|
| Reply to Greenwald |
On Eye Movements and Animal Magnetism:
A Reply to Greenwald's Defense of EMDR |
Richard J. McNally
Harvard University |
| McNally, R. J. (in press). On eye movements and animal magnetism: A reply to Greenwald's defense of EMDR.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders. |
| Journal of Anxiety Disorders (invited reply) |
| Running head: REPLY TO GREENWALD |
Abstract
In his commentary on my article comparing Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) with animal magnetism therapy (McNally, 1999a), Greenwald (1999) expresses several criticisms. Unable to refute a single factual statement, he resorts to attacking my rhetorical style. The purpose of this reply is to rebut his critique. |
On Eye Movements and Animal Magnetism:
A Reply to Greenwald's Defense of EMDR |
| Many people regard EMDR as merely one of the many therapeutic fuzzballs that litter the landscape of psychology today. Others deem it destined to transform clinical intervention, from the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to the treatment of premature ejaculation. Still others believe the truth lies somewhere in between. Emblematic of these diverse views, EMDR has been featured in publications ranging from the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (Wilson, Becker, & Tinker, 1995) to the Newsletter of the National Council Against Health Fraud (Rosen & Lohr, 1997); it will soon to be featured in Penthouse magazine as well (Lisa Cool, personal communication, October 5, 1998). |
| Such diverse opinion about a clinical technique has not been seen since the end of the Age of Enlightenment when Franz Mesmer's animal magnetism therapy swept through Europe, creating controversy in its wake. Accordingly, the goal of my article (McNally, 1999a) was to document the many eerie parallels between the history of animal magnetism therapy and the history of EMDR and to elucidate the principles underlying the emergence of revolutionary treatments that aspire to world-historical status. |
| In his spirited commentary on my article, Greenwald (1999) raises a number of issues that I shall address in this reply. Greenwald is one of the world's greatest EMDR therapists and his opinions therefore carry the weight of authority. |
| Strikingly reminiscent of Leo Strauss1 (1952/1988), Greenwald claims to have decoded a secret message hidden between the lines of my article. The real purpose, opines Greenwald, was not to address a topic in historical sociology, but rather to preside over EMDR's "death by innuendo." Perhaps because he was unable to refute a single factual statement, he resorted to deconstructing my rhetorical style, claiming that I "flung barb upon barb against EMDR." Because my comments were confined to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, Greenwald should have said that I "flung fact upon fact upon EMDR." But I quibble. |
| Remarkably, Greenwald apparently believes that my goal was to debunk EMDR. Nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose was simply to document a thesis about the characteristics shared by revolutionary psychotherapy movements. To reiterate: these movements are likely to emerge from the periphery of the field, to be championed by charismatic leaders notable for their entrepreneurial genius, and to promise dramatic relief from diverse and intractable forms of human misery. |
| Greenwald complains that I discussed tangential topics that do not directly bear on the Mesmer-Shapiro comparison. For example, he correctly states that Mesmer never misrepresented professional organizations as having endorsed his therapy. Greenwald's observation echoes objections voiced by other scholars who have similarly complained that comparing Shapiro to Mesmer is "unfair" (unfair to Mesmer, that is). But my objective was merely to document the range of support sought by leaders of revolutionary clinical interventions, not to malign Mesmer. |
| Greenwald grouses that I failed to cite two of his literature reviews and failed to cite yet another that he believes evinces enthusiasm for EMDR (Greenwald, 1994, 1996; Van Etten & Taylor, 1998). One of his articles is actually a short note on treatment fidelity (Greenwald, 1996), not a review of the literature per se. However, he correctly states that I was oblivious to his full-length literature review (Greenwald, 1994). But overlooking Greenwald's (1994) article is not difficult; it is hidden in a journal so obscure that it failed to appear in the (presumably) comprehensive list of clinical psychology journals compiled by the Institute for Scientific Information (1996). Finally, Van Etten and Taylor's (1998) meta-analytic review of PTSD treatment studies was not even "in press" (let alone published) when I wrote my essay in the summer of 1997. In any event, Van Etten and Taylor conclude that EMDR is no more effective than standard cognitive-behavioral methods for PTSD - a conclusion wholly congruent with the view that the novel component of EMDR (eye movements) adds nothing to the traditional imaginal exposure component (Lohr, Tolin, & Lilienfeld, 1998). Therefore, what is effective in EMDR is not new, and what is new is not effective. This fact renders Greenwald's learned disquisition on "treatment fidelity" moot: if eye movements are causally inert elements irrelevant to outcome, who cares whether they are induced "correctly"? |
