Since he first proposed it, Carl Jung\'s \"archetype\" theory has faced resistance from a pervasive but seldom examined set of underlying Cartesian assumptions embedded in mainstream psychology. This paradigm assumed a physical universe (and hence body) free of psyche that coincided with an essentially disembodied mind largely concerned with abstract symbol manipulation. This situation led archetype theory to remain largely within insulated psychoanalytic circles for decades. Since the 1980s, however, cognitive psychology has increasingly become embodied from a variety of standpoints. This article shows how the results of embodied cognition and spontaneous thought \"demystify\" many of the attributes Jung described in his archetype theory, making archetype theory not only more comprehensible but clinically applicable. Combining approaches suggests new avenues of inquiry for experimental research and enriches the psychoanalytic perspective.

The development of psychoanalysis and psychodynamic psychiatry in China is influenced by political, economic, cultural, and social ideology. The process of psychoanalysis entering China is also a reflection of Chinese history, mirroring China\'s transition from conservatism to openness, from focusing on tradition to embracing modernity, and from focusing on community and family to individualism. These changes align with the Chinese continuous exploration and pursuit of integration, adaptation, and individuation in the process of globalization, urbanization, and modernization. This article describes the continuous expansion and development of psychoanalysis and psychodynamics in China parallel to societal changes and how an increasing number of people have begun to engage in psychoanalysis or psychoanalytic practices and research. The author describes challenges to how psychoanalysis can better serve the Chinese people through clinical practice and in-depth research under the country\'s unique social, cultural, historical, and political background.

Introduction: Process notes contain unique information concerning core elements of a psychodynamic treatment. These elements may be both conscious and unconscious for the author. One element for study is the tendency to which a therapist writes about providing either supportive or expressive interventions. This study sought to establish a method of systematically and reliably identifying the records of therapists\' interventions as supportive or expressive. Methods: Three early-career clinicians were trained in the use of a process note intervention rating scale constructed specifically for this study. Quantitative statistical analyses assessed the scale\'s reliability and internal consistency. Results: Interrater reliability analysis determined at a p of 0.005 a Fleiss\'s kappa of 0.24 and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.264, suggesting a low but statistically significant reliability between the raters. A Cronbach\'s alpha of 0.67 and a McDonald\'s omega of 0.53 suggested questionable internal consistency. Discussion: Early-career clinicians can reliably code the manifestations of interventions in psychodynamic process notes as supportive or expressive. Future studies may improve the reliability and internal consistency of the scale, add measures of interpretation content, and evaluate these data in relation to other core elements of process notes, such as the author\'s emotional engagement as manifested in language measures and clinical outcome.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

This Analyst at Work section examines the work of an older psychoanalyst as he ages yet continues to work as a psychoanalyst. Eike Hinze describes his work with a disturbed young man. Decisions about starting an analysis and the struggles involved in \'reaching\' this patient form part of the question of whether this is a \'quest\', or another analysis, near the end of an analytic career.Of particular note is Dr. Hinze\'s explicit use of his own \'reverie\'/ countertransference/ unconscious states to form interventions. The two discussants express their own understanding of how they might approach the problems posed. They both speak to the forms of intervening that differ from their own, and their clinical understanding of revealing one\'s own associations in the clinical hour. They also speak to how the process of aging might have influenced the clinical work itself.The possible shift in technique over the course of Dr. Hinze\'s clinical career is more difficult to assess: does it come from age, maturity, shifts in theory and technique, or an intense desire to make emotional contact within this particular patient and clinical setting? These are the \"question marks\" conveyed in their discussions, like the one in the title itself.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

There\'s something strange about Freud\'s Civilization and its Discontents (1930). Biologically, Freud was a Neo-Lamarckian, who believed in both the modification of organisms through need and the inheritance of acquired characteristics. However, in Civilization, Freud argued that because human nature is immutable, society has dim odds of improving substantially. Lamarckians, of course, rejected that any species-nature is immutable, as species can always be transformed via the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In fact, many of Freud\'s Viennese contemporaries-such as Wilhelm Reich, Julius Tandler, and Paul Kammerer-took their Lamarckism to license precisely the sorts of radical social projects Freud deemed impossible. Thus the Freud of Civilization helped himself to a rigid view of human nature which, given his associated biological views, he seemingly ought to have rejected. In this paper, I explain this apparent inconsistency, and suggest Freud resolved it in the following way: Freud was not merely a Lamarckian, but also a strong and peculiar kind of recapitulationist, who believed stages of psychological development both recapitulate phylogeny, and \"remain with us\" throughout both individual lives and future species-history. I suggest Freud\'s recapitulationism supposed a certain inertia: what occurred in phylogenetic history cannot un-occur, and therefore there are aspects of our nature which we cannot un-acquire. In this way, Freud reached a rigid conception of human nature despite his Lamarckism.