Thoughts on the Future of Logotherapy

I began my reflections on the future of Logotherapy by first looking into the past. Logotherapy was developed in an era when events such as the following took place.

“One day our immediate leader (a boy of about 16 years of age) pointed to some of us and said: “You, you, and you, follow me.” Of course, without raising any objections we followed him. He marched us to a tram station. We boarded the tram. After some time the doors to the tram were locked and a deadly silence fell upon all in the tram. I was horribly afraid, because I could not understand what was happening. But, of course, I also did not say a thing or even ask any questions. Then I saw and put two and two together. What I saw was terrible. Half starved, dirty people with yellow stars on their clothing. I was shocked. No one had prepared me for this moment. No one. Not my parents and not the leaders in the camp. No one had ever talked to me about what I was now witnessing. Soon the horror was over for me, but the effect on me stayed with me all of my life. The doors to the tram were unlocked and normal chatter filled the tram. None of us said anything about what we had just witnessed. No one asked questions and neither did I.”

- Prof. Dr. Walter Michel


Walter Michel was an Austrian teen forced into a Fuhrer-ertuchtigungs-lager. He later became my Hebrew professor. As a result of the war, the young man became obsessed with learning the truth. As part of this pursuit, he took a course in Logotherapie taught by Viktor Frankl at the University of Vienna in 1953. Speaking today, Dr. Michel tells me that “the thing I remember most is that Viktor Frankl made most sense when he spoke about the divine – none of my theology professors made sense not then nor now. I began to prefer philosophy to theology – actually I began to dislike theology very much.”

At that time, the existential vacuum was a raw wound that inspired a search for truth. I hear very few persons of my generation or younger concerning themselves with that question. It seems that the wound has been dressed with affluence and technological marvels. We now live in an era of care managed by accountants leading to a science that applies cost effectiveness as its dependent measure. In my view, this environment offers Logotherapy the opportunity to prove itself as the only depth psychology to stand up to scientific scrutiny and the only school of thought capable of mitigating the dehumanizing effects of this environment.

Increasing emphasis on evidenced-based practices is driven by managed care companies. Research has shown the effectiveness of symptomatic treatment; both medication and cognitive therapy are proven effective for depression, for example. One recent study showed an 81% recovery rate from depression with either cognitive therapy or medication. Relapse rate has been shown to be 25% with cognitive therapy (80% with medication). I found this 20% to 25% of clients either not recovering or relapsing to be intriguing when compared to Frankl's statement that about 20% of neuroses are of noogenic origin. I wonder if this population of non-recovering and relapsing persons significantly overlaps with the population of persons whose depression is of noogenic origin but who were never treated in a noogenic manner. It seems to me that a study applying Logotherapy to that population could make Logotherapy very attractive to managed care companies

Meanwhile, studies continue to fail to find evidence to support psychoanalysis, often implying extension to other depth psychology schools. A publication that made recent headlines detailed the lack of evidence for symptom substitution. Logotherapy, by contrast, has found research support for its principles, even to the point of eliciting this statement from Frankl, "I suspect that Logotherapy has become too scientific to become popular in the proper sense of the word." In my experience, these findings have not been as widely disseminated as the positive findings from the cognitive and humanistic schools or the negative findings from the depth psychology schools. Logotherapy may become the only validated depth psychology perspective if evidence of the existential vacuum becomes generally accepted. Perhaps, this may be done with some improvement to its operational definition (as provided in the Glossary of Terms and Frankl's works ) coupled with some type of differential diagnosis criteria.

Logotherapy also has the opportunity to influence the current environment of positivism. Even in a strict biological science such as neurology, there is growing awareness that a person can change the functioning of one's brain through the choices that one makes. One could argue that just as some diabetics can control their disease through the diet they choose, so some depressives can control their mood through the stands they choose to take.

Finally, it appears that this culture is becoming open to spirituality once more, but choosing to separate that spirituality from specifically religious practice. That leaves only personal experience as a guide, and much nonsense can result. Logotherapy offers spiritual guidance not bound to any doctrine, but based on reason and accurate observation. As such, it may prove to be the ark that carries the distillation of human spiritual wisdom through the flood of positivism and delivers it safely to a population that will trust their doctor but not their priest.