I'm skeptical that there isn't some undercurrent of suggestion in the way the therapist keeps pulling in family history. There's something of a just-so-story in how each of his patients seems to have some "inherited" trauma. I'm willing to concede that it's possible that this is the case, but the vignettes in the article involve no small amount of magical thinking.
The problem I see here is the over reliance on Freud and Jung and epigenetic. Freud's misconceptions aren't needed to explain how behaviour and anxiety can trickle down from a generation to the next and epigenetic has nothing to do with skeletons in the closet. Behavioural therapy, CBT and `modern` approaches do a much better job at modelling all this. (I wouldn't be surprised if we see more epigenetic and less quant…
It was basically that Freud was suffering from his own unresolved childhood traumas and avoiding them forced him to narrate his theories from the perspective that the parent was innocent and the child was guilty, especially when discussing the treatment of seemingly misbehaved children.
Unfortunately, this continued to be the main perspective in psychoanalysis and child development until the late 1970's/early 1980's
She gives an explanation in its simplest form in a 1987 interview with OMNI Publications International:
Traditional analysis, says Miller, duplicates the parent-child relationship with the conventional analyst in the position of power. [...] The child undergoes a long inner struggle “between the fear of losing the person he loves if he remains true to himself, and panic at the prospect of losing himself if he has to deny who he is. A child cannot resolve a conflict of this nature and is forced to conform because he cannot survive by himself. Therapy should not repeat this condition.”
fascinating read if anyone's interested, especially when she describes the first time she discussed this to a conference of psychoanalysts: