Primal Therapy: Pseudoscience Or Science?

Arthur Janov developed Primal Therapy in the 1970s. The question arose several times whether Primal Therapy can be defined as science. It is important to determine whether it is a pseudoscience or a science as mentally ill people are still treated according to the therapy, therefore relying on it. There is a lot of evidence for it being a pseudoscience, mainly because it lacks scientific studies and a real science is based on many experiments and intense research. On the other hand, research has been done backing up the therapy. However, this research was mainly done by Arthur Janov and supporters of Primal Therapy. Therefore, there is little support for it being a science and a lot more literature on it being a pseudoscience. Firstly, this
Arthur Janov who has not changed and developed the basic ideas and principles behind the therapy since he first developed it. Janov is not in contact with other scientists or the mainstream science as he does not share the details of the therapy sessions and techniques with the public and only therapists trained at his institution are entitled to work as primal therapists. Furthermore, he claims that other types of psychotherapy and treatments are ineffective (Ycaza Stroschein, 2007). To illustrate, in a paper about depression, Janov claims that antidepressants, psychotherapy and electroconvulsive therapy are not able to treat depression (Janov, 2013). Thus, Primal Therapy is a pseudoscience because it is shaped only by Janov who is not in contact with the mainstream science, since his major principles and the therapy did not change and evolve and he insists that other forms of therapy are
However, researchers like Ehebald and Werthmann (1982) and Ycaza Stroschein (2007) argue that Janov does not base his assumptions and the concluding treatment on scientific studies and statistical results. This lack of empirical data leads to a insufficient credibility of his work and the therapy. His main idea that repressed memories cause mental illnesses is criticized by Gardner (2001) who argues that there is no evidence which proves that an adult brain holds neither unconscious traumatic memories of birth nor of life’s first few years. Janov (2013) claims that he bases his assumptions on depression on observations and his own experience from patients. However, Kohl (2010) argues that this is not a scientific test and the methodology is not scientific as it relies strongly on the premise that Janov is an expert in this area. Kohl (2010) also claims that research is brought forward only to promote people to do the therapy, and to show how Primal Therapy can benefit them. Accordingly, Primal Therapy has not developed from progressing scientific research which is an important argument for it being a pseudoscience. Former studies seem to have been done for the sole purpose of justifying the theory instead of developing it further, again, another feature of a