American Military Veteran Entrepreneurs: A Comprehensive Profile of Demographic,Service History,and Psychosocial Characteristics

American military veterans are nearly twice as likely to be self-employed compared with nonveterans and are majority owners in 9% of all businesses nationwide. Despite their contribution to the broader economy and the potential for training programs to cultivate and foster successful self-employment and veteran-lead entrepreneurial ventures, research on veteran entrepreneurs remains limited. To gain a better understanding of the potential strengths and vulnerabilities of veteran entrepreneurs, the current study utilized data from a large, nationally representative sample to profile self-employed veterans (n = 230) and compare them with veterans who work as employees (n = 1,055) with respect to demographic, military service history, and psychosocial characteristics. Results indicated that self-employed veterans were older and more educated and more likely to utilize U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) health care. Self-employed veterans were more likely to serve in Vietnam and to serve in the military for fewer years. No differences were noted in perceived military experience, level of combat exposure, or military branch served as a function of self-employment. Although reporting more lifetime traumas, self-employed veterans did not experience higher rates of current or lifetime psychopathology or lower perceived quality of life. Potential protective resilience-promoting factors may be associated with the higher levels of openness, extraversion, optimism, achievement-orientation (purpose in life), and greater need for autonomy and professional development observed among self-employed veterans. Moreover, self-employed veterans demonstrated higher levels of gratitude, community integration, and altruistic service to others. Findings have potential to inform human resources management strategies and vocational training and reintegration initiatives for veterans.     

Discussion of “Unraveling Whiteness”: Commentary on Paper by Melanie Suchet

In this discussion I consider several influences on the contemporary project of deconstructing racism and the concept of racialized subjectivity. This discussion applauds the turn in Suchet's work toward self-examination in a consideration of the experience of race and racism. Suchet's work moves the debates about racialized subjectivities into a deeper and more complex understanding of all the ways in which identifications and attachments cross race and class lines for many individuals. This discussion focuses on Suchet's treatment of the power of hybridic and biracial identifications, beginning with autobiographical material from Suchet's own childhood in South Africa. In this discussion of “Unraveling Whiteness” I integrate psychoanalytic concepts of enigmatic signification (the work of Laplanche) into a discussion of early attachment, and relational configurations with children and nonparental caretakers. The question of trauma or potential transformation in interracial experience is discussed, and some distinctions between American and South African experience are considered.     

Speech and Sensuality; Speech and Separation: Commentary on Paper by Sarah Hill

In this response to Bromberg, I note the ways in which his commentary has further stimulated and enriched my thinking.     

Introduction to Nina Farhi's “Hands of the Living God: ‘Finding the Familiar in the Unfamiliar’”

In this Introduction we set the project in a particular moment of mourning. We describe the experience of engaging with Nina Farhi to publish her paper, recounting and reworking an early and famous analysis conducted by Marion Milner. Farhi's unexpected and untimely death just at the point of developing this extended project has cast a pall over the subsequent work. We detail the history of Farhi and Milner's contribution; her influences from Winnicott, Klein, and Ghent; and her radical extension of Milner's own ideas. We survey, in this Introduction the dialogue, in two iterations, of Jeanne Wolff Bernstein, Dodi Goldman, and Avgi Sekatepoulou. We describe the distinct but interwoven dialogues among these three writers, each concerned in different ways with aspects of Farhi's and, earlier, of Milner's project. We record also the work of Jean White, who stakes out a less mournful and more celebratory aspect of Nina Farhi's and Marion Milner's work and the tradition in psychoanalysis that they represent.     

Introduction

This introduction presents the work of three colleagues—Stephen H. Cooper, Ken Corbett, and Stephen Seligman—writing on the importance of reverie, silence, internal work in and by the analyst as a crucial interface with relational and intersubjective analytic work. All three consider their work an engaged critique of the focus on action and interaction in relational accounts of process. The panel includes commentary by Anthony Bass and Donnel B. Stern and a collective response to the discussions by Cooper, Corbett, and Seligman. This introduction considered the potential for internal critique within a relational community, considers the group process in which critique may be produced, and encourages the development of ways of exploring difference.     

How do psychosocial challenges associated with living with congenital heart disease translate into treatment interests and preferences? A qualitative approach

Objectives: There is an increasing amount of research being conducted regarding the psychosocial challenges associated with living with congenital heart disease (CHD), however little is known about how these challenges influence the type of psychosocial services patients want. This study investigated (1) the type of services patients want; (2) how they want to access these services; and (3) why they want these services. Methods: Three focus groups with adults with CHD (total of 14 participants aged 19-67) were conducted and thematic analysis was used to identify emerging themes. Results: Participants described wanting to access specific psychosocial services in three broad categories (counselling, connecting with other adults with CHD and psycho-education) and in three main formats (individual/group therapy, mentorship programmes and patient conferences). Reasons for wanting these services were grouped under two overarching themes, namely intrapersonal factors and interpersonal challenges. Conclusions: Psychosocial challenges are part of the everyday lives of adults with CHD, yet they are rarely addressed as part of routine medical care. Patients themselves have clear opinions regarding the psychological services most appropriate to target their experiences of living with CHD.     

Bias in the Reporting of Family History: Implications for Clinical Care

Family history of cancer is critical for identifying and managing patients at risk for cancer. However, the quality of family history data is dependent on the accuracy of patient self reporting. Therefore, the validity of family history reporting is crucial to the quality of clinical care. A retrospective review of family history data collected at a community hospital between 2005 and 2009 was performed in 43,257 women presenting for screening mammography. Reported numbers of breast, colon, prostate, lung, and ovarian cancer were compared in maternal relatives vs. paternal relatives and in first vs. second degree relatives. Significant reporting differences were found between maternal and paternal family history of cancer, in addition to degree of relative. The number of paternal family histories of cancer was significantly lower than that of maternal family histories of cancer. Similarly, the percentage of grandparents' family histories of cancer was significantly lower than the percentage of parents' family histories of cancer. This trend was found in all cancers except prostate cancer. Self-reported family history in the community setting is often influenced by both bloodline of the cancer history and the degree of relative affected. This is evident by the underreporting of paternal family histories of cancer, and also, though to a lesser extent, by degree. These discrepancies in reporting family history of cancer imply we need to take more care in collecting accurate family histories and also in the clinical management of individuals in relation to hereditary risk.