Refine
Language
Document Type
- Articles (269)
- Reviews (58)
- Books (13)
- Dissertations (5)
- Collections (3)
- Forewords (3)
Year of publication
- 2001 (351) (remove)
As we face the past in considering the events of the 20th century, we tend to continue to describe armed conflicts as theatres of war, our backs to the future. Such descriptions presuppose that we are capable of speaking about how the actions are staged and performed and that the experience of such events is not only presentable but also capable of representation. As we look back through the debris, we also notice another tendency, i.e., that genocides frequently have been associated with actions of modern war and rationalized and justified as necessary extensions of violent struggles for survival. This has been no less the case in, most recently, the Balkans, than during the 1970s in Rwanda or Cambodia and from 1939–45 in Nazi Germany.– Speaking of genocide as a kind of >theatre<, however, seems even more absurd than referring to the performative acts of war in terms of protagonistic and antagonistic actors, directors, spectators, and impartial critics of the whole process. But what other choice do we have than to deal with the terms of absurdity? Are we not constrained in our engagements with others to act in one way or another through exercising simulation or dissimulation, revealing or concealing our intentions or desires behind the masks which we daily don? Are we not forced to admit and confront what are considered human aberrations from our stipulations of normal human behaviour? Are we not also then constrained to engage again and again in the difficult tasks of expression and interpretation of signs and gestures? Given that constraint, in the intermingling of our roles as actor, spectator and critic, then, we present and perceive public faces which are marked and masked with lines and traces of our ethical relations.
The critical theory of subject, society, culture and history of the Frankfurt School originated in the experience of the horror of World War I. Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, Theodor W. Adorno, Friedrich Pollock, Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, Alfred Sohn-Rethel and other, later critical theorists tried to make sense out of the senseless war experience in Frankfurt a. M., Berlin, Stuttgart, or elsewhere, by exploring the writings of Immanuel Kant, Friedrich W.J. Schelling, Georg W.F. Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud.
Our intention in this brief article is to explore the idea of what it means to be a >good< manager. We discuss some of the dilemmas faced by managers seeking to define their role performance in terms additional to those of organizational effectiveness and efficiency. To do this, we describe critical aspects of the contemporary context. We propose that the changes we are experiencing give organizations a central role in how people define their personal and social well-being. Our contention is that in this central role organizations will be faced with situations requiring solutions of fundamental value conflicts. This means that the nature of the question as to what it means to be a >good< manager will become both increasingly important and increasingly complex. Further, the exploration of the issue can no longer be limited to operational efficiency, but must include the manager's capacity to conceptualise both his own role and that of the organization within the broader socio-environmental context. We contribute to the dialogue by proposing that being >good< will involve on the part of the manager an awareness of the values involved in a decision and an alignment of action with what Erich Fromm has called >life-giving< values. This approach in no way diminishes the requirement that a manager be competent in the fullest sense of the word; it requires, however, a deeper understanding of competence and of the commitment a manager will need to act justly, fairly and with care.
Instruments designed to measure Fromm's marketing character (SCOI; Saunders & Munro, 2000) and the vertical and horizontal dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk & Gelfand, 1995) were administered to 167 Ss. The hypothesis that scores on the SCOI would be positively correlated with Vertical Individualism was supported. However, there was only partial support for the hypothesis that scores on the SCOI would be positively correlated with Individualism, as the SCOI scores had the same relationship with Collectivism – which was unexpected.
The twentieth century is notable for the widespread growth of market-driven economies which have been associated with dramatic shifts in values both within and across cultures. The present study (N=101) aimed to assess the relationship between a measure of Fromm's (1955) marketing character (the SCOI) and Rokeach values. The hypothesis that the Rokeach value >Equality< would be ranked low when considered in terms of scores on the SCOI was supported, suggesting that social comparisons made in the consumer domain are made with the aim of determining relative success or failure rather than equality.
