On 22 October Rob Weisskirch wrote: >Third, how does one teach about the ever-popular >Attachment theory without developing an understanding >of psychoanalytic theories?
I must admit that I am not up-to-date with current Attachment Theory (to put it mildly), but I know that the founder of the theoretical foundations of the discipline, John Bowlby, announced in Chapter 1 of his magnum opus *Attachment and Loss* that the starting point of attachment theory differs radically from that of psychoanalysis. Whereas "most of the concepts that psychoanalysts have about early childhood have been arrived at by a process of historical reconstruction derived from older subjects, [...] the point of view from which this work [i.e., his book] starts is different" -- the data drawn on are those obtained from "the behaviour of children in real-life situations". In other words, Bowlby is saying that attachment theory bases its conceptual schema on an empirical approach that is the complete opposite of that of classical psychoanalysis. I'd be interested to hear from Rob what psychoanalytic theories he is alluding to in the sentence quoted at the top of this posting, and how they fit in with Bowlby's arguing that basic concepts in attachment theory and in classical psychoanalysis are derived in very different ways. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=57 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=58 http://www.psychiatrie-und-ethik.de/infc/1_gesamt_en.html --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
