ABSTRACT
Touch is a primary colour in the palette of human need; it cannot be substituted for anything else. Therefore, if touch was missing in the individual’s history and personality formation, it seems likely that only the provision of touch will redress the deficit and repair its negative impacts on psychophysiological health, just as rickets sufferers will only be cured by adequate doses of vitamin D.
In therapy, touch can both help and hinder clients’ progress. If used unskilfully, in common with any intervention, it can negatively affect outcome. If used sensitively, as in most cases, it can be a powerful tool for positive change, and for certain clients the single most potent catalyst of such change.
The touch taboo in psychotherapy is based on cultural conditioning rather than on theoretical and clinical evidence.
Cultural prohibitions with regard to tactility run counter to this evidence and obstruct the absorption of touch-use into mainstream talking therapy. For certain clients this can severely limit its efficacy.
It is therefore logical, and ethical, for the therapy profession to dismantle the touch taboo so that therapists who so wish can undergo training and supervision in tactile matters.
