can be done through the activation of positive developmental forces which are present in the patient. It is a hard way and it leads through anxiety, ambivalences and ambitendencies, and growing awareness of the differences between “higher” and “lower.” (p. 7)

Reading what he said about searching for “negative methods” reminded me of when I was young and searching in all the wrong places for help, such as from the DSM and psychiatry, but also in drugs and anything else to avoid “what is.” [I talked about this in podcast episode 8, Surviving Disintegration.]

The collaborative relationship between therapist and client (“patient”) in Dąbrowski’s work is always evident. When Frank read this book, he was fascinated by everything KD said about the “activation of positive developmental forces,” or dynamisms, and the differences between working with unilevel vs multilevel clients.

There are many definitions of dynamisms in chapter 1, and it will work best to create separate posts with them. Here’s an example:

“The dynamism “subject-object” in oneself consists of taking interest in and observing one’s own mental life, in an attempt to gain a better understanding of oneself, and to critically evaluate” (p. 8).

I’ve noticed that people often see subject-object in oneself as strictly the ability to observe oneself, but that’s not quite right. It’s considered a dynamism³ when it includes the self-evaluation aspect.

How can clinicians work with clients using a positive disintegration framework?

“The task of a modern, authentic psychotherapist is to help individuals develop and conserve these gifts which are often connected with subtle, increased excitability, anxiety, depression and even fear. These symptoms in which we find creative forces should not be removed; such a “client” should be made aware of his own value and of the difficult but rewarding path of discovering sensitivity, talents, goodness and wisdom in his so-called “pathological” symptoms.” (p. 11)

In the next excerpts, we’ll see the difference between the types of integrations and disintegrations, beginning with unilevel integration (or Level I).

Dąbrowski said about people at Level I, “They do not display any hierarchy; they have strong external conflicts but no internal ones. They do not have any serious doubts, inhibitions and psychoneurotic symptoms. Their actions are, for the large part, automatic and rigid. It is difficult to talk about an inner milieu because there is no breakdown or autonomy.” (p. 14)

One of the arguments among people who study the theory is regarding the starting point for development. Are we born at Level I and go through a progression similar to stages? No, we don’t. This is not a stage theory—it’s non-ontogenetic⁴—so there is no reason why we should be thinking of the levels as a neat, linear progression.

There are two types of developmental processes in this theory: unilevel and multilevel. Developmental potential matters here because Dąbrowski felt that multiple strong OEs (especially the emotional, imaginational, and intellectual types) were essential for multilevel development. In Developmental Psychotherapy, we can see in later chapters that the clinical approach to take with a unilevel client varies based on whether the client has multilevel nuclei or strong developmental potential or not.

If a client is struggling with a disintegration that has both unilevel and multilevel elements, this is approached differently than someone who has only multilevel dynamisms operating.

As we often talk about on the podcast, this theory applies to neurodivergent individuals, and this can look many different ways. But that doesn’t mean all neurodivergent individuals are necessarily in a multilevel developmental process.

There’s much to say about the levels as types of development rather than a progression of levels, as one would see in a stage theory, which Dr. Michael M. Piechowski has written about in multiple places. Michael’s paper on rethinking Level I must be noted here. Michael talked about the vastness of the levels and said they each contain whole universes of developmental possibilities.

When I’m reading Dąbrowski’s writing, I constantly remind myself that we need to take what he said and update it through a modern understanding of development from multiple fields. He gave us this incredible non-pathologizing framework for understanding our experiences, and now, we need to keep building on his work as others, like Michael, have tried to do.

Back to the text at hand. Next, he describes unilevel disintegration (Level II):

“There is no feeling of, understanding of, or distinguishing between what is “higher” and what is “lower”. All takes place on one level and is ahierarchical. In relation to the previous level there is a certain “psychologization”. There appear doubts, inhibitions and changeable excitability.” (p. 14) Also, “External conflicts, and a minimal awareness in relation to oneself and the environment create inferiority in relation to others” (pp. 14-15).

Since I shared Michael’s paper about rethinking Level I, it seems fitting to point out that there’s also a paper about rethinking Level II [PDF]. This will give you a much fuller understanding of unilevel development.

We see that spontaneous multilevel disintegration (Level III) features the emergence of a hierarchy of values:

“A hierarchization of reality and aims appear. An empirical measuring of values and norms develops as a result of developmental potentials and strong life experiences. It is spontaneous because the dynamisms of this level are not fully consciously elaborated and act without sufficient reflection. They are based mainly on higher emotional and instinctive elements and some intuitive prospections.” (p. 15)

Many of the multilevel dynamisms are defined in chapter one, and as mentioned above, these should be the subject of a separate post. In the book, he talks about how the dynamisms are connected and how some have more or less intellectual or emotional components than others.

For instance, he talks about the connection between positive maladjustment and other early multilevel dynamisms, such as astonishment with oneself and disquietude toward oneself—both of which include astonishment and disquietude with the environment. He said these dynamisms lead to a search for values.

“He begins to select and choose values in himself and in the environment. He does not feel content with “what is” and desires that which “ought to be.” Also, “The awakened authentic forces in such an individual do not allow him to assume a false attitude. Such positive maladjustments are at the same time adjustments to "higher values" in oneself and to those in the environment.” (p. 19)

It’s also worth noting that Dąbrowski describes how we can identify the emergent third factor dynamism in a person experiencing positive maladjustment:

“The slow growth of such an attitude is connected with a growing understanding of oneself and others, with a lack of tolerance towards oneself and partial tolerance towards others. Primitive sharpness becomes more gentle in formulating opinions and the strength of one’s convictions and activities increases. Such an attitude indicates the existence of the nuclei of the third factor” (p. 19).

