Psychotherapy and the Individual in the Postmodern Era

Notes You Will Need While Reading

1. 1. When I speak of postmodernity, I refer, roughly, to the period from 1960 onwards, in which we see in the “West” a rejection of objectivity and a questioning of traditional principles and fixed points of reference, emphasizing pluralism, diversity, doubt, subjectivity, etc.
   2. I use the term “Late Capitalism” as it was used in the 1970s by the Marxist economist Ernest Mandel to describe the period of capitalism after World War II, characterized by the complete dominance of capital and its expansion into all social spheres, leading to crises and transformations in the economy and society.
   3. The term “trauma” is used in this text in a broad and metaphorical sense, while acknowledging that its meaning has been subject to critique for vague and excessive usage. Scholars such as Young (1995), McNally (2003), and LaCapra (2001) have pointed out that trauma is neither stable nor universal, but historically, culturally, and scientifically constructed. With this caveat, the term here is not approached as a strictly clinical diagnosis, but rather as an indicative way of referring to experiences of rupture, loss, or distress that go beyond everyday life.
   4. Regarding “collective trauma,” I draw from Eyerman (2001) and Hirschberger (2018), referring to historical or social events—small, larger, or major—that not only affect individual persons but disrupt the social body itself. I integrate this into my reflection, also considering the smaller dimension of social impact, arguing that it does not have to become enormous (a “trauma”) to merit attention.
   5. The slogan “the personal is political,” which I reference at one point, became famous mainly through the feminist movement of the 1960s–70s. The phrase is attributed to Carol Hanisch, an American feminist activist, who in 1970 published a text under this title. Simply put, “the personal is political” means that what we experience in our daily lives—at work, at home, in relationships—is not just a matter of “character” or “luck” but is strongly influenced by institutions, laws, social inequalities, and political decisions. I use it in the text to discuss the “imposition” of social roles on the individual, regardless of gender.
   6. My perspective is directly influenced by Hannah Arendt, who emphasized that politics is not merely personal choices or ideas but the collective action of people in the public sphere. Politics gives us the ability to change society through discussion, collaboration, and participation, rather than being confined to individual experience. I argue that collective action has direct relevance to psychotherapy and dramatherapy: while individual work on oneself is important, it is not sufficient on its own to change the world around us.
   7. To avoid overloading the text with disclaimers, let’s state from the outset that therapeutic approaches are enacted by the individuals who practice them. In other words, it is not enough to speak only about psychotherapy as a science or a particular method; the professional applying it matters as well.
   8. Finally, this text/reflection is a product of personal (co-)compositions and is not intended to make any generalizations (a postmodern quirk). The scattered but key theories presented have helped shape and develop this reflection.

Our Topic

Postmodernity, with its constant upheavals and the dominance of capitalism, has created a landscape of intense social and class inequalities. In this context, traditional collectivities—such as communities, families, and unions—have weakened, while extreme individualism has emerged, asking the person to stand “alone” in the face of social difficulties. This observation is, of course, not mine alone; it has been extensively analyzed in the theory of reflexive modernity (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994), which argues that the collective anchors that once provided a sense of security and social inclusion have been shaken, leaving the individual exposed to risks and crises generated by the social system itself.

I say that collectivities have “weakened” rather than “disappeared,” because even in this isolation, rays of light occasionally appear: large gatherings and mobilizations around issues affecting many—such as the recent case of the Tempi tragedy—bring hope that the need for collectivity has not disappeared and probably never can. Whenever reality becomes unbearably heavy, forms of collective action re-emerge, though often fluid, networked, and temporary. Yet these “momentary” expressions of solidarity demonstrate that the “together” always remains, ready to return when we need it most.

In the face of numerous other difficulties, which may not be as obviously serious as the Tempi tragedy, the individual is constantly called upon to stand alone and “fix” what can be fixed—often problems that society itself has placed upon them.

Psychotherapy and the Individual

Psychotherapy, not coincidentally, experienced massive growth during the postmodern period, offering answers to the emotional distress generated, among other things, by late capitalism (presented here as a near-dogmatic cause-effect relationship).
If we observe closely, a paradox emerges: society (let’s focus on Greece) creates problems—therapy rightly tries to support the individual—society continues to generate problems at the same pace as Nike or Adidas produce shoes—psychotherapy continues to support the individual. It seems, therefore, that the burden of change falls almost entirely on the person seeking help.

Now, psychotherapy has, at times, received criticism (Lyotard, 1979; Berger & Luckmann, 1966) that, as a service flourishing in the soil of late capitalism, by assisting the individual, it indirectly supports the capitalist system that “produces” the problems. Thus, critics argue, psychotherapy maintains the “system” and fosters self-focus, potentially distancing the individual—often unknowingly—from social and political engagement. It is a long reflection, but interesting.

