Psych-types
First, lists are discursive; second, they are social
constructions, and the process of studying them can provide, with the right
list, the chance of doing a reflexive investigation of the construction of
a project in the process of construction by its participants, etc. That is,
we would be able to elucidate the processes of
joint action more clearly as something is constructed that one is a participant
in yet has no control over a bluebrint, plan or whatever, such that whatever
'object' (list) that emerges is an unintended consequence of the process
of social interaction - as, in our view, are most social institutions. i
hope this conveys the gist and 'intentionality' aspect of the notion
So while I appreciate the Vygotskian efforts many are making
to construct this discussion on a higher plane (I mean this, just in a hurry!),
I'll like to offer a rather primitive metaphor (let's not devalue primary
process either; there's a fine line between sublimation and intellectualization
- sorry for all the archaic
terms
As I have frantically sorted and sifted through every conceivable
explanation *I'm* most familiar with (mostly psychodynamic stuff:
projective identification, Klienian stuff,
classical and Object relational understanding of defenses and the primitive
anxieties defended against; also the group stuff I'm most familiar with:
Bion, Agazarian) -- well, all of this seems to get
me no where except feeling like it's all a big mess.
The psycologist on this list talk to each using one or two word
phrases to describe complex ideas without missing a beat which leaves me
with a considerable amount of work to do if I want to find out what they're
trying to say, and quite often I'll just skip it. Now you guys are doing
it in code! (p.i.)
My guess is that you know too much about individual psychology
and that it clouds your perceptions of group
psychology. I mean that in the kindest way.
I'll let you in on a little secret which you probably are aware
of (at least unconsciously). I'm near enough to my Ph.D. and have enough
friends and colleagues (including some on this list -- Harriet, Bunny) to
know that those of us who are clinically trained (i.e., went through a doctoral
program requireing alot of focus on clinical theory, training and supervisoin)
consider ourselves to be better equipped for this kind of work than those
with a medical background (psychiatry).
therapy is less so. bores the shit
out of me. and here is the crux: without people like me, you will bore the
shit out of eachother.
(prehaps i should use that clinical "looking through the one-way
mirror", that you said could not work here, to offer a tenitive diagnosis
of substance abuse? he he he)
I suggest all psychologists go back and take an introductory
sociology course before waxing sophomoric on topics their
humanistic education ought to have provided
them with some basic definitions of
Interesting, isn't it, how we treat our own experience as if
it were meaningless.
Why not just keep going if we can continue to find things to
discuss? Or did my announcement that I'm going to start taking a look at
what has been going on send as wave of anxiety
through the group and make everyone self conscious?
Anyway, insufferable shrink is a step closer to reality than
'miracle worker' or 'keeper of the sacred scrolls'... :-)
I have to leap from Bion to Klein, (would
prefer Jung!) to fold in views of 'mature' psychology
"The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the examined
life is impossible to live for more than a few minutes at a time. To fully
accept the idea of unconscious motivation is to cease to be human. The greatest
analyst in the world can live his life only like an ordinary blind and driven
human being. Like his patients , he receives occasional glimpses of the peculiar
activities going on behind the curtain of consciousness; and, like his patients,
he is always running a little behind." [In the Freud Archives, Janet Malcolm,
Vintage, 1985, Page 25]
I joined this list after reading a blurb in the Chronicle of
Higher Ed that sounded promising; after nearly a month's lurking, I find
myself tiring of psychobabble.
I speak with some expertise with what I am about to say, as
I am a psychotherapist and specialist in abuse. I am a co-author of the book
"The Violence of Men" and research and treat emotionally and physically violent
men. Fred, you owe individuals on this list an apology
As we have attracted a bunch who are generally interested in
psychoanalytic theory, touchy feely stroke stroke is almost inevitable, although
we are going to be rather self-conscious about it.
(Have I shifted from psycho-babble to techno-babble? Sorry,
gang.)
Let me acquaint myself to those of you who do not know me. I
am a transpersonal psychotherapist specializing in long term personality
development. My philosophy and practice of therapy is that of a mutual journey
wherein I emotionally and intellectually accompany those with whom I work.
My life work involves establishing an ongoing forum to dialogue with people
all over the world for the purpose of understanding Adult Giftedness.
I'm one of the people on this is list who are not in anyway
involved in psych/soc rather I'm a businessman.
This list is very turned towards those who are professionals in psych/soc
-- or wannabes. I find the idea of a Tavistock
experience less that attractive since it would appear to be just an extension
of our fairly psycho-babble-esque experience so far.
a person who having completed medical school, done a residency
in psychiatry, completed pychoanalytic training and remains an ass tends
to excite compassion much more than contempt. So no fun, just try not to
hurt them.
your intro suddenly made me realize I've been a psychobabbler
too, even though I didn't think I was.
As far as I am concerned, every single human being on this planet
is a mental health professional,
let me up the ante by noting that there are psychologists and
psychologists. Although therapy types often feel
we researchers exist as hand maidens to the couch, the research types generally
think the clinicial types have no ideas of what they are doing. Thus, we
use much of the same language in radically different ways, meaning wildly
different things, and often not understanding each other at all! This is
just as true of psych lists as in any other realm.
I perceive Harriet's one person struggle against many who simply
don't understand that she, like myself, and frankly like most good psychoanalysts
who are worth their weight are CURIOUS about...well, first of all about
ourselves, and secondly about others and most of all curious about how we
all interact...interpersonally, intraperson-ally, in groups, alone, insane,
creatively, restrictively, healthily, unhealthily, ....Now, I have stopped
telling people at "social functions" like parties, standing in line at the
market, meetings with my kids teachers, etc. I DON"T TELL them what I like
to do, and what I do, because I come up against instantaneous fear, suspicion,
derision (masked fear, really), minimizing, amateur analyzing...RARELY, do
I find someone who is simply CURIOUS.
Again please remember I'm not a guy in a diner, i.e., I'm speaking
as a clinician and a group dynamics consultant and as a participant in this
list.
You're right, I did sound like I was crying for help. That was
not in my awareness when I wrote it, I don't think. (Piss on you guys who
think all behaviors are intentional at some level. (grin))
it's interesting that most people are wary of psychological
labeling yet jump at the first chance to label themselves
One guy's acting out is another's getting to the heart of the
matter, eh?
I'm going to jump in here. I'm not in the "psych field", but
I'm sure I'm as psycho as the next person.
Return to Index