International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies最新文献

In the UK in 2007 a national experiment was initiated with the aim of tackling “Britain's Biggest Social Problem”—Depression. Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) was devised as the solution. A universal free-to-access talking therapies program would make available evidence-based treatment to all adults with depression. NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence), the body that decides on what is cost-effective, said CBT, not antidepressants, should be its first line offer. The starting gun was fired. The promise from IAPT was 3-fold: to scale up access to CBT rapidly; to achieve recovery targets that would reduce the prevalence of depression over time; and—most ambitious of all—to ensure the Treasury would see a return on its investment by reducing the economic burden from depression. People who were on invalidity benefits due to depression would be supported back into employment. It was a New Deal for depression. As well as for CBT. But did it work? A decade and a half on with IAPT, are we in any position to give an answer? This paper will seek to draw lessons about “What Worked”, and what didn't, to ask ourselves a question: are we—those of us in the applied psychoanalytic community—willing to garner what can be learned from IAPT to advocate a new deal for evidence-based psychoanalysis? Faced with challenges from unemployment and widening inequalities, against a backdrop where global economic recovery must heed the existential threats from climate change and ongoing warfare, to say nothing of the scale of loss and grief for those already impacted by bereavement due to the pandemic, the need for some such deal could not be more urgent.

In January of 2015 Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan hosted the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the newly built extravagant and highly controversial presidential palace. Sixteen warriors representing all of the former Turkic empires in full costume were present at the welcoming ceremony. This paper uses Volkan's psycho-political framework to understand state-led efforts of historical revisionism which manifest itself in historical glories and nostalgia for the Ottoman Empire. The central argument posits that grandiose or mega projects strategically serve historical revisionism in Turkey, amplifying selected glories of Turkish society to bolster support for authentic and national narrative, known as “yerli ve milli (domestic and national)”

During the twentieth century took place a “battle of paradigms” involving all disciplines that inform Psychiatry and Psychology. Basically, the dispute was about the respective contribution of science and hermeneutics in disciplinary paradigms. Psychoanalysis has not been absent from this battle; it is still debated whether psychoanalysis should be considered a scientific discipline or a hermeneutic discipline. In this paper, the author reviews his 40-year career as a university professor of psychiatry and as a psychoanalyst, during which he has been a committed observer and active participant of psychoanalytic and psychiatric disputes. He reflects on how he lived this gap in Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis, and how he sees the future of Psychoanalysis under the light of new emerging epistemological frameworks.

Using the narrative “The Big Lie,” which is placed in the socio-political context, and based on data gathered from social media, clinical material, interviews and documentaries, the author examines from a psychoanalytic perspective the effective power and dynamics of conspiracy narratives that create an “alternative reality” with “conviction capsules,” using lies and distortions of reality consciously employed as means of agitation on the breeding ground of unconscious relational and regression processes. To sketch the emergence and development of this willingness, the author combines the explanations of Wilfred Bion, Susan Isaacs and Herbert Rosenfeld and develops the hypothesis, including the concept of “perverted containing,” that due to unsuccessful containing processes in the earliest relationship experiences, defensively inflexible, sealed “conviction capsules” develop, permeated by fears of confusion and annihilation, by hatred as well as phantasies of powerlessness and superiority. Underlying these, experienced as existentially threatening, are panic about change and excessive identification with a hard, alleged omnipotent object, linked to an unconscious longing for symbiosis with a “savior”—a conglomerate that breeds susceptibility to conspiracy narratives and totalitarian, destructive populist leaders. As one example, the destructive-symbiotic relationship dynamic between Donald Trump and his supporters is outlined with the escalation of violence.

Existential analyses of Murakami's fiction have dealt mostly with identity issues during adolescence and adulthood. This article presents a different existential conceptualization by examining how Yalom's four ultimate life concerns—isolation, meaninglessness, freedom, and death ─ are embodied in the life of some of Haruki Murakami's fictional protagonists. In this work, I will also bring standard diagnostic nomenclature and psychoanalytic conceptualizations into dialog with the existential tradition, by demonstrating how certain mental conditions, which are considered by clinicians as forms of psychopathology, can also be interpreted as modes of existence in an alienated reality, and as non-conformity.

“Bulgaria on three seas” is a commonly used phrase in Bulgaria. It is used on national celebration days, around government election days, in populist campaigns, on TV shows, on social media, at folkloric concerts and gatherings and in simple everyday conversations. The phrase signifies a specific golden century of Bulgarian history characterized by the fact that Bulgaria reaches the Black, White and Adriatic seas. Today, the phrase is regularly used by Bulgarians when they talk about their country. This glorious time is also used as part of the political and public rhetoric where ideology has nationalistic character. It is present during political public debates about the country's reactions to both its past and its future. The phrase “Bulgaria on three seas” lifts the national spirit during moments of struggle. And all that raises questions about why Bulgarians constantly refer to this part of their history and what this regressive behavior demonstrates. This article aims to provide a psychological explanation, combining the concepts of regression (going back to the past), denial of the present and national inferiority complex (perceived helplessness and weakness) in order to analyze how a nation could respond to its own feelings of national group inferiority. It explains how regression is a response to one's own feelings of inferiority and it contributes to the studies of large-group psychology established by Vamik Volkan by offering an alternative explanation. The work demonstrates that regression is the Bulgarian way of dealing with its own inferiority complexes when in denial about what is happening in the present. This takes place when group identity (or an aspect of it) is questioned. The article also provides a pathway to further exploration of how other nations deal with similar experiences.

Misogyny is a universal prejudice against women manifest in all areas of society. To interrogate the nature of this prejudice, the author uses the family court system as her focus. The myth of gender neutrality in family court is pervasive. Current laws are framed around the assumption that both parents are on a level playing field. The reality is that our legal system is biased against mothers. This often reveals itself in the way courts make determinations of “the best interests of the child”. Family court is a microcosm of societal attitudes about parents, especially mothers, and related beliefs about what protects children. A brief review of family law and the “best interest” standard follows as well as a review of what we know and do not know about what is protective for children. The author reviews the problems inherent in family law and mental health training and practice—forensic and clinical. Although mandated to protect children, family court decisions sometimes have the opposite impact, and at times, even endangering the most protective parent and the child. This occurs mainly by devaluing the caretaking role while requiring the more responsible parent to facilitate the other parent's relationship with the child—regardless of the impact on her and the child. There are many reasons for this, but the basic one is the misogyny built into this system. This essay describes how social science research, psychological theory, and developmental principles are misused by both the legal and mental health professions to that end.

The Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is a multinational treaty designed to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of parental abduction. The Convention requires a mandatory return of a child who was wrongfully removed or retained outside the country of her habitual residence unless a narrow defense preventing return can be proven. When drafted, it was assumed that most abductors would be non-custodial parents disappointed by an adverse custody decision in the home country. It is now clear that women have been disproportionately affected because in many, if not most, U.S. cases, the respondents, that is, the parents accused of the abduction, are the children's primary caregivers. When the child's home country is not willing or capable of protecting the mother and the child, they are forced to flee from often near-lethal danger. Therefore, many cases brought under the Hague Convention involve severe domestic violence. The Hague Convention allows courts to deny the return if it would expose the child to a “grave risk of physical or psychological harm.” Nonetheless, a limited judicial understanding of domestic violence, coupled with societal gender biases, has impeded the application of this defense. Several recent developments discussed in this essay reflect a growing understanding of the lasting traumatic impact of domestic violence on these child victims.