| Greenwald warns that critics of EMDR are in danger of making the same mistake as (allegedly) committed by Benjamin Franklin and Antoine Lavoisier whose placebo-controlled experiments led them to conclude that the effects of Mesmerism were attributable to the power of suggestion, not to the power of animal magnetism. Greenwald's comments echo another critique posted on the Internet. In an amusing parody of my Mesmer-Shapiro comparison, EMDR therapist Susan Rogers (public communication on the Internet, August 21, 1998) criticized me by comparing me to Benjamin Franklin, claiming that both of us mistakenly dismissed breakthrough treatments. Needless to say, I am deeply flattered by this criticism. With enemies like these, who needs friends? |
| Greenwald chides me for failing to discuss "substantive" scientific issues. But he forgets that my article addressed a theme in historical sociology, not psychological science. Not only did others cover the scientific literature in the special issue of Journal of Anxiety Disorders, but my colleagues and I have done so as well elsewhere (e.g., McNally, 1999b; Rosen, Lohr, McNally, & Herbert, 1998; Rosen, Lohr, McNally, & Herbert, 1999; Rosen et al., 1998a; Rosen et al., 1998b). |
| In conclusion, while writing my historical comparison between Mesmer and Shapiro, I could not help but think of the famous opening lines of Karl Marx's book, The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte2 (Marx, 1852/1963). Comparing Napoleon Bonaparte's dramatic seizure of power to that of his nephew's (Louis Bonaparte) subsequent coup d'‚tat, Marx mused: Hegel remarks somewhere that all facts and
personages of great importance in world history
occur, as it were, twice. He forgot to add: the
first time as tragedy, the second as farce
(Marx, 1852/1963, p. 15).
|
| References |
| Greenwald, R. (1994). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR): An overview. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 24, 15-34. |
| Greenwald, R. (1996). The information gap in the EMDR controversy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 67-72. |
| Greenwald, R. (1999). The power of suggestion: Comment on EMDR and Mesmerism: A comparative historical analysis (McNally, 1999). Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13. |
| Institute for Scientific Information. (1996). SSCI [Social Science Citation Index] journal citation reports. Philadelphia: Author. |
| Lohr, J. M., Tolin, D., F., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (1998). Efficacy of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing: Implications for behavior therapy. Behavior Therapy, 29, 123-156. |
| Marx, K. (1963). The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (C. P. Dutt, Trans.). New York: International Publishers (Original work published 1852) |
| McNally, R. J. (1999a). EMDR and Mesmerism: A comparative historical analysis. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13, 225-236. |
| McNally, R. J. (1999b). Research on Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) as a treatument for PTSD. PTSD Research Quarterly, 10(1), 1-7. |
| Rosen, G. M., & Lohr, J. (1997). Can eye movements cure mental ailments? Newsletter of the National Council Against Health Fraud, 20, 1. |
| Rosen, G. M., Lohr, J. M., McNally, R. J., & Herbert, J. D. (1998). Power Therapies, miraculous claims, and the cures that fail. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 26, 97-99. |
| Rosen, G. M., Lohr, J. M., McNally, R. J., & Herbert, J. D. (1999). Power Therapies: Evidence vs miraculous cures. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 27, 9-12. |
| Rosen, G. M., McNally, R. J., Lohr, J. M., Devilly, G. J., Herbert, J. D., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (1998a, October). A realistic appraisal of EMDR. The California Psychologist, 31, 25, 27. |
| Rosen, G. M., McNally, R. J., Lohr, J. M., Devilly, G. J., Herbert, J. D., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (1998b, December). Four points to consider before you buy EMDR products: A reply to Shapiro, Rouanzion, Hoffman, & de Jongh. The California Psychologist, 31, 15. |
| Strauss, L. (1988). Persecution and the art of writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1952) |
| Van Etten, M. L., & Taylor, S. (1998). Comparative efficacy of treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 5, 126-145. |
| Wilson, S. A., Becker, L. A., & Tinker, R. H. (1995). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) treatment for psychologically traumatized individuals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 928-937. |
| Author Note |
| I should like to thank D. Alighieri, M. Florin, F. Shekel, and The New Riders of the Purple Haze. |
| Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Richard J. McNally, Department of Psychology, Harvard University, 33 Kirkland Street, Cambridge, MA 02138. e-mail: rjm@wjh.harvard.edu |
| Footnotes |
| 1. Philosopher Leo Strauss argued that political theorists living under oppressive regimes have often been compelled to disguise the true meaning of their subversive doctrines by engaging in esoteric writing understandable only to the initiated. According to Strauss, one must "read between the lines" to decode these hidden meanings. |
| 2. "Brumaire 18, Year VIII" is the date in the calendar of the French Revolution that corresponds to "November 9, 1799" - the day Napoleon Bonaparte seized power. Marx's wisecrack about the "18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" refers to the latter's subsequent coup d'‚tat. In imitation of his famous uncle, Louis Bonaparte renamed himself "Emperor Napoleon III." |
| |
| DECombs@attbi.com |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