Guilt and shame could make up another whole post: “If one develops, one must feel guilt” (p. 21).

Next, I want to point out this footnote about multidimensionality from the description of the creative instinct:

“Multidimensionality is the many-sidedness or universality of interests, aims and behavior. It expresses the amplitude and range of hierarchical development” (p. 22).

Dąbrowski considered the creative instinct multidimensional and the instinct of self-perfection to be multilevel. “The union of these two instincts, or rather the integration of one into the other, creates the greatest possibilities for development” (p. 22).

Each of the dynamisms from Level III contains “some inner conflict which can either grow and deepen, or be resolved prematurely on the lower level. Multilevel spontaneous disintegration is the stage when inner conflict takes place. The transition from unconscious inner conflict to conscious inner conflict occurs at this stage.” (p. 23)

Here he uses the term “stage” instead of “level,” which may confuse some readers, and it’s a topic Michael addressed in the first Rethinking paper I linked to above. In that paper, he referred to hypothesis 2 from KD’s 1970 book Mental Growth Through Positive Disintegration as an example of Dąbrowski’s usage of “stage,” but as you can see, it also appears in this unpublished manuscript.

The next type of development is “organized, systematized multilevel disintegration,” or Level IV. He begins by stating the difference between Levels III and IV:

“The processes of multilevel disintegration and the presence of the dynamisms of the previous level are now consciously realized, expected, valued and elaborated upon. They are now organized and systematized, with the result that further and more deeply developed new dynamisms are created.” (p. 24)

Clearly, I will have to create posts about the dynamisms found in each of these types of development. But in the meantime, the dynamisms discussed in the section on organized multilevel development include self-awareness and self-control, identification and empathy, subject-object in oneself, third factor, inner psychic transformation, education of oneself and autopsychotherapy, and the disposing and directing center on a higher level.

Although Developmental Psychotherapy is an undated manuscript, we can guess that it was produced before Mental Growth (1970) because in the section on personality, Dąbrowski points the reader to his book Personality-Shaping Through Positive Disintegration, published in 1967, as well as to his papers published in the previous decade in the French journal Annales Médico-Psychologiques:

“The structures and functions of personality are described in the book “Personality-shaping Through Positive Disintegration” Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1967, and in many articles published in the last 10 years, specifically those in Annales medico-psychologiques”, Paris” (p. 37).

The first significant outline of the theory published outside of Poland appeared in Annales in 1959. I’ve also found French papers published in Annales from 1960, 1961a, 1961b, and 1966.

Michael Piechowski worked with Dąbrowski on a paper that included Michael’s first graphic representation of the dynamisms in 1968, and they were co-authors of another paper in 1969. Both of those papers became chapters in Mental Growth, mentioned above.

Wrapping up this post with quotes from Developmental Psychotherapy, let’s move on to secondary integration (Level V).

Dąbrowski said at this level, the individual “achieves unity and the fullest possible consolidation and cohesion of all dynamisms. The multilevel tension and tensions of individual dynamisms gradually weaken” (p. 33).

The section on secondary integration includes the following dynamisms: autonomy, authenticity⁵, responsibility, disposing and directing center on the highest level, empathy on the highest level, personality, and personality ideal.

“The personality ideal is above personality, is not united with it but constitutes its prospection” (p. 39). He said this is the “only dynamism of secondary integration which displays high tension in its activity.”

“Personality takes shape and is characterized by great intensity. Other dynamisms on the level of personality act in it and through it, with a deep, alert, emotional and intellectual maturity and without strong tensions” (p. 38).

He also talked about the “multilevel overlap of dynamisms” and said, “We cannot consider these dynamisms as characteristic for one level only” (p. 39).

His own research later showed that it’s possible to have dynamisms from multiple types of development present at the same time.

It took much longer than expected to produce this piece, but I’m happy to share this unpublished work from Dr. Dąbrowski. One of the things I’ve always enjoyed while studying the theory is examining the changes in his work over time. I promise to share more about the different types of development (aka levels) and dynamisms in future posts.

Thank you for being a paid subscriber and supporting this work.

---

Reference for the quotes in this post:

Dabrowski, K. (n.d.) Developmental psychotherapy. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, University of Alberta.

1. Marlene Rankel assisted Dąbrowski for many years. I want to take this opportunity to thank Bill Tillier for sharing this manuscript and point out that there’s work available from Marlene on his website.

2. When I searched for wounds in the Dąbrowski project file in QDA Miner, I realized I could easily do a follow-up post from Fragments from the Diary of a Madman and offer more insights into what he meant by “mental wounds.”

3. “Subject-object in oneself may appear in a precursor form already at the borderline of levels II and III. Then it is only a process of introspection and self-observation. Only with the appearance of self-evaluation do we have a multilevel component. Self-evaluation coupled with a conscious need to develop oneself is the differentiating criterion between a precursor and a dynamism proper of subject-object in oneself.” (Dąbrowski, 1996)

4. “In the theory of positive disintegration, development is a function of the level of organization. Emotional and cognitive development is viewed as a nonontogenetic evolutionary pattern of individual growth. What evolves is the structure of behavior. By "structure" is meant its logical conception. The structure and its components are defined. The structure determines the particular level of development. The level of functioning is not produced automatically in the course of ontogenesis but evolves as a function of other conditions.” (Piechowski, 1975, p. 245)

5. The dynamism “authenticity” became “authentism” in later works.