A Critique of Logotherapy

Often logotherapy is criticized on the basis that it is too hierarchical, placing the clinician in a place of power over an otherwise vulnerable individual (Frankl, 2014, pp. 46-47). This hierarchical position is said to give the therapist influence over areas of the patient’s life that would otherwise be untouched by other forms of treatment. Arguing that logotherapy places the clinician above the patient in every domain as the client may come to view the practitioner as the arbiter of meaning and value within their life. 

They hold that the logotherapist risks, in light of their humanity, projecting their values and purposes onto the patient. If true, the claim would be problematic and serve as a more than valid reason for abandoning logotherapy as the practice would be stepping outside the scope of psychotherapy, no longer attempting to relieve psychological distress but rather aiming for some form of ideological possession.

Viktor Frankl, the founder of the logotherapeutic practice, rebuts the claims of hierarchical power and indoctrination by referring to the other forms of psychotherapy. He notes that logotherapy, like other schools of therapy, does not attempt to give the patient that thing, which is the underlining basis for the approach, namely Freud’s theories do not present the patient partners for sex and Adler’s theories do not give the patients positions of power. 

Thus he claims, just as those other schools of therapy do not project onto the patient that which is the basis of their approach, logotherapy does not project onto the patient specifics of that which underlays its approach. Namely, it does not project-specific values and meaning onto the patient (Frankl, 2014, pp. 46-47).

Frankl goes on to say that logotherapy is not merely a technique, but it is also an approach tending to both the analysis and treatment of the individual (Frankl, 2014, pp. xxviii). Logotherapy serves as more of a guiding principle underlining therapy so that in some senses, all therapeutic techniques can serve the aims of the logotherapist.  It is not the place of the logotherapist to supplant her meaning and purpose into the client. Instead of the direct application and implantation of meaning, the logotherapist seeks to remove the impediments to the development of meaning. 

The Logotherpist should not be seen as someone who is above her patient dealing out existential answers but rather as one who is beside her patient. The logotherapist should always be deferential towards the client, allowing them to discern their own values and meaning (Frankl, 2014, pp 46), ultimately negating the possibility for the clinician to assume the position of the arbiter and distributer of meaning and values.