Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and ...
PSYCHOANALTYIC THEORIES III
Co-chairs--Drs. Halpern and Kenny
Instructors--Drs. Kraebber, Lotterman, Marcus, Powell, Richardson, Schwartz & Zimmer Associate Instructor—
DATE /SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR
2014-2015
The Uses of Theory
10/9 1 Introduction - The Uses of Theory Dr. Halpern
Currents in Kleinian Thought
10/16 2 Unconscious phantasy and transference Dr. Zimmer
10/23 3 Early mental life: the concept of position
and the early Oedipus complex Dr. Zimmer
10/30 4 Projective identification, communication
and listening Dr. Zimmer
11/6 5 The Oedipus complex in later Kleinian thought Dr. Zimmer
11/13 6 Envy Dr. Zimmer
Aspects of Contemporary Ego Psychology
11/20 7 Modern Structural Theory and Symbolization Dr. Kraebber
12/4 8 Symbolization II & Unconscious Fantasy Dr. Kraebber
12/11 9 Ego Psychological Critiques of Object Relations,
Self Psychology & Hermeneutics Dr. Kraebber
12/18 10 Symbolic Representation (Marcus) Dr. Marcus
1/8 11 Sex & Romance (Kernberg, A. Reich, Kahn) Dr. Marcus
1/22 12 Fetish Dr. Marcus
1/29 13 Fetish Enactment Dr. Marcus
The British Object Relations Theories
2/5 14 Introduction to Object Relations and Fairbairn Dr. Lotterman
2/12 15 Fairbairn Dr. Lotterman
2/19 16 Winnicott Dr. Lotterman
2/26 17 Winnicott, Balint and Bollas Dr. Lotterman
French Interpreters of Freud
3/5 18 Field Theory I Dr. Schwartz
3/12 19 Field TheoryII Dr. Schwartz
3/19 20 Laplanche Dr. Schwartz
3/26 21 Lacan I Dr. Schwartz
4/2 22 Lacan II Dr. Schwartz
Sandler & Schafer_____________________________________________
4/9 23 Sandler Dr. Powell
4/16 24 Schafer Dr. Powell
Intersubjectivity/Relational
4/23 25 Relational Psychoanalysis (Mitchell) Dr. Kraebber
4/30 26 Intersubjectivity (Ogden) Dr. Kraebber
Self Psychology and the Development of the Self
5/7 27 A Review of Kohut’s Self Psychology Dr. Richardson
5/14 28 Contemporary Self Psychology:
Themes & Variations Dr. Richardson
5/21 29 The Oedipal Selfobject Transference Dr. Richardson
5/28 30 The Self Psychological Approach to Sexuality Dr. Richardson
6/4 31 Chronic Narcissistic Rage, Masochism & Envy:
A view Through Two Lenses Dr. Richardson
6/11 32 Final integration:
The relation of theory to technique Dr. Marcus
Seminar 1 Introduction: Uses of Theory Dr. Halpern
|Required: |
| |
|Greenberg, J., Psychoanalysis in North America After Freud, Chapter 2 |
|in Textbook of Psychoanalysis, 2nd edition, ed. by Gabbard, Litowitz, |
|Williams, American Psychiatric Publishing, 2012, pp. 19-33. |
| |
|Optional: |
|Readings: |
| |
|Michels, R. (1999) Psychoanalysts Theories. In Fonagy, P. Cooper, AM and Wallerstein, R (eds.) Psychoanalysis on the Move: The Work of |
|Joseph Sandler. New York: Routledge, pp. 187-200. |
| |
|LaFarge, L. (2004) The analyst’s theorizing states of mind. Presented at Arden House, December 11, 2004. |
| |
|Pine, F. (2006). The Psychoanalytic Dictionary: A Position Paper on Diversity and its Unifiers. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 54:463-491. |
| |
| |
|Study Guide: |
|This lecture focuses on ways of thinking about theory. What kinds of theories do we find in psychoanalysis? How does the analyst use |
|theories? What are the relationships between different theories? What are the potential advantages of using more than one theoretical model?|
|What are the potential disadvantages? |
| |
|Michels - "Psychoanalysts' Theories" |
|What categories of theories does Michels describe and what does he mean by each category? |
| |
|Public vs. private theories |
| |
|Three kinds of larger, public theories: |
| Bridging theories |
| Psychological theories |
| Clinical theories |
|What are the data of each kind of theory? |
|How can each kind of theory be tested? |
|What relationships exist between the three kinds of theories? Can they be integrated? Is it important that they should be? |
| |
|Pine - The Psychoanalytic Dictionary |
|Pine is making an argument for the analyst's use of multiple theories. |
|How does he reconcile different theories of development? |
|Theories which focus on different aspects of mental functioning? |
|Theories which focus on different kinds of data - transference, countertransference, extra-analytic material, past, present? |
|What does Pine see as the core concepts that make a theory psychoanalytic? |
|What is the analyst's optimal stance with relation to the use of multiple theories? How does he decide which one to use when? What causes |
|problems in the analyst's shifting from one theory to another, according to Pine? |
| |
|LaFarge -The Analyst's Theorizing States of Mind |
|What is the analyst's dominant activity/identification when he is in the room with the patient? |
|When he is alone afterward? |
|When he considers this case in relation to more general theories? |
|What is the optimal relationship betweenthese three different modes of theorizing? |
|What problems can arise with each of them? Between them? |
|What problems are raised by keeping theory in the foreground of thinking in the clinical situation? |
|What problems are raised by keeping theory out of mind entirely? |
|Can we keep theory entirely out of mind in any case? |
| |
|Putting the three papers together |
|Are different kinds of theories incompatible? |
|What issues might be seen as dividing points between different theories? |
|Are concepts applicable to theories other than the one in which they originate? |
|What are the advantages/disadvantages of going from one to another? |
|What are the advantages/disadvantages of staying entirely or mainly within one? |
|How are analytic theories to be tested? How can we compare them with one another? |
| |
Currents in Kleinian Thought
Seminar 2 Unconscious Phantasy and Transference Dr Zimmer
|Readings: |
| |
|Isaacs, S. (1952). The nature and function of phantasy. In Developments in Psychoanalysis, ed. Klein and Riviere, London: Hogarth Press. |
| |
|Klein, M. (1952). The origins of transference. In Envy and Gratitude and Other Works 1946-963. London: Hogarth, 1975, pp. 48-56. |
| |
