Ithink the explicitly psychoanalytic approach would be specific form of political analysis that I wondering even exists in the form Colin is suggesting ie psychoanalyzing the Pres persona as crafted by several people.
Analyzing whole cultures is aliveandwell Ithink altho I'm not vouching for the results. Islamophobia and American exceptionalism come tomind. In a PA vein, the characterizatonof the Reps as the daddy party and the Dems as the mommy partycome to mind.
The examples I've seen, certainly the Frank piece, do noteven attempt to acknowledge the "group known as x individual". Do you have an examples in mind of the approach you describe?
At the other end of the spectrum, certainly there is a tradition of psychoanalyzing whole nations or cultures. My favorite example of this is Reich's "Mass Psychology of Fascism". The Nazi's were especailly ripe for this approach.
But I can't think of any examples between the poles of specific individual and entire nations.
In psychotherapy, the combination of the training and ongoing "supervision" issuppossed to mange the negtive aspects. But I think changes to both the economics and culture of the field is making such supervision somewhat rare.
The critical part ofmy statement is "whatelse could he feel". Rage is not the only response open to him. He may be full of rage, I don't know, but neither does Frank. Maybe Oprah has taught O some equaniminty practice based on her own wonderfulness.
Again, it’s not that the President lacks passionate emotions. Indeed, given the onslaught of personal provocations doled out by his political competitors, his stores of rage are sure to be filling up. But the question of what will happen with that anger will likely be closely bound with his reelection campaign in 2012. Previously, he has found an outlet for aggression on the campaign trail: The only times he has felt comfortable being truly rhetorically confrontational are when he’s standing behind a teleprompter or a podium and before a cheering audience.
Stores of rage sure to be filling up....based on people hae been mean to him and what else could he feel? Now that we've so compellingly established the rage thing, what will he do with it???? And the telepromter thng, if that's not revealingI don't knowwhat is.
My personal measure of the man is basedon inchoate imressions and I don't defend them as anythingmore. But Frank's are nobetter,and worse for the cloak of authority.
Ithought I might be unclear on this point. I don't mean to defend psychoanalysis, I regard especailly the orthodox Freudian variety pretty discredited, havng little predicative power and having theraputic power maybe over the course of a lifetime when so many other factors are at work.
I objsect to Frank's sloppiness or bad faith in his chosen discipline. That is to say, if one were to accept his "science", then it still is the case that his practice of it is not up to snuff. He is wrapping himself in the cloak of science, and this article is such a poor example of his field that I didn't even get to my problems with the field.
So I can agree with your broader point and object to his medical/scienific stance.
Years ago I subscribed to the Journal of Psychohistory. While I enjoyed the articles and found them thought proviking, I found the approach unstaisfying, If you're not familiar with it, the website is worth checking out
"Psychoanalying" from newpaper articles what could go wrong?
For starters there's Frank's own anysis of the limitations of his approach.
The limitations, however, of doing it without knowing the person personally is that I don’t get to use a firsthand relationship with the patient, which is really essential to a good psychoanalysis. Also, I don’t get to use my own counter-transference directly, meaning my feelings towards the patient that get evoked throughout the time of the sessions. I was concerned that I had built in antipathy towards President Bush that I worried would make it much harder for me to do a balanced psychoanalytic approach to him. So I was worried about being a prisoner of my counter-transference, if you will.
This actually shows some insight.
At any rate, I object to Frank's sloppy and self serving (or not being able to use his coutertranference directly) use of the term "disassociation". This can have a wide range of meaning, from daydreaming to the fugue state. But it sure sounds real scientific. And real insightful. And according to what the reader thinks Frank means by the term, maybe really really bad.
Ithink the explicitly psychoanalytic approach would be specific form of political analysis that I wondering even exists in the form Colin is suggesting ie psychoanalyzing the Pres persona as crafted by several people.
Analyzing whole cultures is aliveandwell Ithink altho I'm not vouching for the results. Islamophobia and American exceptionalism come tomind. In a PA vein, the characterizatonof the Reps as the daddy party and the Dems as the mommy partycome to mind.
The examples I've seen, certainly the Frank piece, do noteven attempt to acknowledge the "group known as x individual". Do you have an examples in mind of the approach you describe?
At the other end of the spectrum, certainly there is a tradition of psychoanalyzing whole nations or cultures. My favorite example of this is Reich's "Mass Psychology of Fascism". The Nazi's were especailly ripe for this approach.
But I can't think of any examples between the poles of specific individual and entire nations.
In psychotherapy, the combination of the training and ongoing "supervision" issuppossed to mange the negtive aspects. But I think changes to both the economics and culture of the field is making such supervision somewhat rare.
The critical part ofmy statement is "whatelse could he feel". Rage is not the only response open to him. He may be full of rage, I don't know, but neither does Frank. Maybe Oprah has taught O some equaniminty practice based on her own wonderfulness.
Stores of rage sure to be filling up....based on people hae been mean to him and what else could he feel? Now that we've so compellingly established the rage thing, what will he do with it???? And the telepromter thng, if that's not revealingI don't knowwhat is.
My personal measure of the man is basedon inchoate imressions and I don't defend them as anythingmore. But Frank's are nobetter,and worse for the cloak of authority.
Wasn't trying to be reasonable inmy orginal comment. Didn't think it was warranted given the material.
Ithought I might be unclear on this point. I don't mean to defend psychoanalysis, I regard especailly the orthodox Freudian variety pretty discredited, havng little predicative power and having theraputic power maybe over the course of a lifetime when so many other factors are at work.
I objsect to Frank's sloppiness or bad faith in his chosen discipline. That is to say, if one were to accept his "science", then it still is the case that his practice of it is not up to snuff. He is wrapping himself in the cloak of science, and this article is such a poor example of his field that I didn't even get to my problems with the field.
So I can agree with your broader point and object to his medical/scienific stance.
Years ago I subscribed to the Journal of Psychohistory. While I enjoyed the articles and found them thought proviking, I found the approach unstaisfying, If you're not familiar with it, the website is worth checking out
"Psychoanalying" from newpaper articles what could go wrong?
For starters there's Frank's own anysis of the limitations of his approach.
This actually shows some insight.
At any rate, I object to Frank's sloppy and self serving (or not being able to use his coutertranference directly) use of the term "disassociation". This can have a wide range of meaning, from daydreaming to the fugue state. But it sure sounds real scientific. And real insightful. And according to what the reader thinks Frank means by the term, maybe really really bad.
Ths is junk sicience.
I'm wondering if Dr.Frank is in a dissociative fugue and and forgotten his training.