Looking Ahead: Questions for and About Behavioral Scientists and Practitioners

In this article Robin B. Jarrett reflects on the early years in which female investigators were a minority in the field and on her participation in the Trailblazers' panel discussion at the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies on November 29, 2009. Dr. Jarrett writes these reflections in the form of a letter to current and future professionals (of all demographics) dedicated to behavioral science and its practice; she poses questions about what the future may hold.     

Getting Out of Our Own Way

This paper, a follow-up from a 2009 panel discussion at ABCT's Annual Convention, focuses on the choices that women make (or don't make) that can affect their careers. Women are particularly prone to feeling guilty about their choices, and while a few decades ago there was a great deal of sexism in the workplace, at this point in time, I believe that we are more likely to make assumptions that impede our careers rather than face external barriers. The paper covers some “stuck points” that stop women from advocating for themselves or results in guilt regardless of their choice.     

How Being Female Influenced My Professional Experiences and Growth

In this paper I describe some of my professional experiences as a female, both as a graduate student and throughout my career. My own experience was unique because I began graduate school a few months after arriving in the U.S. with limited knowledge of English in a very competitive and demanding program , in addition to the fact that I was a faculty wife in that department.     

Inspiration From Role Models and Advice for Moving Forward

This Behavior Therapy series on overcoming the glass ceiling followed from a highly attended panel at ABCT on the same topic. The current paper summarizes the common themes across the various papers in this series with respect to obstacles prominent women have faced, and how we can learn from their stories to help inform the future. These themes include the importance of role models, messages from a supportive environment, difficulties balancing careers with children, coordinating careers with family, importance of taking charge of one's career, moving forward despite negative internal and external messages, and questions about whether things have changed substantially. In addition, this paper contains a summary of the helpful advice from accomplished women in academia for navigating the academic waters. It is our aspiration that going forward this series will stimulate other conversations as well as increase thought, behavior, solidarity, and awareness about this topic so that we can continue to work toward a future when things will continue to improve for women.     

Whose Resistance is it Anyway?

In considering the three papers that are unified under the umbrella of how to think about the concept of “resistance” in contemporary psychoanalysis, it is through my lens as a developmental psychoanalyst that their discussion unfolds. The papers, each from a different theoretical position, can be considered together if one looks at them from the perspective of the evolution of Self and how it plays out in the clinical exchange with psychoanalysts of different theoretical persuasions. Each of the authors presents a point of view that has resonance with aspects of what facilitates and what interferes in the development of Self. The forces and counter-forces in treatment mirror those forces in development. This paper was first presented at the Spring meeting of the Division of Psychoanalysis in 2014 in New York City as part of a panel entitled: “If it is Not Resistance, What is it?”     

Hume's atheism and the role of Cleanthes

This is a reply to Willem Lemmens' discussion of my interpretation of the Dialogues on Natural Religion in my 2000 collection Themes from Hume: Self, Will, Religion. I use Lemmens' careful textual analysis to clarify my considered position and to further the reading of Part 12 of the Dialogues.     

Dual Visions,Dual Voices Reply to Commentary

An overarching thematic implication of both Grand's discussion of my article and my reply to her discussion is the need for sharing and integration of knowledge and concepts belonging to the separate fields of psychoanalysis and the trauma/dissociation. Grand and I have different expressive voices, both singular and plural, which, I conjecture, are in part reflective of different traditions. Grand's response demonstrates eloquently a problem facing both psychoanalysis and the field of trauma treatment: the tendency of fields, like individuals, to proceed in isolation deprives all from the benefit of shared information. Procrustean beds cannot be shared.     

Violence and Reactions

This article has two parts. On the one hand, it summarizes a lot of the work I have done over the last 10 years. The summary starts with three phenomenological insights: into temporalization, into intersubjectivity, and into foundations. It ends with a discussion of ethics based on Kant and Bergson. On the other hand, the article presents my responses to three commentators on my work: Emilia Angelova, Edward S. Casey, and Samir Haddad. All three raise important questions about my work. All three bring me back to the main point of my work: strategies for letting others be free. Thus, to use a phrase that probably seems out of date, this article could have been called “strategies of deconstruction.”     

Philosophy in Post-Soviet Russia (1992--1997)

The author argues that the decline of philosophical thought and research in Russia is over. He describes the state of present-day philosophy in Russia, its background, and prospects for development citing concrete examples and little known facts.Any survey of the state of the philosophy in post-Communist Russia is a complicated task requiring accuracy and completness. Whether I succeed in this task remains to be seen, although I shall be content if I manage to present a clear picture. It will of course be subjective and reflect my interests and preferences, remaining in this sense quite incomplete. But I aim to present a concise survey, identifying the most important trends, personalities, and topics of discussion.I shall focus on changes with respect to the following issues: 1) the state of research in philosophy, in particular noticeable shifts in problematics, geography, and management; 2) philosophical education, i.e., noticeable development in problematics, approaches, geography, and management. Moreover, I shall examine the origin of these shifts and assess whether they are of a qualitative character.     

