On 25 Joan Warmbold wrote: > 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.
I think we've been over this before (Stephen Black will recall chapter and verse. :)), but my initial reaction to Joan's comments above is to ask if Henry Massie considered genetic propensities as a significant factor in the development of children. See Judith Rich Harris's latest article on the subject in the UK magazine "Prospect": http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9275 Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org/ ----------------------------------------------------- Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:35:08 -0500 (CDT) Author: "Joan Warmbold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: info: R D Laing > 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