|Klein, M. (1942). Patient G, August, 1942. In Encounters With Melanie Klein: Selected Papers of Elizabeth Spillius, London: Routledge, |
|2007, p. 95-97. |
| |
| |
|Study Questions: |
|Isaacs: "The Nature and Function of Phantasy" |
| |
|*Isaacs paper, presented as part of the Controversial Discussions, places ucs. Phantasy at the very center of mental life. |
|* Why does she use the spelling "phantasy" rather than "fantasy"? |
| *What is ucs phantasy, in her definition? |
| *How does ucs phantasy arise? |
|* What is the timing of the origin of ucs phantasy? |
|* What are early ucs phantasies like? |
|* What drives ucs phantasy? |
| *What is the relationship between ucs phantasy and external reality? |
| *What are the stages of development that ucs phantasy undergoes? |
| *What is the relationship between ucs phantasy and defense mechanisms? |
| *How do we recognize the presence and influence of ucs phantasy in the productions of our patients? |
| *This is a position paper in the debate between Klein and Anna Freud. How do Isaacs' and Klein's views differ from an ego psychological |
|perspective - and particularly from the perspective of A. Freud? |
| |
|Klein: "The Origins of Transference" |
| |
|*Although Klein gives a summary of the development of mental life - the paranoid-schizoid and depressive positions, etc. - our chief |
|interest now is in how early mental life gives rise to transference. |
| *Klein argues that transference is always present, from the very beginning of analysis. |
| *How does this fir with her model? |
| *What does Klein mean by calling transference a "total situation"? |
| *What are the implications of this view? |
| *What data does the analyst look at to uncover the transference situation? |
| *Klein sees transference as kaleidoscopic, constantly in flux. How does this view fit with her model? What are the clinical implications of|
|this view? |
| |
|Patient G, August, 1942 |
| |
|*We will look at this session of Klein's process notes in detail. |
| *How does Klein think of transference in the material? |
| *How does this guide her interpretation? |
| *How can we judge the impact of Klein's interpretation? |
| |
|Does the clinical material surprise you? Is this how you would have expected Klein to work? |
Seminar 3 Early mental life: the concept of position and the early Oedipus complex Dr. Zimmer
|Readings: |
|Klein, M. (1935). A contribution to the psychogenesis of manic-depressive states. In Love, Guilt and Reparation and Other Works 1921-1945. |
|London: Hogarth Press, 1975, pp. 262-290. |
| |
|Klein, M. (1947) An illustration of the schizoid mechanisms (a session from Klein’s process notes found in the Klein Archive). In |
|Encounters With Melanie Klein: Selected Papers of Elizabeth Spillius, London: Routledge, 2007, pp. 82-83. |
| |
|Steiner, J. (1993) The paranoid-schizoid and depressive positions. Ch. 3 in Psychic Retreats, pp. 25-39. |
| |
|Study Questions: |
|THE MOST IMPORTANT GOAL OF THIS LECTURE IS TO UNDERSTAND AND BE ABLE TO FORMULATE THE CHIEF QUALITIES OF THE PARANOID-SHIZOID AND DEPRESSIVE|
|POSITIONS AND HOW THESE APPEAR IN THE CLINICAL SITUATION. |
| |
|1. (Partly a review from last week). How is the object world initiated after birth and what is this very early post-natal object world |
|like? |
|2. What is the central anxiety/danger of the paranoid-schizoid (henceforth the p-s) position? |
|3. Why does Klein use the term position rather than phase? |
|4. What are the chief defenses of the p-s position? |
|5. 5. Taking each of these in turn, how does each one operate? Try to think of a clinical example for each one. |
|a. Splitting |
|b. Projective identification |
|c. Idealization |
|d. Omnipotent control |
|e. Denial |
|6. What do people mean when they say that this represents a "constellation" of defenses? |
|7. What propels movement toward the depressive position? |
|8. What is the central anxiety/danger of the depressive (henceforth the dep) position? |
|9. Why does object loss demand a reworking of the depressive position? |
|10. What are the chief defenses of the dep position? |
|11. Taking each of these in turn, how does each one operate? Try to think of a clinical example of each one. |
|a. Splitting -how is splitting different in the depressive position? |
|b. Manic defense |
|c. Reparation |
|d. Regression to the p-s position |
|12. How does Steiner further subdivide p-s and dep positions? |
|13. What is a psychic retreat? |
|14. Clinical material from Klein: |
|a. Trace the fluctuations between the p-s and dep positions in the material. |
|b. How do you understand th image of the eyes? |
|c. Note Klein's interventions. What is she trying to do? Does she succeed? |
Optional:
Steiner, J. (1993). A theory of psychic retreats. Ch 1. in Psychic Retreats, London/NY: Routledge, pp. 1-13
Seminar 4 Projective Identification, Communication and Listening
Dr. Zimmer
Readings:
Bion, W. (1957) On arrogance. In Second Thoughts. London: Karnac, 1984, pp. 43-64.
Bion, W. (2005). Lectures II & III in The Tavistock Seminars, London: Karnac, pp.13-38.
Spillius, E.B. (1992) Clinical experiences of projective identification. In Clinical Lectures on Klein and Bion, ed. R. Anderson. London: Routledge, pp, 59-73.
Optional:
Bion, W. (1959) Attacks on linking. In Second Thoughts. London: Karnac, pp. 93-109.
N.B. Reading Bion is hard. You may have to rely more on the lecture than you usually do. These questions will be the framework of the lecture. Those that are not clear – or not included – in the reading will be explicated in the class.
Bion is exploring the functioning of a primitive level of communication, based upon projective identification – henceforward p-i.. He builds from this:
1. A model for some severe disturbances that he observes in the functioning of the analytic couple.
2. An expanded understanding of projective identification
3. A model for the development of communication and thought in early life
4. A theory of analytic listening
Following the class, you should be able to formulate each of these, and to begin to understand how they fit together, what problems arise with them, during development and in the clinical situation, and what these look like clinically.
