Existentialism and Systemic Psychotherapy: A Dialogue Between the Individual and the Relational Self

Individual Self: I need to follow my own dreams, free from others’ expectations. Relational Self: But who you are is shaped by those you love and lean on. Individual Self: If I always adapt, how will I know what’s truly me? Relational Self: Perhaps your truest self is revealed in how you relate.

Existentialism and systemic psychotherapy emerge from distinct intellectual and clinical traditions, yet both grapple with fundamental questions of human existence: freedom, responsibility, identity, and the dynamics of meaning-making.

While existentialism traditionally focuses on the individual’s confrontation with freedom, choice, and mortality, systemic psychotherapy views the person within the context of relationships, families, and broader social systems. This article explores how existential themes resonate within systemic practice and how a systemic lens can both challenge and enrich existentialist thought.

Existential Foundations

Let’s get that one straight — I don’t have a philosophy background, I have a psychology one. But ever since I read Das Café der Existenzialisten (yes, I read it in German, back then I was studying in Germany), I was fascinated and continued reading on the topic.

The human condition existentialist philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and Martin Heidegger emphasize that individuals are “thrown” into existence without predetermined essence. People, they claim, are free to choose, but this freedom can lead to anxiety, despair, and alienation. The central existential dilemma is the confrontation with freedom and responsibility: we are the authors of our lives, yet often seek to escape this burden through self-deception or conformity.

In systemic psychotherapy, these themes are not rejected but reframed. The individual’s existential concerns are seen as embedded within relational patterns — a person’s experience of freedom or anxiety is shaped not only by their internal world but also by their interactions with significant others and their roles within family systems.

Relationality and the Self

Whereas existentialism often starts from the individual as an autonomous self,

systemic psychotherapy views the self as relationally constituted. For systemic therapists, the relationship is the client.

It can even be argued that identity, therefore, is not fixed but emerges through interaction — through communication, feedback loops, and the stories families tell about themselves. I’m studying systemic psychotherapy and encounter this in both theory and in real-life conversations with clients.

This perspective aligns with narrative therapy and constructivist models, which argue that meaning is co-created. Yet even within this relational matrix, existential themes persist. Clients in systemic therapy often confront questions of authenticity:

• “Who am I outside of my family role?”
• “Can I live differently from what’s expected of me?”
• “How do my actions shape the system I’m part of?”

Systemic therapists, particularly those influenced by postmodern or dialogical approaches, increasingly recognize these tensions and address them without reverting to individualistic models.

Responsibility in the Existential Context

posits that

we are always responsible — for our choices, values, and the meaning we give to life.

Sartre’s notion that “existence precedes essence” places the burden of identity creation squarely on the individual. Systemic therapy, while not denying agency, contextualizes it: freedom is constrained and enacted through systems. Patterns of behaviour may be maintained by implicit rules, loyalties, or trauma within the family.

Responsibility, from this view, must be understood not only as individual but also as distributed and systemic. For example, a young adult’s “failure to launch” might be seen existentially as fear of freedom, but systemically, it could reflect an unspoken family contract — perhaps a parent unconsciously needs the child to remain dependent. The systemic therapist helps reveal these hidden dynamics, facilitating both insight and choice.

Existential and Systemic Open Dialogue

A shared concern of both traditions is the search for meaning. Viktor Frankl, blending existentialism with psychotherapy, argued that meaning can be found even in suffering. In systemic work, meaning is often generated through dialogue — between family members, within the therapeutic conversation, or across generations, with outside systems, etc. I’m especially fond of the Open Dialogue (OD) as an approach in mental health institutions, but not exclusively in such cases.

Open Dialogue, as a therapeutic approach grounded in systemic therapy, offers a relational and dialogical perspective on mental health that resonates deeply with existentialist thought. Originating in Finland, Open Dialogue was developed to address severe psychological crises by involving not only the individual but also their broader social network — family, friends, and relevant professionals — in open, inclusive conversations.

This systemic orientation views psychological distress not as an internal defect but as a product of disrupted communication within a relational context. The method emphasizes transparency, the importance of multiple voices (polyphony), shared decision-making, and above all, the creation of meaning through dialogue. Rather than striving for quick solutions or definitive diagnoses, it values the therapeutic process of “tolerating uncertainty,” allowing new understandings to emerge organically within the safety of authentic conversation.

This stance aligns naturally with existentialism, which regards the human condition as one marked by ambiguity, freedom, and the necessity of personal meaning-making. Existentialism teaches that individuals must confront the givens of existence — such as freedom, isolation, responsibility, and mortality — and create meaning in a world that offers none inherently. Open Dialogue mirrors this by inviting individuals to take an active role in co-constructing the narrative of their lives, not as passive patients but as participants in an evolving story. Both approaches value presence, authenticity, and the transformative potential of dialogue.

Moreover, they share a deep respect for the human capacity to face uncertainty and existential anxiety not with avoidance or control, but with openness and courage. In this sense, Open Dialogue does not just echo existential themes — it enacts them, creating a living space where existential concerns can be encountered not in isolation but within the context of genuine human connection.

Toward an Integrative Perspective

Bringing existentialism and systemic therapy into dialogue offers a more nuanced understanding of human experience. Existentialism contributes depth, a language for anguish, authenticity, and freedom. Systemic therapy adds context, complexity, and connection. Together, they resist reductionism and honor both the individual’s inner world and their relational embeddedness.

Therapists who draw on both traditions can support clients in reclaiming agency within their systems, confronting existential dilemmas in an open dialogue rather than isolation, and generating meaning through connection rather than abstraction.

Conclusion

Existentialism and systemic psychotherapy need not be seen as opposing frameworks. Instead, they can inform and enrich each other: existentialism reminding systemic therapists not to lose sight of the person within the system, and systemic therapy reminding existentialists that freedom and meaning are always co-authored. In a world where individuals are increasingly navigating both internal fragmentation and relational disconnection, I think such an integration offers a powerful and compassionate therapeutic stance.