Préface
(2001)
Zainteresowanie psychoanalizą w Polsce wykazuje zmienne koleje losu. Najkrócej można by powiedzieć, że intuicje i odkrycia Freuda wzbudzały znamienny rezonans intelektualny w Dwudziestoleciu międzywojennym ..., żeby następnie ulec zapomnieniu czy wyparciu, zresztą nie bez wpływu >czynników oficjalnych< – w Polsce komunistycznej. W ostatnich jednak latach obserwujemy >powrót psychoanalizy<, z czego znakomicie zdaje sprawę numer 1/2 >Tekstów Drugich< z 1998 roku. Szkic ten składa się z dwóch części, które mają poziom interpretacyjny i teoretyczny. W pierwszej pokazujemy klasyczne zastosowanie wczesnej psychoanalizy do badania tekstu, a w drugiej – proponujemy nowy sposób interpretacji, wykorzystując współczesną myśl psychoanalityczną. Początki >krytyki freudowskiej< wiążą się z próbami analizy literackiej pióra samego Freuda, a także z jego esejem teoretycznym Pisarz i fantazjowanie. Zająłem się tym zagadnieniem szerzej w mojej pracy pt. Modele freudowskiej metody badania dzieła literackiego (Lublin 1991). Toteż tutaj ograniczę się tylko do praktycznej ilustracji freudowskiej metody badania literatury na przykładzie opowiadania Gombrowicza Na kuchennych schodach, żeby ostatecznie wydobyć istotne rejestry teoretyczne i aksjologiczne freudyzmu. Druga część szkicu to refleksja nad ważną książką Ericha Fromma Rewizja psychoanalizy, w której autor proponuje nową wizję człowieka na tle nieświadomościs połecznej, przekraczając tym samym Freudowską >grawitację libidalną< w kierunku rozległej problematyki idola. Ten reformatorski punkt widzenia współczesnej psychoanalizy, który docenia również duchowy wymiar człowieka, próbujemy na koniec także zastosować do interpretacji wybranych aspektów twórczości Gombrowicza.
The profile and ideas of Erich Fromm are shown through his philosophy basic conceptions and notions as: freedom and love, humanistic religion, orientation for >to be<. Author describes Fromm's paradoxical logic and new man's and society project.
Response to review
(2001)
Elise, in her own erudite and engaging way, addresses the question, >Why won't he really talk to me-< Underpinning her core argument, Elise posits that a >masculine sense of self is felt to be dependent on an impermeable psychic boundary that is not to be penetrated.< In coining male impenetrability as the >citadel complex,< however, Elise introduces a lexicon of battle, polarization, and defense. And it is around this arena of her argument that Wrye raises most of her questions. First, Wrye questions if Elise's conceptualization of a penetrating nipple forcing >Unlawful Entry< into the vulnerable young male psyche reflects the lived, body-based experience of nursing mothers and babies. She also raises the question of whether Elise is describing normal >good-enough< or pathological mothering and fathering? Is she talking about a psychoanalytic model that emphasizes the biological differences between the sexes as opposed to the particular dynamics of the nursing couple? Does Elise's model privilege more binary gender-identity models than models of gender pluralities? Wrye suggests that the paper might actually have been developed as three smaller theoretical papers with more clinical >flesh< on each of the three strands: (a) the forces of bodily development on the male psyche (b) its role in the establishment of gender identity and (c) the >law of the father< in the course of separation-individuation.
Reply to Orange
(2001)
This. Reply elucidates the ideas originally presented in >Countertransference: Our New Royal Road to the Unconscious< (PD 9/3, 1999) in acknowledgment of Irwin Hirsch's commentary (this issue). It refutes Hirsch's erroneous conception that my paper suggested that the personality of the analyst could be extricated from the interactional matrix of the psychoanalytic relationship and that persons could be separated from their minds. By drawing these false dichotomies, Hirsch only polemicizes rather than clarifies the complex relationship existing between an analyst's subjectivity and his or her personality.
Anthony Bass's paper is viewed from the perspective of the object relations orientation of a member of the British Group of Independent Psychoanalysts. The perceived transference – countertransference >equality< in the interpersonal model is described in the light of the asymmetry of the analytic relationship implied in the object relations relation model used by many Independents. The structuring role of object relationships in analysis is touched on, and the relationship between exploration of the unconscious and internal construction processes is raised. In addition, Bion's model of >O,< which seems to me to reflect many of the inherent qualities of Singer's and Bass's model, is not referred to in Bass's paper. To what extent has Bion's thinking influenced the interpersonal model?
I discuss the views of Lester Luborsky (quite optimistic) and of Hans H. Strupp (less so) concerning the accumulating evidence for the favorable impact of psychoanalytic therapy research, as it has grown over recent decades, in shaping clinical psychoanalytic activity. I offer my perspectives on their views of the issues of (a) the effectiveness of psychoanalytic (psychodynamic) therapies vis-à-vis the varieties of nonanalytically based therapies (b) long-term (time-unlimited) vis-à-vis short-term (time-limited) therapy, (c) the call for empirically supported treatments (ESTs), (d) the call for randomized clinical trials (RCTs), (e) the trend toward >manualization< of therapy approaches, and (f) the light that all these considerations can cast on the extent to which, and how, psychoanalytic therapy helps.
Reply to Panel Questions
(2001)
The emotional connection between patients and therapists and between developmental infants and researchers is argued to be a uniting basis for discussion of differences between therapists and researchers. Infant-mother research is seen as providing an understanding of the specificity of relationships and of the dyadic expansion of consciousness (DEC). DEC is hypothesized to be a mechanism of developmental change as well as a change process of therapy.