Bionian terms with which you should be familiar after the class:
Reverie, containment, alpha and beta elements, “O”
From Spillius:
1. What are the three models/dimensions of p-I mapped by Spillius?
2. What does Betty Joseph – Spillius’ third model – add to Bion’s?
Seminar 5 The Oedipus Complex in later Kleinian thought
Dr. Zimmer
|Readings: |
| |
|Klein, M. (1945).The oedipus complex in the light of early anxieties. In Love, Guilt and Reparation and Other Works 1921-1945, London: |
|Hogarth, 1975, pp.370-419. |
| |
|Britton, R. (1985). The oedipus situation and the depressive position. In Clinical Lectures on Klein and Bion. Ed. R. Anderson. London: |
|Routledge, 1992, pp. 34-45. |
| |
|Optional |
|Britton, R. et al. (1989) The Oedipus Complex Today, London: Karnac |
| |
|Britton, R. (1998). Subjectivity, objectivity, triangular space. Ch. 3 in Belief and Imagination, pp. 41-58. |
| |
| |
|Study Questions: |
|Just as the aim of the preceding class was to understand the concepts of the paranoid-schizoid and depressive positions, the aim of this |
|class is to be able to understand the Kleinian contribution to the understanding of the Oedipus Complex. |
| |
|1. Begin with Freud's concept of the Oedipus Complex: When does it arise? What does it consist of for the boy? For the girl? What leads to |
|its resolution? |
| 2. Now think about the Kleinian concept: When does it arise? What causes its emergence? What is it like? What does it consist of for the |
|boy? For the girl? How is it worked through? |
| 3. What is the relationship between the Oedipus Complex and the depressive position temporally? Dynamically? |
| 4. What anxieties and phantasies are associated with the earliest phases of the Oedipus complex? |
| 5. How can you conceptualize these in terms of the primal scene? |
| 6. What makes it hard for the child to enter the Oedipus complex? What happens when he/she doesn't? |
| 7. Look at the case of Richard: What is the general outline of the problem Richard is having? How does it get worked through? |
| 8. Look at the case of Rita? What is the general outline of the problem she is having? How does it get worked through? |
| 9. Britton adds the dimension of knowledge to our understanding of the Oedipus complex? What is he saying about this? |
| 10. What problems in knowing result from the failure to tolerate and resolve the Oedipus complex? |
| 11. What notion of the superego is connected with Freud's concept of the Oedipus Complex? What notion of the superego is associated with |
|Klein's concept? |
Seminar 6 Envy Dr. Zimmer
| |
|Required Readings: |
| |
|Klein, M. (1957). Envy and gratitude. In Envy and Gratitude and Other Works 1946-1963. London: Hogarth Press, 1975, pp. 176-235. - |
| |
| |
| |
|Recommended Readings: |
| |
| Joseph, B. (1989). Envy in everyday life. In Psychic Equilibrium and Psychic Change: Selected Papers of Betty Joseph. London and New York: |
|Tavistock |
| |
| |
|Spillius, E.B. (1993). Varieties of envious experience. .Int. J. Psycho-Anal, 74:1199-1212. - |
| |
| |
|Rosenfeld, H. (1964). On the psychopathology of narcissism: a clinical approach. In Psychotic States. London: Hogarth Press, pp. 169-179. - |
| |
| |
|Steiner, J. (1993) Psychic Retreats, Chapter 1, A theory of psychic retreats |
| |
| |
|Study Questions |
| |
|How does Klein define envy? How does she distinguish it from greed and jealousy? |
| What is the source of excessive envy? |
| Under favorable conditions, how is the good internal object established? |
| How does excessive envy interfere with this process? |
| What is the impact of excessive envy on integration and the movement into the depressive position? |
| How is the oedipal experience effected by excessive envy? |
| Describe the superego that results in these cases. |
| Describe how following defenses against envy operate: |
|idealization |
|devaluation of the object |
|devaluation of the self |
|greedy internalization |
|projective identification |
|withdrawal |
| What is Klein's theory of technique for treating the character problems that result from excessive envy |
| What is the ominous form of resistance typically found in these cases? |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Class 7: American Ego Psychology Dr. Kraebber |
| |
| |
|Reading: |
| |
|Robert S. Wallerstein, “The Growth and Transformation of American Ego Psychology,” (2002) JAPA, 50:135+168. |
| |
|Optional: |
| |
|Richard M. Gottlieb, “Classical Psychoanalysis: Past and Present,” Chapter 11, Textbook of Psychoanalysis, Gabbard et al., Eds., American |
|Psychiatric Publishing, 2012; p. 155 – 167. |
| |
|The next seven classes will focus on a theoretical orientation variably known as “Modern Ego Psychology,” “Classical Psychoanalysis, “ |
|“Modern Conflict Theory,” or “Modern Freudian Theory.” Psychoanalysts subscribing to this orientation evolved out of late Freudian |
|structural theory. Specifically, they cite his (1923) The Ego and the Id and (1926) “Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety,” as their |
|foundational texts. |
| |
|In Wallerstein’s historical overview, we will learn about the origins of American Ego Psychology, its so-called “golden” or hegemonic era, |
|and how it receded from dominion and joined the ranks of competing, previously controversial, theories. |
| |
|My goals over the next three classes are: 1. to understand the history and evolution of American Ego Psychology, 2. to familiarize ourselves|
|with its leading proponents and their arguments for ego psychology’s role and survival in the present pluralism, and 3. to make clear |
|distinctions between its theoretical and technical approaches and those of competing theories. |
| |
|Study Guide: |
| |
|What are the elements of conflict from an ego psychological point of view? |
|Ego psychologists emphasize a hierarchical organization of the mind. What does this mean? Give examples. |
|What were the hallmarks of the 1950s “golden” era psychoanalytic method? |
|After Rapaport died, his students (G. Klein, M. Gill, R. Schafer) rebelled to form what Wallerstein calls the “New American Psychoanalysis.”|
|What was their rebellion about? |
|How did Kohut’s self psychology result in the splintering of the dominant hegemonic view? |
|With the rise of object relations came the debate between a “one person” versus a “two person” psychology. What are these? |
|Rangell’s “total composite psychoanalytic theory” has been abandoned, but some important theorists continue amalgamations of ego psychology |
|and object relations (e.g., Kernberg, Sandler, Chodorow). Do you agree with Greenberg and Mitchell that there is an “irreconcilable chasm” |
|between these views? |
| |
| |
|Class 8 - Psychic Structure Formation & Hierarchical Ego Organizations Dr. Kraebber |
| |
|Readings: |
| |
