Kaiser’s One Rule: Why Communication Heals

Image via Pavan Trikutam

Hellmuth Kaiser was one of the first psychotherapists to recognize the significance of loneliness. To him, the problem of loneliness was so pronounced that he described it as the “universal conflict” that all men and women are bedeviled by.  Man is constantly trying to overcome his feelings of isolation. Constantly trying to close the gap between himself and others and if unable to do so, then instead trying to erase his own awareness of the fact that the gap between himself and others exists. 

From the universal conflict springs the “universal symptom.” Kaiser described this symptom in multiple ways. He called it duplicity, ingenuineness, and transference. What’s interesting is that while being duplicitous and being ingenuine have much in common, transference does not initially appear to be similar enough to be considered an easy replacement for either of these terms. To be duplicitous is to show certain parts of oneself while hiding other parts. All with the intent to fool others into believing something that is not true. To be ingenuine is closely related as the word simply implies a lack of sincerity or inauthenticity.

Transference, on the other hand, is understood as the displacement of unconscious feelings and wishes onto current individuals which were originally directed toward other important individuals from one’s past. This definition does not easily fit next to the others, but given Kaiser’s grouping of them, he must have thought all three terms shared basic core elements. 

Is transference a form of inauthenticity? A method of being duplicitous? When you study the meaning of transference, it becomes clear that it is. To transfer thoughts and feelings, whether consciously or unconsciously, from one situation to another and treat them as though they are the same is to engage in a form of inauthentic behavior. Hence the connection between all three terms. Each of them charts a course to the same destination. A path towards an inauthentic mode of being that develops into neurosis once the underlying psychological processes and the associated behaviors have become sedimented. 

Communication as the Antidote 

The core focus of this essay is to examine Kaiser’s contention that the way out of this universal conflict is through communication. Kaiser believed “it was the ability to communicate freely that prevented the universal conflict.” To add clarity to this expression I would say that communicating freely implies one does not feel restricted in what they can say, regardless of whether or not they actually choose to say it. They feel unimpeded in terms of how they express themselves. Without this freedom a person enters into this universal conflict, which they compensate for by living in a state of delusion. 

Communication as Kaiser saw it, was an antidote to this condition. The most positive quality of communication is not how it impacts the other, but what it does to and for the person communicating. It makes them more genuine and authentic, which allows them to resolve at least some of the issues that lead to neurosis. 

Successful therapy hinges on the ability to provide this kind of space for the patient. Kaiser believed that the therapist was able to heal the patient simply by being with them. 

It is of course impossible for a therapist to always guarantee they will be able to provide such a space for their patients, but there are certain characteristics common to therapists who achieve this outcome more often than not. These characteristics are having an interest in people, not having views that interfere with the therapeutic process, the absence of neuroticism, and receptiveness.

The first is self-explanatory—a genuine interest in people is a prerequisite to being an effective therapist. Secondly, the use of the term non-interfering views implies that the theoretical orientation of the therapist must support the underlying goal of the patient learning to communicate freely. If the therapist’s orientation and subsequent interventions aren’t moving the patient towards this goal it is unlikely they will achieve it on their own–if they could they would be less likely to end up in therapy in the first place. 

The next characteristic also feels so intuitive that it could go without saying. It is impossible to help the patient recover from their own neurotic tendencies if the therapist is still suffering from their own. A therapist who is dealing with their own unresolved issues will have a hard time helping patients to communicate more freely. Receptiveness, the last characteristic, is closely related to this concern. As a therapist you have to stay open and receptive in order to be attuned to the patient and accurately analyze their experience. You must be able to stay aware of all the subtle ways there are for patients to engage in duplicitousness in order to help them overcome these behaviors. 

Kaiser’s One Rule 

Kaiser had only one rule for therapists—communicate. This was his only requirement for what therapists should do. All other dictums pertained to what therapists should be. The success of psychotherapy does not hinge solely on what the therapist does, but more so depends on who the therapist is. Psychotherapy is the process of healing someone by helping them go from isolation to relationship. The work is inherently interpersonal, therefore it is impossible to avoid considering the person of the therapist.

Through learning how to relate to the therapist without duplicity, without inauthenticity, without transference reactions, the patient inevitably changes. They grow and develop into psychological maturity. But, in order to experience the full benefits of this maturation, the therapist must at the very least possess the characteristics that were identified by Kaiser. They must be willing to move past technique and relate to the patient genuinely. Otherwise the patient’s growth is impeded. 

For the patient to be able to not only experience but share in this level of genuineness and authenticity teaches them that they are also capable of generating it themselves. This is the key to the effectiveness of the therapeutic encounter. As a relationship, therapy is always temporary, but the experience of therapy can stay with the patient forever and reverberate in their lives well after the therapeutic relationship has ended. 

What Kaiser is saying is that the willingness to communicate is what matters. Technique does too, to a lesser extent, but not more than the person of the therapist—the parts of themselves they bring into therapy and who they choose to show up as.