SUMMARY
The longstanding human interest in dreams has led to a significant body of psychological and philosophical discourse, including research. Recently, however, dreams have been relegated to the periphery of clinical psychological practice. This is potentially problematic as clients continue to bring dreams to therapy and many psychologists lack the confidence or competence to respond effectively to dream material. Building on the structural, professional and research cultures surrounding psychology using a cultural-historical activity theory framework, we argue the marginalisation of dreams is due to cultural-historical factors. These factors include the political and economic context in which psychology developed; psychology’s early attempts to differentiate from psychoanalysis by identifying with behaviourism and the natural sciences; and a discipline-specific definition of what constitutes evidence-based practice. These factors led to professional discourses within which dreams are seen as of little clinical or therapeutic value, or that dream work is only for long-term therapy and requires extensive therapist training. However, there are diverse models of dream work consistent with most theoretical orientations within contemporary psychological practice. We conclude with recommendations on how to rebuild clinical confidence and competence in the use of dream material within the current professional environment.
Conclusion
This paper has provided an exploration of the value of dreams to society and psychological practice. It discussed an analysis of the cultural-historical context of the activity of clinical psychological practice, arguing that this context has led to an over-reliance on positivist epistemologies and in turn, psychology has not fully engaged with new waves of thought on the nature of science. The central contention of this paper has been that it has been the cultural-historical factors and resulting beliefs and professional discourses, rather than alack of practice models, that has led to many contemporary psychologists struggling to respond competently to their clients’ dream material. This paper also highlighted the dominant discourse of a linear progression in dream theory development, that has been contributed to by the cultural-historical factors that have influenced the development of psychology. This discourse fails to consider the nuances of the theories on which it is based or the diversity of extant dream theories. The danger is that it fails to equip clinicians to respond sensitively and competently to the introduction of dream material in therapy. Additionally, it deprives clinicians of the potentially valuable therapeutic tool of dream work and is not conducive to therapists being able to pursue a professional interest in dreams. This dominant discourse of dreams having no psychological meaning or clinical value is only one side of the story in a short chapter within humanity’s long history of fascination with dreams. In our view, the theoretical diversity in dream theory offers multiple pathways for contemporary psychologists to engage in dream work in ways that are achievable within the constraints of contemporary practice, including time limits and preferences for particular theoretical orientations. As dream work can be incorporated into existing approaches to practice, a separate ‘dream analysis’ competency is not required. Effective ways to work with dreams can be successfully included in the existing psychology training and professional development landscape of contemporary clinical psychological practice. Moreover, professionals can also choose to use models, such as Ullman’s widely used approach to dream work, [58], that require no ‘competency’ or professional training and was in fact designed to be suitable for use by lay people.