|Tyson, P., “Psychic Structure Formation: The Complimentary Roles of Affects, Drives, Object Relations, and Conflict,” JAPA, 36S:73-98, 1988.|
|Boesky, D., “The Concept of Psychic Structure Formation,” JAPA, 36S:113-135, 1988. |
| |
|Psychoanalysis is a therapeutic modality aiming to change psychic (character) structure. The following papers define psychic structure from|
|an ego psychological perspective, that is, as the outcome of a hierarchical organization of the mind, as defined by the structural model. |
| |
|For Tyson, the ego is: 1. an organization of interrelated functions, 2. a system with the capacity to organize and regulate the total |
|personality, and 3. constructed in a discrete number of stages – determined by genetic (pre-programmed) and epigenetic (environmentally |
|influenced) events. It culminates in the nuclear fantasy known as the oedipus complex. (Latency and adolescence are considered refinements|
|of the early infantile stages.) |
| |
|Tyson is borrowing and elaborating on Spitz’s concept of “psychic organizers.” For instance, what is the role of developmental conflict – |
|e.g., the negativism of the toddler – in the formation of an increasingly complex psychic organization? |
|What is the relationship between the “use of the signal function” and libidinal object constancy? |
|Why is the infantile neurosis a nodal developmental peak? |
| |
|Boesky is also interested in the hierarchical evolution of the ego. Boesky is concerned with our field’s tendency to confuse frames of |
|reference (levels of abstraction) when it comes to our use of terms such as: structure, self, character traits, and transference. He urges |
|us to maintain clear definitions within the same frame of reference to ensure that we are communicating about the same ideas. |
| |
|For instance, for Boesky, is the self a structure? Why or why not? |
|How does Boesky understand structural change? |
|In his clinical example, he uses Brenner’s modern structural theory to demonstrate its difference from Freud’s structural model. Why does |
|Boesky favor Brenner’s model? |
|Boesky argues against the “spurious” distinctions between deficit (trauma) and conflict models of psychopathology (and treatment). What is |
|his point of view? Agree? |
| |
| |
|Class 9: Modern Ego Psychology Dr. Kraebber |
| |
|Reading: Litowitz, B.E., “Sexuality and Textuality,” JAPA, 50:171-198, 2002. |
| |
|This paper offers a corrective, in this age of pluralism, for what makes a theory psychoanalytic. For Freud, the body was a text – or a |
|“textual medium” – on and through which desire was inscribed. This belief in the body as mediator has been gradually replaced as the body |
|as immediate, that is, not indirectly but directly expressing desire. This has resulted in a shift away from the mediating “logic of the |
|unconscious” to the immediate meaning of enactments, procedural and implicit memories, and attachment behaviors. Litowitz’s emphasis is not|
|on the body or sexuality, but on the mediated, or the textual. She defines textuality (p.2) as: “a mode of construction…that lends behavior|
|an interpretable cohesion and connectivity, a psycho-logic.” (She further defines textuality in the first footnote on p.2.) You may ask, |
|as you read this paper, why Litowitz’s perspective is included in a class on Ego Psychology (or, to be more current, Modern Structural |
|Theory). Granted she challenges object relations, self-psychology, attachment theory, and relational theory, she doesn’t outright declare |
|herself as a modern structural theorist. What do you think is her theoretical persuasion? |
| |
|The distinction that makes a perspective psychoanalytic is whether it is “mediate” or “immediate.” (p. 2-3) If mediated, what does it need |
|to be mediated by? (See top of p. 3 for her response.) |
|Litowitz distinguishes Freud’s attempt at understanding mediated symptoms via linguistic rather than semiotic methods (e.g., the |
|gesture-language of hysteria, the thought language of obsessional neurosis). What is the difference? |
|What is the relationship between modalities of thought (p.4-5) and the hierarchical organization of the mind? Freud developed a “syntax of |
|desire” showing how the psyche shifts along grammatical lines. What made this preeminently textual? |
|Litowitz identifies Ego Psychology’s general shift away from as well as important contributions bolstering Freud’s textuality (p. 7). What |
|was Ego Psychology’s greatest contribution? What is Litowitz’s critique of Melanie Klein? |
|French psychoanalysts (especially Green) were highly critical of the American attempts to correlate preoedipal observations with |
|psychoanalytic findings. What is the debate between wishes and needs (p. 9) and what is its relation to her concern with the mediated versus|
|the immediate? |
|Litowitz laments the shift of sexuality from an abstract force to its present definition as “part biologically given and part socio-cultural|
|determined” (p. 10). She identifies this conflict as the source of the disagreement between the academy and the clinic’s reading of Freud |
|(i.e., between the counterfactual and the factual). What is this debate? |
|Finally, as Litowitz focuses her thesis on perversions, she asks whether a psychoanalytic explanation of a psychic phenomenon requires the |
|concept of sexuality. More specifically, can sexuality / perversion serve as a solution rather than a regression from conflict? |
| |
| |
Seminar 10 Symbolic representation Dr. Marcus
Marcus, E.R., Psychosis and Near Psychosis- chapter 1.
Seminar 11 Sex and Romance Dr. Marcus
Kernberg, O. (1976) Mature love: Prerequisites and characteristics. (in) Object Relations Theory and Clinical Psychoanalysis, chapter 8
Kahn, M. (1989) Alienation in the Perversions. Hogarth Press, London chapter 2
Reich, A. (1953) Narcissistic object choice in women. JAPA 1:22-44
Seminar 12 Fetish Dr. Marcus
Greenacre, P. The transitional object and the fetish with special reference to the role of illusion.
IJP 51:447:-456, 1970
Seminar 13 Fetish Enactments Dr. Marcus
Kahn, M. Ibid chapters 5
Meltzer, D. Sexual states of mind. Chapter 12
The British Object Relations Theorists (The Middle school)
Seminar 14 Introduction to Object Relations and Fairbairn. Dr. Lotterman
Readings:
Sutherland, D. (1980) The British Object Relations Theorists, JAPA, 28 (4) pp. 829-860
Aristotle_s Four Causes: The Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy and
Philosophers. (1960) J.O. Urmson and Jonathan Ree (Eds), Routledge, London and N.Y.
p. 26
W. R. D. Fairbairn. (1994) Jason Aronson, Inc. Northvale, London. Ellinor Fairbairn Birtles
and David E.Scharff (Eds)From Instinct to Self: Selected Papers of, Introduction, pp. xii-xix.
Jones, E. (1952) Preface to An Object Relations Theory of the Personality,. p.v.
