Good Cause Association

One of the obstacles encountered by critics of primal therapy is Janov’s alignment with good causes (such as preventing child abuse, being gentle with babies, social policy, loving animals and world peace, to name just a few).  This removes the focus away from the validity of primal theory and the efficacy of primal therapy.  It sets up a situation so that if you criticize primal therapy you may automatically be dismissed as opposing those good causes.

It should be logically obvious, although sometimes it needs to be pointed out:  it is possible to also support the good causes mentioned above and still criticize primal therapy, even strongly object to it.  To be clear it is possible to be an anti-war; social policy reformer; advocate against child abuse and female oppression; advocate for gentle birth experiences; etc. and still strongly object to primal therapy on account of ineffectiveness, potential harm, pseudoscience and cultic factors.

But probably one of the most powerful associations followers have is between primal therapy and love.  To some cultic followers, it may even be said that primal therapy has the monopoly on love (and feelings).  However, a lot of people who experience the reality of primal therapy and primal people, they come to witness profound contradictions.  Primal theory in the past has often inspired cruel behavior and words towards parents (who were often in reality loving), partners, friends and families.  This use of the concept of love is common in cults and religions, and it is such an effective ploy that it can be quite financially lucrative and a key aspect of brainwashing techniques.