Is this the end of the scholarly journal? Article in Christian Science Monitor

Is this the end of the scholarly journal?

Publishing research to blogs and e-books is so easy, some are wondering if peer-reviewed journals are on their way to obsolescence.

Click Here: Gregory M. Lamb | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

This article raises a question about the future of print peer reviewed scientific journals. My sense is that there will be a place for quality peer reviewed journals in psychoanalysis.

Proust and the Love of Longing by Arlene Kramer Richards and Lucille Spira

Chick here for: Arlene Kramer Richards and Lucille Sprira on Proust and the Love of Longing

This work in progress is an attempt to learn something from a great artist
and commentator on human nature that will be applicable to clinical work
with analytic patients. We would be especially glad to hear from readers
how the ideas about loneliness and aloneness being valued over fulfillment
accord with their clinical observations. Case vignettes would be especially
welcome.    Arlene  

 

Leon Hoffman on “Avoiding the ‘alphabet soup’ maze: Parents with difficult children”

There have been many reports in the press recently about families with
children who have developmental, emotional and/or behavioral difficulties.
These articles help other parents recognize that they are not alone with
their angst and frustrations. Among the many issues addressed in these
reports are that psychiatrists and other mental health professionals are
unsure as to how best treat children with complex disorders, and whether
the use of several psychotropic medications simultaneously are indicated.

Unfortunately, much too often parents are faced with a dilemma as to
how to proceed because, to quote one parent, “they hear an alphabet soup
of labels that seem to change as often as a child’s shoe size.” Most often
categorizing a child with a standard diagnostic label does not do justice
to
the child or the family in trying to determine the best therapeutic course
to
follow. Too many of us have been led to believe that if we only made the
“right” diagnosis we could find the “right” medication or combination of
medications for the child. A current example is the ubiquity with which the

diagnosis of bipolar disorder is made in children with a variety of
disruptive
and/or mood symptoms. These children are often very quickly prescribed
mood stabilizers. This approach has many pitfalls.

So what are parents to do when faced with complex behavioral and/or
emotional situations with their children? Whenever parents bring their
children to mental health professionals, the parents will feel frightened,
anxious, puzzled; they may not even be able to know what questions to
ask, especially if they are worried or if it’s their first contact with a
professional.

In such a state, how can parents judge the value of the professional’s
assessment?

With the helpful guidelines that follow.

If, from the very first contact, the mental health professional  enters into a collaborative relationship with the parents – that professional and parent will work jointly to determine the best course to follow for the child- the parents should feel assured they are in good hands.

Parents should see evidence that the mental health professional will be assessing five eneral areas of the child’s behavior.

First, the professional needs to understand how the parents view the child’s symptoms. This includes how the child’s symptoms affect the family and how do family interactions affect the child. Second, the professional needs to assess how the child experiences his or her symptoms. It’s critical to the treatment to understand how the child interacts with people around him or her: with the parents, siblings, relatives, other children, other
significant adults, and in school; as well as, how others interact with him or her. In other
words the parents and professional together try to understand how the child’s
social development has proceeded.

In addition to an assessment of the child’s emotional and social development, the
child’s sensory, motor, and cognitive development need to be evaluated. This
includes understanding the nature of the child’s responses to sensory stimuli
(appropriate, under-reactive, over-reactive); fine motor and gross motor development;
language development; memory; fund of knowledge; ability to understand social
situations; and changes in school performance.

With these assessments accomplished, the professional in collaboration with
the parents is ready to come up with a diagnosis. By that I do not mean simply
a specific label, such as ADHD or bipolar or depression, based on the number
and frequency of particular symptoms. Rather I mean, as those of us who
work intensively with children and their families use the term, “diagnosis,” in
a broad sense, how do we understand the child’s symptoms in terms of his or her
current state of development, his emerging personality pattern, and with his
particular family structure.

In trying to understand the child, we try to ascertain whether the problem concerns mainly the child’s feelings (is it mainly depression or anxiety)? Or does the problem relate mainly to the child’s sensory, motor, and/or cognitive development with emotional reactions secondary to those problems? Or is the problem is mainly what’s called an “externalizing” kind of problem?

In other words, does the child express his problems primarily through action rather than through expressing subjective distressful feelings, particularly with words? Whether there is a problem with the child’s ability to differentiate his or her fantasy life from the rest of his experience? Whether the child experiences a conflict within him or herself or does he or she only feel a conflict with other people? Whether there is a mixture that is hard to tease apart?
And, how do the child’s problems impact on and interact with the family’s feelings and functions?

And here’s the most important guideline. Parents need to remember that a diagnostic assessment is always a “work in progress.” As time and treatment evolve, both parents and mental health professionals always need to be sensitive and allow for modifications and changes in direction.

Only after such a comprehensive evaluation can one understand the adaptive and maladaptive patterns in the child and family and implement a treatment plan which always has to include supportive work with the parents. Together, parent and professional have to decide the specifics that are best for the child at “this” particular time. The possibilities include psychotherapy, a variety of remediation interventions, special classes or schools, pharmacotherapy, or some combination of these and other modalities of treatment. The comprehensive approach I am describing requires time and adequate resources.