Fairbairn, W.R.D., (1956) Reevaluating Some Basic Psychoanalytic Concepts in From
Instinct to Self. Chapter 7. pp. 129-156
Seminar 15 Fairbairn Dr. Lotterman
|Study Questions: |
|1. What is the difference between Freud's view of erotogenic zones and their role in development (and in object relations) and Fairbairn's |
|view of object relations and their role in development (and in pleasure seeking? |
|2. How does Faibairn differ from Freud in answering this question: Why does a baby suck his thumb? |
|3. How does Fairbairn understand the affect of guilt? |
|4. For Fairbairn the greatest need of a child (and the greatest trauma if it is not satisfied) is to get assurance that: a) he is loved as a|
|person b) his parents accept his love. How is this similar to or different from Freud's view? |
|5. What do these maxims mean? a) the task of the schizoid patient is to love without destroying by love b) the task of the depressive |
|patient is to love without destroyng by hate. |
|6. How does the schizoid patient;'s withdrawal of loved result in a weakening of the ego? |
| |
|Readings: |
Fairbairn, R.W.D. (1941) A Revised Psychopathology Of the Psychoses and the Psychoneuroses. In An Object Relations Theory of the Personality (1952) Basic Books
Pp. 28-57.
Fairbairn, R.W.D. (1952) Object Relations and Dynamic Structure. In An Object
Relations Theory of the Personality pp. 137-151
Fairbairn, R.W.D. (1952) Endopsychic Structure. In An Object Relations Theory of the
Personality. Pp. 112-115.
Seminar 16 Winnicott Dr. Lotterman
|Study questions: |
|1. What is the objective countertransference? |
|2. Why is it necessary for the analyst to feel hatred towards some patients? |
|3. The transitional object and transitional phenomena bridge the following gaps: inner reality/outer reality; illusion/reality; thumb/teddy |
|bear; oral excitement/object relationship. How are these related? |
|4. What is ego relatedness? How does "liking" differ from instinctual satisfaction? Why is ego relatedness important for the person to |
|develop a "personal life"? |
|5. What is "contributing in" and how does it relate to concern? |
Readings:
Winnicott D.W. (1949) Hate in the Countertransference. IJP. 30:67-94
Winnicott, D.W. (1953) Transitional Object and Transitional Phenomena. IJP 34: 89-97
Winnicott, D.W. (1958). The Capacity to be Alone. IJP 39: 416-420.
Winnicott, D.W. (1963). The Capacity for Concern. Bull. Menn. Clin. 27: 167- 176
Seminar 17 Winnicott, Balint and Bollas Dr. Lotterman
Study Questions -
1. What is the true self? How is it linked to the "spontaneous gesture."
2. What is the "false self"? What are it's "caretaker" functions. How does it
prevent True Self from being "exploited."
3. How does "annihilation anxiety" differ from castration anxiety and separation anxiety?
4. What is an "impingement"? How does it relate to "going-on-being"?
5. How is Balint's concept of unobtrusiveness related to Winnicott's concept of being
alone in the presence of another?
Winnicott, D.W. (1960) Ego Distortion in Terms of True and False Self. In The Maturational
Processes and the Facilitating Environment pp. 140-152.
Winnicott, D.W. (1960) The Theory of the Parent- Infant Relationship (1960). IJP 41: 585-595
Winnicott, D.W. (1963) From Dependence Towards Independence in the Development of the Individual. In The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment. pp. 83-92.
Balint, M. ( 1986 ) The Unobtrusive Analyst in The British School of Psychoanalysis. G. Kohon (Ed.) pp. 273-281.
Bollas, C. (1989) A Theory for the True Self. In Forces of Destiny. Publisher. City. Pp. 7-22.
Audard C., and Grosz, S. (2000). Recognition.(Hobbes, Hegel and Winnicott). Reprint from Website of the British Psychoanalytic Society. .uk/recognition 2. pp.1-3
Introduction to 3rd year theory classes: From Intersubjective to
Bipersonal to Transpersonal
Henry Schwartz, Instructor
This section of the course explores the role of the unconscious in intersubjective communication across three different theories. We will look at analysts for whom the unconscious and intersubjectivity are front and center, charting a course that will lead us to reconsider notions of subjectivity in the analytic process.
Psychoanalytic field theory was developed from the work of a social psychologist, Kurt Lewin. Madeleine and Willy Baranger integrated Lewin’s theory with ideas from philosophy and psychoanalysis and turned it into what they initially called the “dynamic bi-personal field,” and later simply the “intersubjective field”. This occurred in the late 1950s after they moved from France to Uruguay and ultimately Argentina. Bion, working independently in England, developed a theory that has come to be recognized as sharing many important attributes, so that today field theory and Bionian theory are generally regarded as synonymous and is sometimes referred to as “Bionian Field Theory”. Field theory has only recently become a topic of interest among American psychoanalysts, but at least since the early 1990s it has had a following in Italy as well as in its countries of origin in South America. The paper and chapter from Brown provides a history of these concepts along with an introduction to the ideas. The chapter from the Barangers summarizes their important paper that first introduced the bi-personal field. I strongly recommend you read that paper (included in the optional list) when you have the time.
Jean Laplanche, a philosopher-turned-analyst from France, was a follower of Jacques Lacan as well as his analysand. In the early 1960s he distanced himself from Lacan and began to go his own way theoretically. He developed an original theory over the next 30 years, but one that also incorporates much that he learned from Lacan. His writing is dense but easier to comprehend than Lacan, and because his work can help prepare us for the Lacan we will read him first. He offers a tightly reasoned, rather philosophical approach to ideas we will find in Lacan in a more inscrutable form. We will read the first two chapters from the book in which he introduced his theory. Although he is not generally considered an “intersubjectivist,” Laplanche’s theory lends support to a basic relational/intersubjective orientation, while also offering a window into a more Euro-centric approach to psychoanalysis. One major aspect of that approach is to begin with Freud’s writing rather than clinical work, and then develop re-interpretations of Freud that are then applied clinically.