Reply to Dews,and a plea for Schelling

The discussion is a response to Dews on the question of how Schelling's Freiheitsschrift should be interpreted. It falls into two halves, the first defending my interpretation, and the second expanding on the case that Dews makes for the unavoidability of metaphysics in the theory of human freedom, with which I am in full agreement. The main criticism that Dews makes of my reading is that the argument I attribute to Schelling concerning the metaphysical significance of evil rests on Kantian assumptions regarding the existence of pure practical reason, which Schelling rejects. I argue that, though certainly matters are more complicated than my earlier discussion made them seem, Schelling remains sufficiently close to Kant for the argument I attribute to avoid inconsistency. In the second half I raise what I claim to be a neglected but important question: Why is the legacy of classical German philosophy not regarded as significant for contemporary discussion of human freedom? My answer in brief is that the concept of freedom has undergone a profound contraction. In this context I also try to define more precisely what is distinctive of Schelling's view of human freedom.     

Conversations, Conferences, and the Practice of Intellectual Discussion

This paper analyzes a conference panel discussion entitled "Identity in Crisis: The Issue of Agency in Social Constructionism and Postmodernism" in order to identify some limits to intellectual discussion. The panel participants made a deliberate attempt to engage in a self-reflexive language game about the language game of intellectual discussion in the conference format. This attempt revealed the highly sedimented nature of discursive practice in the conference setting, at least, and perhaps more generally. This analysis of the extent to which sedimented practices limit the exercise of agency highlights academic practices which typically are hidden or considered too obvious to merit attention.     

“Turning a blind eye” on sexual abuse,boundary violations and therapeutic practice

This article explores the themes related to ‘turning a blind eye’. This is first discussed in terms of the marvellous benefits of turning a blind eye and not seeing; this is followed with a discussion about the dangers of seeing and encountering the erotic. History and myth are referenced. Sex is special: the most powerful of all sensual experiences and therefore brings with it the power to transform or distort the mind. The link is made between pivotal developments in psychoanalysis and blindness to erotic manifestations in both patients and therapists. There follows a detailed discussion of the correspondence between Jung and Freud concerning the former’s severe boundary violations with Sabina Spielrein. From there, I discuss later developments within psychoanalysis which continues the theme of ‘turning a blind eye’. I bring this theme up to date with a clinical example of my own illustrating a multiple reluctance to see sexual abuse. The discussion concludes with thoughts about seeing and not seeing erotic material and/or sexual abuse prompted by the grave of Jimmy Savile. I conclude this article with some additional ideas stimulated by the discussion following my original lecture.     

Gender and Sexuality in the Pastoral Encounter

Abstract

At the ‘Embodied Ministry: Gender, Sexuality and Formation’ conference at which the articles in this special issue were delivered, three people in active ministry in different denominations — United Reformed Church, Metropolitan Community Church and Roman Catholic — were invited to take part in a panel discussion on gender and sexuality in the pastoral encounter. Their remarks were originally delivered in this conversational context. Martin Pendergast chaired this panel discussion.     

What Lies Outside Language?

The paper aims to make out the incoherence of the distinction between and rigid separation of 'the linguistic' and 'the extra-linguistic' as well as to absolve Wittgenstein from any commitment to it. Insistence on a descent from the abstract to a concrete discussion allows a connection to be made between Tractatus positions such as: 'The limits of my language indicate the limits of my world.' and 'The world and life are one.' and the Investigations : 'What has to be accepted is - so one could say - forms of life .' From this a picture is developed of the intimate interconnection between language, practical life, and world.     

The Analyst's Uses of Theory and the Theory the Analyst Uses: Reply to Commentary

Where Slochower focuses her discussion on the analyst's multiform uses of theory, I focus my response on how the theory we each use informs a quite different way of understanding what is at issue for my patient in the apparent disengagement that marks her quest for help. More broadly, I consider how the theoretical perspective Slochower brings to her rendering of my clinical understanding and position makes for a reading that diverges significantly from my own view of what transpired in the treatment process I present.     

Perceived impact of online written feedback on students’ writing and learning: a reflection

In this reflective study, I perceive the impact of my own written feedback on students’ academic writing skills in particular and on learning in general. Anchored on Schon’s reflection-on-action (ROA) framework, my reflection arose from a content analysis of my written feedback on 80 student drafts and 44 feedback responses. I found that my written feedback is of two types: focus on form and focus on meaning. Coding the feedback led to an identification of six feedback functions: instructive/using imperatives (18.36%); suggestive (15.31%); asking questions/probing (23.98%); stating a personal opinion (6.12%); corrective (29.59%); and affirming/negating (6.63%). The categorisation of feedback according to these functions was influenced by Wolsey’s feedback functions (2008) which was adapted by Alvarez, Espasa and Guasch. Results revealed that I employ corrective feedback, probing questions and instructive feedback more frequently than suggestive feedback, personal statement or affirmation/negation. I also found that my feedback on form (59%) is higher than my feedback on meaning (41%). I explain the relationship of these findings by identifying some confounding factors that enabled me to interrogate my assumptions, along with a discussion of their implications.     

A DEFENSE OF BUDDHISM,MEDITATION, AND FREE WILL: A THEORY OF MENTAL FREEDOM

This is my response to the criticisms of Gregg Caruso, David Cummiskey, and Karin Meyers, in their roles as members of the “Author Meets Critics” panel devoted to my book, Buddhism, Meditation, and Free Will: A Theory of Mental Freedom at the 2019 annual meeting of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association, organized by Christian Coseru. Caruso's main objection is that I am not sufficiently attentive to details of opposing arguments in Western philosophy, and Cummiskey's and Meyers’ objections, similarly, are that I am insufficiently attentive to details of Buddhism. I argue that all such objections, however putatively correct, do not rise to the level of objections that actually undermine my account of mental freedom.