Unfortunately, in today’s climate of limited insurance benefits and the ascendance
of the psychopharmacological revolution, too many of our children visit a child
psychiatrist once or twice and are quickly diagnosed to have a “disorder,” resulting
in the “need” for powerful psychotropic medications. Certainly some children require
psychotropic medications and/or mood stabilizers. However, without an adequate
comprehensive evaluation and without comprehensive ongoing care, families and
children may enter into the “alphabet soup” maze where one diagnostic label after
another is followed by a trial of one medication after another. And more than ever,
the climate of the nation’s health care complex is short shifting health care for our
children. We should be mindful and be attentive to just how our children are cared for.

Leon Hoffman, MD
Chief Psychiatrist, West End Day School, NYC
Board Certified Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, Certified Child and
Adolescent Psychoanalyst

Leon Hoffman, MD
Director, Pacella Parent Child Center of
The NY Psychoanalytic Institute & Society
167 East 67th Street
NY NY 10021
212.249.1163
917.767.6575
73542.334@compuserve.com
http://www.theparentchildcenter.org/

Interpretation: Freud’s Specific or Relevant Action,and Klein’s Point of Urgency” with Chris Mawson at UPMS

Interpretation: Freud’s Specific or Relevant Action,and Klein’s Point of Urgency”
Chris Mawson
presented by
Understanding Primitive Mental States
Friday, May 1, 2015
7:30-9:30pm

To speak or not to speak; and if we intervene in the patient’s associations, on what should we focus our interpretation, and in what terms? What role does anxiety play in such decisions? How can we speak more to the point? Continue reading Interpretation: Freud’s Specific or Relevant Action,and Klein’s Point of Urgency” with Chris Mawson at UPMS

Two book reviews of interest

“Freudian whip: Latest bio offers unflattering look at lauded psychoanalyst” by John Cruickshank. Chicago Sun-Times, January 21, 2007. [A review of FREUD: INVENTOR OF THE MODERN MIND by Peter D. Kramer, HarperCollins, 224 pages, $21.95.]

“Freud’s Will to Power” by Ronald W. Dworkin. The New York Sun, November 29, 2006. [A review of FREUD: INVENTOR OF THE MODERN MIND by Peter D. Kramer, HarperCollins, 213 pages, $21.95.]

Available Now! Below the Line in Beijing by Richard Seldin from IPBooks.net

lilSeldin-Front-Cover-CClick Here to Purchase:  Below the Line in Beijing by Richard Seldin on IPBooks.net

Below the Line in Beijing is a provocative exploration of love, psychoanalysis, dissociative mental states and male sexuality. Without apparent cause, the novel’s protagonist, a 61 year-old attorney and former track star, awakens next to his wife in his Baltimore home unable to speak.  He questions whether his sudden muteness is due to loss of sexual desire for his wife, but this isn’t new. For several years, he’s been undergoing a second psychoanalysis to understand his physical indifference to her as well as powerful fantasies about hooking-up with young women.  These fantasies have intensified following the appearance of Jim, his alter ego. Continue reading Available Now! Below the Line in Beijing by Richard Seldin from IPBooks.net

Freud Envy?

John Cruickshank’s review of Peter Kramer’s biography of Freud (Chicago Sun-Times, January 21, 2007) for me strikes the right balance of critical and questioning appraisals of Freud’s life and work. It is in sharp contrast to a review by Ronald Dwarkin in the New York Sun on November 29, 2006 – a front Arts page review no less with the title Freud’s Will To Power and a picture of Freud and colleagues with Stanley Hall at Clark University on the cover of the newspaper. The NY Sun review seemed to me a tendentious review of a tendentious book (I confess I have not read the volume) and it was hard for me to separate the views of the reviewer from the views of the reviewed. I was moved to right the following letter (which was not published).

To the editor:

It would appear from Dworkin’s review of Freud: The Inventor of the Modern Mind Peter Kramer’s tendentious biography of Freud that Peter Kramer is way off base starting from his citation of the dirty hands story (he messed up a chair as a child, but promised his mother than when he grew up to be a great man he’d buy her another) as evidence of a fierce ambition and a will to power. Kramer is offering a Freudian interpretation of Freud’s psychology by finding its roots in the ambivalence conflicts of his childhood including Oedipal wishes which Dworkin dismisses as gross generalizations based on “a few questionable patient experiences.” Freud moved from clinical observation to clinical generalization to clinical theory to broad and speculative constructs called metapsychology. He referred to the latter as the scaffolding which could be discarded without disturbing the house.

Freud was a scientist and a humanist. Some of his notions about the way the mind works have been found to be consistent with current findings in neuroscience, and his psychology serves as the foundation for most psychotherapies. He was a great writer — in 1930 he received the Goethe Prize for creativity from the city of Frankfurt, and like many great novelists he was a keen observer of human nature. In my view Freud’s most enduring contribution is his contention that words can change the way we think and feel and relate to each other and words can change brain chemistry. He is even more relevant in this age of psychopharmacology and manual diagnosis than he was in his time.

Arnold Richards

Also posted on The Sun’s website are a few Letters to the Editor from Ben Swetland, Brian Buchbinder, Fred Sander, and Norman Rosenblood.

There is also a interview with Peter Kramer in the California Litarary Review

What do you think?