Systemic vs. psychodynamic

Where psychoanalysis has expressions of the unconscious, the systemic tradition has relational patterns.

Both fields are rife with dogma - fear of ostracism limits use of the other camp’s language. Productive dialogue suffers.

Does refraining from using the word ‘unconscious’ mean the systemic practitioner is not dealing with the same substance as the analyst? Lacan described the unconscious as ‘structured like a language’: syntax, grammar, phonetics, morphology - rules and exceptions, complexity, evolution, vernacular, variation.

In attending to patterns, the systemic practitioner engages with what evades the rational conscious mind, which is where the root of dilemmas can be addressed.

Bateson himself, a founding figure of the systemic tradition, wrote about the unconscious in Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Typically this is foreclosed.

Linguistic territories have been carved out by competing lineages - show them irreverence. Stick your head above the parapet. Fumble and learn to speak the other camp’s language. Make mistakes - there’s nothing to lose but imagined linguistic chains, and lots to gain.

David Pocock demonstrates how both can be considered in parallel, and inspires others to do the same.