Several years ago, I talked about a case in a clinical seminar. I presented the work in a style that is different from usual because I was experimenting with how to best evoke the experience of being with this patient for my listeners. This paper is a continuation of that presentation, now through written rather than spoken word. In writing it, I struggled with the same dilemma of how to evoke the ambience, the feel of being with this patient. I begin with a discussion of some of the dilemmas involved in writing up clinical work when the aim is to stay close to the experience rather than to illustrate theoretical or technical points. I present a few sample vignettes of my work with this patient and then an analysis of how my writing style, including use of sounds, grammar, and word placement, contributes to evoking experience. I continue with a brief discussion of my experiences in presenting the case in the seminar and use these experiences to highlight aspects of the case. I ask the reader to become personally involved in the experiment by paying attention to what is evoked when reading the material.
In this article, I critique the empirically supported treatment (EST) movement and discuss the limitations of traditional psychotherapy research from a psychoanalytic perspective. The EST movement is based on a medical model that assumes that a psychotherapeutic treatment can be conceptualized independent of the human relationship in which it takes place. Psychotherapy and psychoanalysis are, however, treatments only in a metaphorical sense and are more akin to educational processes than medical treatments. Every therapeutic dyad is unique, and research that treats therapy as a standardized, disembodied entity will not contribute to our understanding. Nevertheless, there is a real need for psychoanalysts to become more actively involved in psychotherapy research both for political and scientific reasons. Although I do not believe that >empirical validation< in the form envisaged by the American Psychological Association task force is a realistic goal, I do believe in the value of microscopic studies of therapeutic process, particularly in the context of research-informed case histories.
My approach in this review of Irwin Hoffman's Ritual and Spontaneity in the Psychoanalytic Process is historical and explicative. I discuss the book's reprinted works in their original publication sequence in order to highlight the emergence of themes over time. I then discuss the chapters written expressly for this volume in light of these themes.
In this review of Ritual and Spontaneity in the Psychoanalytic Process, I suggest that Irwin Hoffman's claim that his proposed paradigm of constructivism is revolutionary becomes more comprehensible and substantial if we realize that constructivism not only is an epistemological stance but is a profoundly ethical and even theological position that sees construction as construction in the face of death. The pronounced dialectical approach Hoffman is espousing and developing enables us to see the underside of uncertainty not only as epistemological complexity but as the ever present potential for moral fallibility and guilt.
Reply to Stern
(2001)
Irwin Hoffman's book Ritual and Spontaneity includes, but goes well beyond, his series of seminal papers – written over the past several decades – developing a psychoanalytic, constructivist perspective. A new, existential framework depicts what Hoffman calls the >psychobiological bedrock< at the core of the human process of constructing meaning – the lifelong effort to create a livable, subjective world in face of our ever present sense of loss, suffering, and, ultimately, mortality. This review describes Hoffman's encompassing, existential perspective and discusses how, within this framework, he uses his dialectical sensibility to frame our understanding of both parenting and analysis as >semisacred< activities. The >dialectic of ritual and spontaneity< – the vital clash between disciplined adherence to the analytic frame and personally expressive deviations from it – represents the creative tension between the >magical< dimension of analytic authority and the healing influence of a genuinely expressive human relationship. Hoffman's perspective on the self-interested, >dark side< of the analytic relationship is compared with Winnicott's views on the vital, therapeutic role of >hate< and the paradoxical process by which the patient comes to >use< the analyst. Unlike most postmodernist >constructivists,< Hoffman openly reveals his underlying belief in certain >transcultural, transhistorical universals< – his >psychobiological bedrock.< In acknowledging these >essentials< (assumptions about human nature) that in some form are integral, yet often hidden, elements of any system of thought, Hoffman saves his own dialectical constructivism from falling into dichotomous (constructivist vs. essentialist) thinking.
In this commentary, I discuss Anthony Bass's humane, courageous article about the unconscious connection between analyst and analysand. His focus on the meeting of unconscious minds lends a refreshingly democratic tilt to the treatment relationship. His primary emphasis on the unconscious, however, seems to de-emphasize the vital role of consciousness and its capacity to engage the revelations of the unconscious. Similarly, Bass's theoretical focus on a fundamental underlying unity, though of great significance, seems to minimize the importance of separateness and the fact that the analyst and analysand have discrepant experiences. Bass's treatment of Ralph, a patient with terminal cancer, highlights the differences in the experiences of both participants as well as the underlying human frailties they have in common. In this light, I suggest that Ralph's relationship with Bass enabled him to >live before dying,< to separate and gain a sense of integrity before returning to the whole.
