>From my fairly extensive background in infant mental health, it would seem to be essential to view home videos of the infants/toddlers in their early interactions with their family to get any genuine sense of this ongoing debate about which comes first--dysfunction of child or dysfunction of the family communication and interactions toward the child. A study conducted by Henry Massie, M.D. provided extremely persuasive data that inappropriate responses of the parents toward their infant was far more pervasive with the children as viewed in their home movies compared to early videos of normal young children. HOWEVER, he made it imminently clear though his reviews of the parents' family history that there was absolutely no intent on the parents to not properly nurture/respond to their infants but that they simply lacked a certain capacity at that moment in time. (I promise to provide the proper citation--all I have at present is "The Early History of Childhood Psychosis by Henry Massie, M.D.) There are some other ooks I have on this topic at home so will cite their titles and authors also.
Bettleheim's conclusions that parents INTENTIONALLY rejected their children was so odious as well as unfounded that we now feel guilty if we make any attempt to check out early experience as a contributing factor to dysfunction as the assumption than is that this will lead to "blaming" the parents. That's not what this is all about whatsoever as I truly believe almost all parents do the very best they can. I mean, does any other task/job come close to the challenge of parenting?! But each of us is limited by the way we were parented, by the support and resources available to us, by our level of understanding of child development, etc. Joan Joan Warmbold Boggs Professor of Psychology [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Summing up: > 1. My sense on reading the books cited above was that the "mystification" > processes were very largely read into the situation by Laing and Esterson > on the basis of preconceived theory. > 2. They failed to recognize that certain behaviours of family members were > very possibly a *consequence* of the difficult behaviour of the > schizophrenic individual, rather than a contributing *cause* of it > something Laing belatedly acknowledged. > > Allen Esterson > Former lecturer, Science Department > ------------------------------------ > Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:12:39 -0400 > Author: "Stuart McKelvie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: info: R D Laing >> Dear Michael, >> >> In a series of books, R. D. Laing attempted to capture the complexity of >> = >> psychological disorders, particularly from a = >> phenomenological/existential point of view. He had great sympathy with = >> the suffering of the person. At various points in his writing he did = >> make some extreme statements (e.g., schizophrenia is a valid inner trip; >> = >> they will be seen as the true adventurers of the mind) and he did make = >> some claims about the distorted communication patterns in families as a >> = >> factor. But he did not rule out a biological basis for people's problems >> = >> (he "bracketed" this issue). >> >> One interesting thing he did was to sit in back wards for long periods = >> of time. He noticed interesting patterns of behaviour when he did this. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Stuart >> >> Some References >> >> The Divided Self >> Self and Others >> The Politics of Experience and The Bird of Paradise >> Wisdom, Madness and Folly >> --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