Finally we get to Lacan. We may consider him to be a trickster and performer as well as an analyst, as he upends all previous notions of psychoanalysis in his “return to Freud”. (In making that “return” he initiated the tradition of starting from Freud that is mentioned above.) Along with his difficult theory is his notorious writing style. There are hosts of rationales offered by his students for why he wrote in this manner, but the one that makes the most sense to me is that he aimed to have his writing reflect unconscious process. We cannot expect to get more than a glimpse of his theory in the short time we have, but I hope this glimpse will allow for an appreciation of the breadth and diversity of conceptualizations possible in psychoanalysis. The significant differences with our usual views of psychoanalysis are apparent in Lacanian training and practice as well as theory, and so we will include some discussion of those topics as well. For an overview of the main concepts of his theory we will be using two secondary sources, and to get a taste of his writing, along with a deeper understanding of his symbolic register, we will read his Essay on the Purloined Letter.
All the theorists in this series of classes shift our conceptualization of the clinical setting from one in which two separate subjects interact, to one in which the analytic couple is conceived as less differentiated: this is an intersubjectivity in which the analytic encounter is conceived as transpersonal. Lacan and Bion, coming at it from very different directions, complicate our notions of individuality and subjectivity, ultimately suggesting a de-personalized vision of the subject.
Seminar 18 Field Theory I
1) Madeleine and Willy Baranger (2009) The Work of Confluence: Listening and Interpreting in the Psychoanalytic Field: Chapt. 1, “Insight” in the analytic situation, p. 1-17.
2) Lawrence Brown (2011) Intersubjective Processes and the Unconscious: An Integration of Freudian, Kleinian and Bionian Perspectives: Chapt. 3, Klein, Bion, and intersubjectivity: Becoming, transforming, and dreaming, p. 47-83.
3) Lawrence Brown (2011) Rickman, Bion, and the clinical applications of field theory. Int’l Forum Psychoanal. 20:89-92.
Optional
-Richard B. Zimmer (2010) A view from the field: Clinical process and the work of confluence. PQ, 79: 1151-1165.
-Madeleine and Willy Baranger (2008) The analytic situation as a dynamic field. IJP, 89: 795-826.
-Beatriz de Leon de Bernardi (2000) The countertransference: A Latin American view. IJP, 81: 331-351.
Seminar 19 Field Theory II
1) M. Bezoari and A. Ferro (1991). A journey through the bipersonal field of analysis; From roleplaying to transformations in the couple. Rivista Psicoanalisi, 37: 4-46.
2) Civitarese, G. (2008) “Immersion vs. interactivity and analytic field.” IJP, 89:279-298.
Optional
-Lawrence Brown (2011) Intersubjective Processes and the Unconscious: An Integration of Freudian, Kleinian and Bionian Perspectives, Chapt. 4, The ego psychology of Wilfred Bion: Implications for an intersubjective view of psychic structure, p. 83-109.
-S. Heenan-Wolff (2013) Translation and transformation in Freud, Bion, Laplanche. IJP, 437-451.
-G. Civitarese (2008). ‘Caesura’ as Bion’s discourse on method. IJP, 89: 1123-1143.
Seminar 20 Laplanche
1) Jean Laplanche (1976) Life and Death in Psychoanalysis: Chapt. 1, “The Order of Life and the Genesis of Human Sexuality,” p. 8-25.
2) -------- Life and Death in Psychoanalysis: Chapt. 2, “Sexuality and the Vital Order in Psychical Conflict” p. 25-48.
Optional:
-S. Freud, (1905) Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality
Part II, “Infantile Sexuality,” p. 173-206.
-J. Fletcher (2007). Seduction and the vicissitudes of translation: The work of Jean Laplanche. PQ, 76: 1241-1291.
-D. Scarfone (2013). A brief introduction to the work of Jean Laplanche. IJP, 94:545-566.
Seminar 21 Lacan I
1) Bruce Fink (2005). Lacanian clinical practice. Psychoanal. Rev., 92: 553-579.
2) Lionel Bailly (2012). Lacan: A Beginner’s Guide. Chapt. 6, p. 88-108.
Optional:
-Jacques Lacan (2006). The mirror stage as formative of the I function as revealed in psychoanalytic experience. In, Ecrits: The First Complete Edition in English, trans. B. Fink. p. 75-82.
-Jacques Lacan (1988). The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book I, Chapt. 7, The topic of the imaginary, p. 73-88.
-Sherry Turkle (1978). Psychoanalytic Politics: Chapt. 4, “For or against Lacan,” p. 97-118.
-Dana Birksted-Breen and Sara Flanders (2010). Reading French Psychoanalysis, “General Introduction” p. xx-31.
Seminar 22 Lacan II
1) Lionel Bailly (2012). Lacan: A Beginner’s Guide. Chapt. 7, p. 109-127.
2) J.P. Muller and W.J. Richardson (ed.s) (1988) The Purloined Poe: Lacan, Derrida, and Psychoanalytic Reading: Chapt. 2, “Jacques Lacan, Seminar on ‘The Purloined Letter’”, p. 28-55.
Optional:
-S. Freud (1920): Beyond the Pleasure Principle, S.E. V. 18, p. 3-64.
-Jacques Lacan (1988) The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book I.
Chapt. 18, The symbolic order, p. 220-233.
Sessions 23 and 24 Sandler and Schafer
Introduction: Joseph Sandler and Roy Schafer are theoreticians that have investigated and explicated those tension points where theory and practice are most at odds, attempting to uncover fundamental truths within psychoanalysis and to acknowledge continued ambiguities. Starting from ego psychology, closely grounded in the clinical situation, their views mark a refinement of core theoretical concepts related to drive theory, object relations, identification, resistance, transference, counter transference, projective identification, and the one person vs. two person psychologies. Their explorations cover the most essential aspects of our analytic enterprise and have enhanced our field regardless of your theoretical persuasion (ego psychology, object relations theory, Kleinian theory, self psychology or relational).
Thus if you are a theoretical purist, these next two lectures may seem like a departure from what’s come before, as you engage with both Sandler and Schafer to grasp what is most obscure and profound about our work. What we may currently take for granted is highly indebted to these theoreticians and the way they challenged and expanded Freud’s basic concepts. It would be impossible to cover the breadth and depth of Sandler’s and Schafer’s contributions in two lectures; however, I invite you to become an active participant, and join in the dialogue with your own clinical experience and theory building, as we explore the dialectic between clinical practice and theory.
General Study Questions:
1. Where would you place both theoreticians into the psychoanalytic historical pantheon?
2. Their work tends to read differently than others. Would you agree? Why is this?
3. What are Schafer and Sandler’s theoretical position regarding the patient-analyst relationship?
Session 24: Joseph Sandler
Required Reading:
Sandler J. (1976). Countertransference and Role-Responsiveness. IJP 3:43-47.