Reply to Panel Questions
(2001)
Lachmann's paper is reviewed as an essential statement of the implications of empirical infant research for psychoanalytic theory and technique, oriented by his intersubjectivist self-psychological perspective. His essay reflects the extent to which this application has come to maturity. This commentary elaborates several of his points: that infancy, basic psychopathology, and primitivity are not analogous the emphasis on continuity in development and the importance of social reciprocity and adaptation in early relationship and development. I note theoretical resonances to other psychoanalytic orientations, including developmental ego psychology, British object relations theory, contemporary Kleinian thinking, and, especially, the contemporary American relational movement. Lachmann's clinical approach is then discussed as fitting into the overall relational emphasis on reciprocity and direct engagement in psychoanalysis. Within a framework of broad agreement, I wonder if Lachmann overemphasizes affirmative and idealizing selfobject relations at the expense of other transferences and mutual influence patterns. Finally, the theory of motivational systems is reviewed as an important innovation that does not go far enough in integrating dynamic systems theory.
Psychoanalysis is in the throes of transition and suffers in diverse quarters from a case of postmodern jitters. We are casting aside old paradigms and approach the new with trepidation. We fail to see that deconstruction is a practice rather than an end in itself. The bridge from the old to the new is yet to be completed. This response to reviews of Sexual Subjects: Lesbians, Gender and Psychoanalysis argues that psychoanalysis is not value free in theory or practice, nor can it be. Attempts to deconstruct psychoanalytic concepts of gender and sexuality aim, rather, at delineating values and demonstrating just how they are reflective of a particular siruation in place and time. The deconstruction of gender does not preclude the study of development – a development that is grounded in the analytic decoding and attribution of meaning to experience rather than morphology or critical stages. A hermeneutic-constructivist psychoanalysis is not necessarily at odds with a developmental approach to narrative. Moreover, a theory that acknowledges the performative aspects of gender can simultaneously account for >internal representations< that result from our specific historicities, our intersubjective, fantasized relationships. The deconstruction of gender binaries – the historical imposition of gendering on aspects of experience, desire, and identity that are culturally but not essentially related to constitutionally based sexual differences – does not necessitate the dismantling of a frame of self-systems, or the language that may be best suited for describing an individual's experience.
This introduction to the symposium explores the key features of the American Psychological Association empirically supported treatment (EST) guidelines, the forces leading to their development, and some of the potential implications of these guidelines for the future of psychoanalysis. The EST guidelines consist of (a) a set of criteria for identifying psychotherapeutic treatments that can be considered effective on the basis of research evidence and (b) a list of treatments that meet these criteria. These guidelines are an outgrowth of a more general trend in the health care system – the shift toward an evidence-based practice model. Although the EST movement clearly has important professional implications for psychoanalysis, categorizing and possibly dismissing the relevant concerns as exclusively political or territorial would be a mistake. At issue are fundamentally important epistemological and ethical concerns.
In this conclusion, I synthesize and elaborate on some of the central threads running through the contributions to the symposium on the implications of the empirically supported treatment (EST) controversy for psychoanalysis. I argue that the EST controversy brings increased urgency to discussions about the role that empirical research should play in the development of psychoanalysis and about the potential contributions of different research paradigms to the field. Different research paradigms are associated with different epistemologies and worldviews, and the dialogue between these worldviews is critical to the vitality and health of the field. On one hand, the EST movement embodies limited, mechanistic, and one-sided values, and psychoanalysis has an important role to play in challenging these values. On the other hand, the EST movement can offer an important corrective to the more insular and rarefied strands within psychoanalysis and to its tradition of argument on the basis of authority.
This article juxtaposes two orientations to psychoanalytic theory and clinical action – the prescriptive, embodied in the metaphor of classical theater, and the improvisational, embodied in the metaphor of improvisational theater. The metaphor of classical theater is analogous to how the theoretical predilections of each school of psychoanalysis has its own set of prescriptions (>sets,< >roles,< and >scripts<) for how an analyst influences mutative moments of change with a patient. In contrast, the metaphor of improvisational theater refers to actions that arise on the spur of the moment, without preparation. These improvisational moments ineluctably communicate to the patient a special instance of authenticity, which may well be antidotal to the crushing reality of the patient's life of pervasive inauthenticity. They also enable analysts to more readily engage disparate, often dissociatively disconnected parts of the patient through imaginative intersubjective engagement with each. This may take the form of reverie within the analyst – from which his own mental state of play informs his interpretation. Still, at other times, it may involve a form of spontaneous engagement that conveys not only a moment of deep recognition but also the purest state of authentic engagement – that is, one that cannot arise with comparable impact when reflection precedes the analyst's action. In sum, the capacity for engaging in improvisation may well be one of the most defining capacities for the development of a genuine psychoanalysis.