@article{White, author = {White, Cleonie}, title = {I Am, You Are, We … Are … Us! Discussion of >Culturally Imposed Trauma: The Sleeping Dog Has Awakened: Will Psychoanalysis Take Heed?< by Dorothy Evans Holmes, Ph.D.}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues: The International Journal of Relational Perspectives, Vol. 26, No. 6 (2016), pp. 673-677. [Online ISSN 1940-9222] [doi.org/10.1080/10481885.2016.1235947]}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues: The International Journal of Relational Perspectives, Vol. 26, No. 6 (2016), pp. 673-677. [Online ISSN 1940-9222] [doi.org/10.1080/10481885.2016.1235947]}, abstract = {Psychoanalysis is practiced in context. How relevant are our theories in addressing the psychological impact of disruptive, traumatizing effects of socio-cultural events? This is one of the many critical questions raised by Dr. Holmes in her very telling essay. Particularly on the question of race, Dr. Holmes outlines the shortcomings of our theories, but also challenges what she perceives as the reluctance of psychoanalytic training Institutes to address the traumas of race and racism. This discussion expands on Holmes's position to wonder whether all psychoanalytic theories are equally remiss, and whether Institutes and psychoanalysts' perceptions of, and responses to, social trauma are shaped by their particular theoretical orientation. Specifically, this discussion focuses on differences in orientation between Classical psychoanalysis and Interpersonal/Relational theories of mind. The author identifies Sullivan, Fromm, Ferenczi, and others as early psychiatrists and psychoanalysts for whom interpersonal and cultural contexts were central to their theories of human development.}, language = {en} } @article{White, author = {White, Cleonie}, title = {The Therapeutic Action of Writing About Patients: Commentary on Papers by Lewis Aron and by Stuart A. Pizer}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues, Vol. 14 (2004), pp. 653-691.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues, Vol. 14 (2004), pp. 653-691.}, abstract = {The undeniable realities of globalization at the dawn of the 21st century have brought the United States and its citizens to the startling realization that we must grapple politically, economically, and culturally with the wide range of diversity existing within and without our borders. As greater numbers of culturally diverse persons are now represented in their caseloads, psychoanalysts are also forced to examine the relevance of psychoanalytic theories and practice in meeting their needs. The author discusses three papers that propose overlapping and differing opinions as to the function of psychoanalysis in the lives of culturally diverse patients, and its capacity to influence more public, social and political change. This paper questions the meaning of the term >culture.< It attempts to tease apart the nature of memory and dissociation among those who suffer intergenerational trauma because of their membership in particular cultural or ethnic groups. Also addressed is the extent to which, as described by social constructivist theory, self is entirely a socially constructed phenomenon. The author questions the extent to which, alternatively, >self,< possessed of will, agency and authority, exists in a mutually influencing relationship with the social world.}, language = {en} }