This critique may initially seem unfair, as personal work on oneself, if effective, can ultimately lead to more conscious and active participation in society or to shedding some of the responsibility previously internalized as personal failure. However, the question arises: do we sometimes “forget” that society itself needs to change, so that individuals do not need to do so much “correction” just to survive emotionally?

A Little Critical Theory

Philip Cushman, in Constructing the Self, Constructing America (1995), analyzed how psychotherapy is not merely a clinical practice but also a cultural phenomenon contributing to the construction of a specific type of self—individual-centered, “empty,” seeking fulfillment through consumer practices. Cushman critiques the “therapeuticization” of daily life, highlighting that the emphasis on individual correction may depoliticize the subject and distance them from collective demands. He does not advocate abandoning psychotherapy but stresses the need for a more socially oriented approach that recognizes the historical and cultural dimension of the self rather than treating it as an isolated psychological atom.

Adorno and his colleagues (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) introduced the concept of “damaged character” to describe personality patterns shaped by oppressive social and family conditions. While Adorno did not focus on psychotherapy, his perspective offers a valuable sociological lens for understanding how individual distress is connected to social structures.

Pierre Bourdieu, through the collective research The Weight of the World (1999), highlighted how everyday distress, often treated as a “personal problem,” has deep social roots. Job insecurity, economic deadlocks, inequalities, and class pressures produce forms of “social pain” internalized as personal failure.

The political world has gradually turned inward, absorbed in its internal rivalries, its own problems, its own interests. Like the tribunes of ancient Rome, politicians capable of understanding and expressing their constituents’ expectations and demands are becoming increasingly rare, and their political organizations leave much to be desired. Future leaders are chosen in television debates or party caucuses. Those who govern are prisoners of a reassuring entourage of young technocrats who often know almost nothing about the everyday lives of their fellow citizens and have no occasion to be reminded of their ignorance. […]
Epilogue, Bourdieu (1999), The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society

Bourdieu’s contribution shows that a sociological perspective can, under certain conditions, release the individual from guilt, highlighting that personal experience is also a product of collective and structural conditions. Following these indicative positions, it appears that psychotherapy, if focused exclusively on the individual dimension, risks overlooking the social field that generates precisely this distress.

Reflections on Theory

Psychology and psychotherapy schools today, obviously, consider the historical, social, and psychological dimensions of the self. It is not “new” to account for where the individual comes from, which institution has burdened them, and which conditions forced their development in a certain way.

However, Adorno’s concern about the “normalization of structural alienation” resonates: engagement in personal improvement, particularly through psychotherapy, while undeniably enhancing emotional wellbeing, can sometimes act as a distraction—occupying the individual with protecting themselves and adapting optimally to the personal and wider sociopolitical context (workplaces, social events, etc.) before they notice how this collective context looks and whether they can oppose what, in a second-order reflection, contributes to their “misery.” Yes, adaptation is necessary for survival, but I insist that something may be “lost” here.

The paradox becomes clearer: psychological problems arising from the social environment are attempted to be solved individually, as if the burden of change lies entirely with the individual. At best, if the person becomes the most successful version of themselves, they will return to society with their improved self and positively influence it. Logical and desirable.

At the micro-level of everyday life, however, this distraction takes another form.

An analysis breakdown

There comes a moment in psychotherapy when we open our personal Pandora’s box, discovering everything we once swept under rugs, everything we felt under certain conditions and did not express, everything we felt without realizing it at the time, etc. Battles have taken place, are taking place, and may continue in our homes, relationships, and workplaces. There are issues of all sizes and types, making it easy to believe that all answers and the much-desired wellbeing are contained there.

At this point, I reference Hanisch’s slogan mentioned earlier. The position that “the personal is political,” which helped break the illusion in the 1960s–70s that experiences “belong solely to the individual,” shows that real change requires not only personal improvement but also social claims and political action. If the personal is political, then the political inevitably has a personal dimension.

Example

Consider a young person going to psychotherapy to work on their anxiety. They present it as a “personal problem,” something that keeps them awake, causes arguments with loved ones, and challenges their self-worth. Focusing only on the individual, the response might be: “Try to find what fulfills you, how to set boundaries, how to care for yourself,” etc. But, if we zoom out and see (as an example) that this young person works in a precarious position, with exhausting hours, no steady income, and constant fear of unemployment, then their anxiety is not only “personal.” It is also political, as it arises and is maintained by social and economic conditions beyond them.

What does this mean? Inner work is necessary, but if external conditions—work conditions, job security, the right to a dignified life—do not change, “personal improvement” will always feel incomplete. The political permeates the personal, and vice versa: they speak about anxiety in therapy but are, often unknowingly, speaking about an entire social mechanism producing systemic stress. We can understand that the equation changes each time variables are added or removed.

From Individual to Collective

Yes, individuals, as units, carry problems, concerns, dreams, and traumas. The communities around us, however, carry memories of wars, disasters, accidents, and economic insecurity as collective traumas engraved in their bodies.