Sandler J. (1987). The Concept of Projective Identification. Bulletin of the Anna Freud Centre. 10:33-49.
Sandler J. (2003). On Attachment to Internal Objects. Psychoanal Inq 23:12-26.
Please review from Theory II:
Fonagy P and Cooper A (1999) Joseph Sandler’s Intellectual Contributions to Theoretical and Clinical Psychoanalysis from Psychoanalysis on the Move: the Work of Joseph Sandler: (eds) Fonagy P, Cooper A, Wallerstein R. Routledge Press, London, 1-29
Sandler, J. (1960): The Background of Safety. IJP 41:352-356.
Sandler, J. and Rosenblatt, B. (1962: The Concept of the Representational World. PSC 17:128-145
Supplemental Reading:
Sandler J. ed., (1987). Projection, Identification, Projective Identification. H. Karnac (Books) Ltd.
Sandler J. (1990). On the Structure of Internal Objects and Internal Object Relationships. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 10: 163-181
Sandler J. (1994). Phantasy and its Transformations: A Contemporary Freudian View. IJP 75:387-394.
Study Questions:
1. For Sandler Countertransference and Role Responsiveness paper marks a shift in the concept of countertransference. He is describing a key feature of the analytic couple: is this different than CT, projective identification, and engaging with the patient from a position of anonymity and neutrality? Any examples from your practice of ‘free floating responsiveness’? There are developmental implications in the analyst’s role responsiveness would you agree?
2. Note how Sandler’s position on projective identification differs from Klein’s?
3. Projective identification as a theoretical concept has been burdened by overuse. How is Sandler’s explanation helpful? Be prepared to discuss the 3 uses of projective identification.
4. The last paper is Sandler at his most current, fitting psychoanalytic theory into attachment and relational concepts, giving him an opportunity to review some of his key contributions to the field that we ‘automatically’ take for granted. Please be prepared to discuss.
Session 24 Roy Schafer
We had the recent privilege of Columbia’s day long symposium (10/20/12): Retelling an Analytic Life a tribute to Roy Schafer. I will be sharing extensive notes from that day.
Required:
Schafer, R. (1973). Action It’s Place in Psychoanalytic Interpretation and Theory. AnnPsychoanalysis 1:159-195
Schafer, R. (1979). The Appreciative Analytic Attitude and the Construction of Multiple Histories. Psychoanal. Contemp. Thought. 2:3-24
Schafer, R. (1983). The Analytic Attitude: An Introduction. The Analytic Attitude. Basic Books. 3-13.
Schafer, R. (1992). Resistance: The Wrong Story? Retelling a Life: Narration and Dialogue in Psychoanalysis. Basic Books, 219-235 (clinical examples are optional).
Supplemental Reading:
Schafer R (1983) The Analytic Attitude. Basic Books:
The Analysis of Resisting, 162-182
Narration in the Psychoanalytic Dialogue, 212-239
Action and Narration in Psychoanalysis, 240-256
Schafer, R. (2000). Reflections on ‘Thinking In The Presence of the Other’. IJP, 81:85-96
Schafer, R. (2000). The Development of My Ideas about Psychoanalysis, Changing Ideas in a Changing World: The Revolution in Psychoanalysis. Essays in Honour of Arnold Cooper, Classic Books, 33-40
Schafer, R. (1994). The Contemporary Kleinians of London. Psychoanal Q., 63:409-432
Study Questions:
1. Schafer’s writing is an attempt to bring ‘common sense’ into the analytic situation. Schafer confronts us with two main problems that have potentially paralyzed what we do and how we communicate what we do to each other. What is he trying to address here?
2. What is the ‘analytic attitude’? Can you provide examples from your work?
3. Be prepared to explain the narrative theories of Freud, Klein and Kohut.
4. Schafer has attempted to move away from an overly mechanistic ego psychological explanation of the human mind within psychoanalysis. His efforts are toward the goal of bringing theory closer to clinical psychoanalysis. Does he succeed?
5. Schafer is critical of Freud in that he didn’t fully develop the concept of resistance. Do you agree? If so, why? If not, explain why resistance remains an important concept in your theory building and work with patients.
Seminar 25 Relational Psychoanalysis Dr. Kraebber
Seminar 26 Intersubjectivity (Ogden) Dr. kraebber
Seminar 27 : A review of Kohut’s Self Psychology Dr. Richardson
Today we begin a five week block on Self Psychology. Understanding that your theory course can hurtle along pretty fast from thinker to thinker, we are going to use the first class as a chanced to take a breath and review the material you learned last year in your three Kohut classes.
One benefit of reviewing Kohut today is that it gives us a chance to read two very important papers of his that we had to miss last year. Hopefully, the concepts here will all seem at least vaguely familiar. And if you want a little more of a refresher, take a look at the recommended reading. It’s Kohut’s own glossary of his key terms. (It was recommended reading last year too)
Required Reading:
Kohut, H. Introspection, empathy and psychoanalysis: an examination of the relationship between mode of observation and theory” (1959) in the Search for the Self, vol. 1, edited by Ornstein., P, pp, 205-232
Kohut, H. Narcissism as a resistance and a driving force in psychoanalysis (1970) in Search for the Self.
Reocmmended readings:
Kohut, H. Four basic concepts in self psychology (1979). In Search for the self, vol 4, Edited by P. Ornstein, pp. 447-470
Seminar 28 Contemporary Self Psychology: themes and variations Dr. Richardson
Last week we surveyed Kohut’s key theoretical contributions. This week we’ll do our second of two surveys – this time of the wider works of Self Psychology beyond Kohut’s own writings. I am going to try to identity for you the key players in this movementt. Then we’ll examine a few specific Self Psychological concepts that have been revised by contemporary thinkers within the field. Your required readings are two of the most frequently cited contributions by self psychologists who both extended Kohut’s ideas and departed from them in specific ways.
Required readings:
Stolorow, D., Brandchaft, B. & Atwood, G. (1987). Psychoanalytic Treatment: An Intersubjective Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press. Chapter 2 Reflections on Self Psychology - This is a brief, very readable overview from an influential book by the principals of the Intersubjective branch of Self Psychology. It will give you a look at some of the aspects of Kohutian theory that have been revised by this group.
