Comments on: From Psychodynamics to Semiotics: Revisiting Levenson http://www.mutuallyoccluded.com/2009/04/from-psychodynamics-to-semiotics-revisiting-levenson/ media & film, design, philosophy, politics Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:01:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Philip Rosenbaum http://www.mutuallyoccluded.com/2009/04/from-psychodynamics-to-semiotics-revisiting-levenson/comment-page-1/#comment-122 Philip Rosenbaum Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:00:33 +0000 http://www.mutuallyoccluded.com/?p=1671#comment-122 I am very grateful for Dr. Donnel Stern’s comment to my reflection on his introduction as it allows me to clarify my concluding remarks. One of the things that resonates strongly with me after reading Levenson’s works is how applicable his system of thinking remains for both practicing psychotherapy and thinking about mental processes, When writing this entry, I was interested in exploring his chapters on how semiotics or signs are used by individuals to make meaning of their experiences. Levenson utilizes a holistic (and to me decidedly phenomenological) approach for outlining his theory, and I was impressed with his sensitivity to the continuing co-constructed interaction between the individual and their environment.<br> <br>What struck me about this was that while we frequently talk in these terms, we do not often get to see an author pursue them in a systematic fashion, as Levenson has done. Indeed, in making my concluding remarks, I was thinking of Levenson’s own comments describing how although holism was discussed by an earlier generation of psychologists, it fell out of favor to other more behaviorist models of mind that were made popular as a result of the pressures of the time. To me, it felt ironic, to be re-introducing the ideas of someone who had already re-introduced them. However, the growing popularity of neurological and cognitive models of mind that often reduce complex phenomenon to traits, neurological structures etc., has again created a need for holistic thinking. Thus, while we may recognize and even take for granted mutual enactment in the therapeutic context, it remains equally important to account for cultural processes in academic ones. I am very grateful for Dr. Donnel Stern’s comment to my reflection on his introduction as it allows me to clarify my concluding remarks. One of the things that resonates strongly with me after reading Levenson’s works is how applicable his system of thinking remains for both practicing psychotherapy and thinking about mental processes, When writing this entry, I was interested in exploring his chapters on how semiotics or signs are used by individuals to make meaning of their experiences. Levenson utilizes a holistic (and to me decidedly phenomenological) approach for outlining his theory, and I was impressed with his sensitivity to the continuing co-constructed interaction between the individual and their environment.

What struck me about this was that while we frequently talk in these terms, we do not often get to see an author pursue them in a systematic fashion, as Levenson has done. Indeed, in making my concluding remarks, I was thinking of Levenson’s own comments describing how although holism was discussed by an earlier generation of psychologists, it fell out of favor to other more behaviorist models of mind that were made popular as a result of the pressures of the time. To me, it felt ironic, to be re-introducing the ideas of someone who had already re-introduced them. However, the growing popularity of neurological and cognitive models of mind that often reduce complex phenomenon to traits, neurological structures etc., has again created a need for holistic thinking. Thus, while we may recognize and even take for granted mutual enactment in the therapeutic context, it remains equally important to account for cultural processes in academic ones.

]]> By: Donnel Stern http://www.mutuallyoccluded.com/2009/04/from-psychodynamics-to-semiotics-revisiting-levenson/comment-page-1/#comment-120 Donnel Stern Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:18:38 +0000 http://www.mutuallyoccluded.com/?p=1671#comment-120 Thank you to Philip Rosenbaum for this interesting reflection on Levenson and my introduction to the republication of Levenson's first two books. I would like to make one emendation, though. Rosenbaum says the following in his first paragraph: "He [Stern] traces how in these two books Levenson provided a cornerstone for the development of object relations theory, a popular contemporary therapeutic approach." Actually, what I wrote was that Levenson's work provides a cornerstone for Relational psychoanalysis, not Object Relations Psychoanalysis. These are two different, though related, schools of thought.<br><br>I also did not understand a comment Rosenbaum makes in his last paragraph: "While his key contribution of mutual enactment is almost universally accepted, it is generally located within psychological theories that have become increasingly reductionist." What "reductionist" theories are being referenced here? I can't grasp the meaning.<br><br>Donnel Stern Thank you to Philip Rosenbaum for this interesting reflection on Levenson and my introduction to the republication of Levenson's first two books. I would like to make one emendation, though. Rosenbaum says the following in his first paragraph: “He [Stern] traces how in these two books Levenson provided a cornerstone for the development of object relations theory, a popular contemporary therapeutic approach.” Actually, what I wrote was that Levenson's work provides a cornerstone for Relational psychoanalysis, not Object Relations Psychoanalysis. These are two different, though related, schools of thought.

I also did not understand a comment Rosenbaum makes in his last paragraph: “While his key contribution of mutual enactment is almost universally accepted, it is generally located within psychological theories that have become increasingly reductionist.” What “reductionist” theories are being referenced here? I can't grasp the meaning.

Donnel Stern

]]>