社会融合的心理建构理论研究

社会融合的心理建构对促进社会融合和构建和谐社会具有重要意义。社会融合的心理建构通常涉及两个方面：一方面是个体对群体或社会的认同,另一方面是群体或社会对个体的接纳。因此,社会融合的心理建构主要围绕认同和接纳展开。从这个意义上说,理想的社会融合应该是个体积极主动地认同群体或社会,而群体或社会以更具包容性的姿态接纳个体。     

Leading Voices and the Power of One: 2002 Presidential Address to the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Presented as the annual education conference of the National Society of Genetic Counselors in Phoenix, Arizona on November 11, 2002.     

An interview with Murray Jackson by Jan Wiener

Murray Jackson was among the early trainees at the Society of Analytical Psychology (SAP) drawn to Jungian ideas during the 1950s when the training was still relatively informal. He was born in Australia where he became a doctor and came to London to study psychiatry with a particular interest in psychosis. He was influenced by Michael Fordham with whom he had an analysis and his four papers, published in the Journal of Analytical Psychology in the early 1960s, contributed significantly to the growing interest in clinical technique, particularly transference, that developed in the Society at that time. Later, he retrained at the British Institute of Psychoanalysis in the Kleinian tradition and was the first consultant at the Maudsley Hospital to run a 10-bed unit for severely mentally ill patients applying psychoanalytic principles. In April 2010, Jan Wiener interviewed Murray Jackson in France, where he now lives in retirement, about his interest and subsequent disappointment in Jungian ideas as well as his involvement with the Society of Analytical Psychology at a particular point in its history. After a brief introduction, the interview is reproduced in full.     

More Catholic than Rome; more reformed than Geneva: Joseph P. Cassidy and possibilities for renewal in the Church of England

This article traces the integration of theology, spirituality and ethics in the work of Dr Joseph P. Cassidy from his life as a Jesuit, then as a priest of the Roman Catholic Church and then of the Church of England, as well as the new possibilities his work opened up for re-thinking decision-making both in ecclesial groups and in social and political life, not least re-thinking the importance of the laity.     

Apologising for the past: German science and nazi medicine

Recently, religious organisations, governments and public institutions have begun to offer apologies for historical wrongs. Can they legitimately do so? Departing from the tendency, Professor Hubert Markl, President of the Max Planck Society, has offered strong reasons for not apologising for the crimes of medical scientists who experimented on human subjects during the Nazi era. He argues that only the perpetrators can meaningfully apologise. Markl’'s position is considered and rejected in favour of the view that apologies by proxy for historical wrongs are justifiable and should be made by institutions that have the authority to do so.     

Constructing Legitimacy in Geoengineering Discourse: The Politics of Representation in Science Policy Literature

Geoengineering, the idea of addressing climate change through large-scale technological projects, is a unique example of a contested emerging technology. It stands out in the degree to which both its scope of possibilities and its premise are characterized by global existential risks. Despite controversy due to inherent and perceived risks, this field has been shifting toward mainstream consideration. Geoengineering science policy reports reflect this shift and influence the subsequent trajectory of research and potential deployment. The two most notable geoengineering policy reports are those by the Royal Society in 2009 and the National Research Council (NRC) in 2015. Discursive strategies recurrent in these reports construct notions of legitimacy and normalcy in regard to geoengineering. These strategies include relative legitimation of actors and approaches, differentiating research from deployment, elevating particular geoengineering methods through comparative evaluation, and normalizing novel geoengineering proposals through analogy. These strategies are present in both the benchmark geoengineering policy reports, with a deepening and entrenchment evident in the later NRC report. Together, these discursive strategies promote the legitimization of geoengineering research.     

RETHINKING THE ROLE OF SMALL‐GROUP COLLABORATORS AND ADVERSARIES IN THE LONDON KLEINIAN DEVELOPMENT (1914–1968)

The authors historically situate the London Kleinian development in terms of the small‐group collaborations and adversaries that arose during the course of Melanie Klein's career. Some collaborations later became personally adversarial (e.g., those Klein had with Glover and Schmideberg); other adversarial relationships forever remained that way (with A. Freud); while still other long‐term collaborations became theoretically contentious (such as with Winnicott and Heimann). After the Controversial Discussions in 1944, Klein marginalized one group of supporters (Heimann, Winnicott, and Riviere) in favor of another group (Rosenfeld, Segal, and Bion). After Klein's death in 1960, Bion maintained loyalty to Klein's ideas while quietly distancing his work from the London Klein group, immigrating to the United States in 1968.     

Melanie Klein’s letters addressed to Marcelle Spira (1955–1960)1

Between 1955 and 1960, Melanie Klein wrote some 45 hitherto unpublished letters to Marcelle Spira, the Swiss psychoanalyst living at that time in Geneva. In 2006, after Spira’s death, these letters were deposited with the Raymond de Saussure Psychoanalysis Centre in Geneva. They are the only known letters that Klein addressed to her psychoanalyst colleagues. Several topics are mentioned in them: (1) the meetings between the two women in Geneva and London; (2) Spira’s contribution to Boulanger’s translation into French of The Psychoanalysis of Children, which Klein herself carefully revised; (3) the papers that Klein was at that time working on, including Envy and Gratitude; (4) Spira’s own work; (5) the difficulties that Spira, a Kleinian psychoanalyst who trained in Buenos Aires, was encountering in her attempt to be admitted to the Swiss Psychoanalytical Society; and (6) a few items of personal and family news. In addition to the invaluable historical information that these letters provide, they offer us a very moving epistolary self‐portrait of Melanie Klein, enabling us to discover her personality in the final years of her life – she died in September 1960, just two months after writing her last letter to Spira.     

“淑女之争”与“君子协议”:回眸英国精神分析学会的“论战”

20世纪40年代,英国精神分析学会内部爆发一场影响全世界精神分析学发展的"战争"。以Anna Freud和Melanie Klein各自为首的精神分析师团体围绕潜意识幻想、本能与力比多以及精神分析培训与教学等一系列主题展开激烈争论,即历史上著名的"Freud-Klein论战"。这场"论战"就精神分析培训问题达成协议,并直接导致克莱因学派、维也纳学派和独立学派三"组"鼎立的英国精神分析时局。"论战"促使了客体关系精神分析与自我心理学的分离,推动了精神分析研究从驱力模式向关系模式的范式转变,奠定了后续精神分析运动发展的格局。