Bacal, H.A. (1985). Optimal Responsiveness and the Therapeutic Process. Progress in Self Psychology, 1:202-227. - One important revision to Kohut's theory from within Self Psychology follows from a critique of his theory of transmuting internalization in which structure building follows rupture and repair of a self-selfobject bond. Here is the most cited paper in this line of thinking
For further readings:
Goldberg, A. (2002). Chapter 1 Self Psychology Since Kohut. Progress in Self Psychology, 18:1-13. - One attempt to outline the major branches of contemporary Self Psychology
Lachmann, F.M., Beebe, B. (1995). Self Psychology: Today. Psychoanal. Dial., 5:375-384. - Another review of contemporary Self Psychology, this time from an intersubjectivist/developmentalist perspective
Ornstein, A. (1974). The Dread to Repeat and the New Beginning: A Contribution to the Psychoanalysis of the Narcissistic Personality Disorders. Ann. Psychoanal., 2:231-248. An early and important extension of Kohut's work from an author whose work has stayed close to Kohut's original formulation.
Stolorow, R. D., Brandchaft, B. & Atwood, G. (1987), Psychoanalytic Treatment: an intersubjective approach. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press. – chapter 5 – Affects and Selfobjects - another chapter from this very accessible and important book. I'll cover the main points of this chapter in class
Teicholz, J.G. (1998). Chapter 16 Self and Relationship: Kohut, Loewald, and the Postmoderns. Progress in Self ]Psychology, 14.. This author has written a great deal in the field of Self Psychology. She's particularly interested in the intersections among our numerous theoretical traditions and specifically in bridging Self Psychology with Intersubjecitve and Relational theory
Seminar 29 Oedipal Self Object Transference Dr. Richardson
This is the first of three classes in which we will take one idea of self psychology and explore it in depth by looking closely at a case. Today, the idea we’ll look at is the concept of the oedipal selfobject.
Required Reading:
Ornstein, A., Ornstein, P.H. (2005). Conflict in Contemporary Clinical Work: A Self Psychological... Psychoanal Q., 74:219-251.- The latter half of the paper presents the treatment of a young man by Anna Ornstein. We are going to focus on the case in class, so pay special attention to how she conceptualizes the patient's presenting problem, how it manifests itself in the transference, and how she intervenes.
Recommended readings:
Kohut, H., Chapter 5, "The Oedipus Complex and the Psychology of the Self" in The Restoration of the Self (1977) pp. 220-248.
Mollon, Phil, Impasse and Oedipus: contrasting Perspectives in Releasing the Self: the Healing Legacy of Heinz Kohut, Whurr Publishers, 2001
Seminar 30 The Self Psychological Approach to Sexuality Dr. Richardson
In your Ego Psychology block last semester you spent some time looking at contemporary Ego Psychological approaches to sexuality as it arises in psychoanalytic treatments. This week, we will do the same from the Self Psychological point of view. Thinking Self Psychologically can be quite helpful in addressing the sexual material brought into sessions by many patients
Required Readings:
Tolpin, M. (1997). The Development of Sexuality and the Self. Ann. Psychoanal., 25:173-187
Shelby, R.D. (2002). About Cruising and Being Cruised. Ann. Psychoanal., 30:191-208
Recommended Reading:
Goldberg, A. (1993). Sexualization and Desexualization. Psychoanal Q., 62:383-399
Kohut, H. (1996), Pride, shame, and self regulation. In: Heinz Kohut: The Chicago Institute Lectures, ed. P. H. Tolpin & M. Tolpin. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press. - Here is a lecture Kohut gave to candidates in 1975. It's a good read and may help clarify some of the issues we are going to talk about regarding the self psychological view of sexual development in general and exhibitionism in particular
Seminar 31 Chronic narcissistic rage, masochism, and envy: a view through two lenses Dr. Richardson
Last year, in our Theory 2 class on Narcissistic Rage, we looked closely at Kohut's key paper on the subject and at process material from one of my analysands. For our last session, I would like to return to that case and present more material, material that is as tempting to organize from a Kleinian perspective as the previous material was from a Kohutian one. My hope is that we'll be able to use this case as a way to think together about how we might want to understand aggressive, sadomasochistic material, and in a broader sense, how we choose the theories we use
Required Reading
Mitchell, S.A. (1993). Aggression and the Endangered Self. Psychoanal Q., 62:351-382
Please review (previously read)
Cooper, A. The Narcissistic-Masochistic Character, Chapter 7 in Masochism: Current Psychoanalytic Perspectives, ed. By Glick and Meyers, pp. 117-138. - You read this paper in Psychopathology last year (the Narcissism block)
Kohut, H. (1972): Thoughts on narcissism and narcissistic rage. PSC 27: 360-400. We read this paper last year in Theory 2
Steiner, J. (1993) The paranoid-schizoid and depressive positions. Ch. 3 in Psychic Retreats, pp. 25-39.
You read this chapter with Lucy in your Kleinian Theory block last semester.
Further Readings:
Stolorow, R.D., The Narcissistic Function of Masochism (and Sadism) (1975) IJP, 56:441-448. –
Heinz Kohut, The Restoration of the Self, "The Theory of Aggression and the Analysis of the Self" pp 111-131 (1977) - Here is Kohut's succinct 1977 formulation of aggression in which he openly rejects the notion of a primary aggressive drive, specifically criticizing the Kleinian model of the baby in the paranoid position.
Ornstein, A. (1998). The Fate of Narcissistic Rage in Psychotherapy. Psychoanal. Inq., 18:55-70. (and commentaries in the same issue by Mitchell and Harris as well as Ornstein's reply to the commentaries.)
Seminar 32 Final Integration: The Relation of Theory to Technique Dr. Marcus
Note: Please be prepared to discuss how you use theory in your clinical work
Smith, H. (2003). Theory and practice: intimate parternship or false connection? PQ 72:1-12, 2003
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- freud what is psychosexual development
- theories of counseling
- chapter 3 the psychoanalytic approach freudian theory
- general theories of crime and hackers
- insert title university of phoenix
- defense mechanisms in psychoanalytic theory the ego s
- columbia university center for psychoanalytic training and
- unconscious psychoanalysis and philosophy
Related searches
- columbia university graduate programs
- columbia university career fairs
- columbia university graduate tuition
- columbia university costs
- columbia university cost per year
- columbia university tuition and fees
- columbia university book cost
- columbia university cost of attendance
- columbia university graduate school tuition
- columbia university tuition 2019
- columbia university tuition 2020 2021
- columbia university neuroscience