The concept of collective trauma has been increasingly highlighted in sociology and psychology. Ron Eyerman (2001), in his theory of cultural trauma, argues that a traumatic event does not affect only direct victims but becomes part of a group’s collective memory and identity, transforming into a “shared narrative” defining who we are and how we view the future. Similarly, Gilad Hirschberger (2018) describes collective trauma as a “cataclysmic event” that disrupts social fabric and causes a crisis of meaning. The memory of this trauma, through narratives, can either protect the group or, conversely, re-ignite fear and existential insecurity.

Collective trauma is not always experienced clearly; it often manifests as silence, muted mourning, repeated phrases like “that’s how things are,” etc., passed from generation to generation. For affected individuals, this memory often becomes a survival tool, even if painful; for those causing harm, it may trigger existential threat, denial, or silencing of responsibility. If recognition and responsibility occur, trauma can become an opportunity to create new narratives that integrate the past into a story of change and ethical renewal.

From a psychological perspective, engagement with responsibility can help community members find meaning, discuss, connect, grieve, and potentially transform pain into action. Psychotherapy should emphasize that many of the “symptoms” brought to therapy are echoes of collective wounds—and that we can respond actively, if we choose or are able.

When events are large-scale (COVID-19, the Tempi tragedy), it is easier to call it collective trauma and mobilize. But what about smaller or seemingly “minor” events? When does an adverse social condition qualify as trauma? Must we wait for it to grow before acting? Or can we recognize small, everyday events that disrupt community well-being as potential trauma?

I reiterate: sociopolitical awareness indirectly and directly invests in individual and collective wellbeing.

Some Conclusion

I practice psychotherapy through the lens of dramatherapy and daily experience confirms its usefulness (as both therapist and patient). In the struggle for personal and collective survival, however, beyond professions and our lives, I feel there is a constant need to remember that the personal must go hand in hand with the collective.

Regarding critique, as with all phenomena, psychotherapy offers multiple perspectives: the risk of social alienation, the gain of personal empowerment that allows the individual to return more conscious to the collective, a path including both, etc. In any case, the goal is not to reject theories wholesale or overemphasize the positives to “defend” our position, as if every psychotherapy harms society. Nor do I suggest that the only solution to mental wellbeing is to overthrow the capitalist system.

It may suffice to heed the critique of excessive self-focus and seek ways to contribute more to the social realm. It may help simply to identify with the individual what society has denied them, naming the social injustice at a particular point in the narrative and reminding them that they have a right (literally and metaphorically) to act.

In Lieu of an Epilogue

The question, ultimately, is not “individual or social?” but how these two interact at the macro level (in psychotherapy as an institution and social practice) and micro level (in the room where individual or group sessions occur).

In a present where nations vanish nearby or people struggle to pay rent—lacking resources to invest in emotional health—it seems unfair to focus only on the microcosm of individual improvement.

In psychotherapy, it appears more important to create spaces that alleviate the personal while acknowledging sociopolitical “error” and potentially provoking its expression and transformation into action, into shared, group experience. Initially as rehearsal.

And to give ourselves some credit: in the small stages of dramatherapy, such a space is beautifully created, where the individual can express themselves collectively through group activities, as rehearsal. Engagement with art (temporarily embracing the term’s vagueness) plays a crucial role: it may not provide solutions but rehearses new paths. This has been observed in past artistic movements such as avant-garde theater, Grotowski’s Experimental Theater, or Eugenio Barba’s approaches, where action, embodiment, and collective creation open paths to explore social and personal issues.

Engagement with dramatherapy, as an art-based method, can provide emotional outlet and ways to confront every social and personal paradox with less fear, more voice, full-body presence, and awareness. It remains to be utilized.

The question persists and changes with each era: how can we therapeutically work with something that is not solely the individual’s responsibility but also burdens our shared ground? How can we evolve more easily when the social context surrounding us also changes, even slightly? If there is less insecurity, less violence, more state care?

I close with a maxim-wish:
May we create more psycho-dramatherapy environments that take the “out there” seriously and respond actively to it.
May we also be in the streets, laying down our dreams and claiming what has been denied to us.

References

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Stanford University Press.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Bourdieu, P. (1999). The weight of the world: Social suffering in contemporary society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Cushman, P. (1995). Constructing the self, constructing America: A cultural history of psychotherapy. Boston, MA: Da Capo Press.
Eyerman, R. (2001). Cultural trauma: Slavery and the formation of African American identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hanisch, C. (1970). The personal is political. Retrieved from [original publication URL if available]
Hirschberger, G. (2018). Collective trauma and the social construction of meaning. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1441. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01441
LaCapra, D. (2001). Writing history, writing trauma. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1979). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Mandel, E. (1975). Late capitalism. London, UK: Verso.
McNally, R. J. (2003). Remembering trauma. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.
Young, A. (1995). The harmony of illusions: Inventing post-traumatic stress disorder. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.