Slices & Articles Get by the slice or add to your own ebook
|Salman Akhtar||Karnac Books||ePub|
I never, or almost never, occupy the middle of my cage; my whole being surges towards the bars
André Paul Guillaume Gide (1869-1951)
As human enterprises, dynamic psychotherapy and psychoanalysis are intensely paradoxical at their base. On the one hand, they are grounded in theoretical formulations regarding development, mental functioning, psychopathology and technique. On the other hand, they involve a deep and sustained emotional relationship between two individuals. It is this central paradox that dictates that, in the conduct of these treatments, deliberateness and spontaneity, knowledge and surprise, and discipline and freedom co-exist in a gestalt of harmony. (For more on this matter, see Parsons, 2001.) Clearly, such a complex ‘game’ cannot be played without an agreed-upon guidelines and framework. The concept of ‘boundaries’ enters the discourse at this point.
In this chapter I will elucidate this concept in some detail. I will categorize the plethora of notions that pervade this realm into boundaries of three types: intrapersonal (intrapsychic), personal, and interpersonal. This centripetal movement of discourse will bring up the concept of ‘optimal distance’ (Bouvet, 1955; Balint, 1959; Mahler et al., 1975; Akhtar, 1992b), its potential overlap with ‘interpersonal boundaries’, and the cultural variations and psy-chopathology of boundaries and distance. Following this, I will address the various types of boundary violations and also note waysto prevent such mishaps and to deal with their socio-clinical after-math.9 My discussion of technical matters, however, will not be restricted to this aspect of boundaries. I will also describe the measures needed to set up a clear and firm therapeutic frame from the outset and to safeguard it from major encroachments by transference and countertransference distortions.See All
|Victoria Charles||Parkstone International|
|Georges Clemenceau||Parkstone International||ePub|
Acte pris de cette fondamentale divergence de philosophie, j’ai hâte de rendre hommage aux appréciations où se répand l’analyse littéraire de M. Louis Gillet. La plume de l’écrivain n’est pas indigne du pinceau des Nymphéas. À dire vrai, tous deux vont de compagnie, à travers la merveilleuse diversité des spectacles qui ont retenu tour à tour le regard de Monet. Il est inacceptable d’y voir simplement « des mirages qui n’ont d’existence qu’en lui-même. » J’entends bien que le mirage est un phénomène lumineux de subjectivité. Mais de quel droit infliger cette appellation aux réalités du monde qui s’en distinguent précisément par des épreuves d’objectivité ? L’écrivain nous dit sans sourciller que Monet « se donne des fêtes d’art à propos de réalités indigentes. » Peut-on ainsi parler du chef-d’œuvre biblique de la Création ? Jéhovah, qu’en dis-tu ?
Simple passant, je suis déconcerté du blasphème qui entraîne certainement M. Louis Gillet au-delà de sa pensée, lorsqu’il écrit qu’ « on ne sent pas assez la vie dans le modèle de Monet ». Je voudrais le tenir pendant quelques minutes devant le portrait du Louvre.See All
|Peter Leek||Parkstone International|
From the Eighteenth Century to the 1860s
It was only in the last quarter of the eighteenth century and during the first part of the nineteenth century that landscape painting in Russia emerged as a separate genre. Artists such as Fyodor Alexeyev (1753-1824), Fyodor Matveyev (1758-1 826), Maxim Vorobiev
(1787-1855) and Sylvester Shchedrin (1791-1830) produced masterpieces of landscape painting, although their work was heavily influenced by the Latin tradition — by painters such as Claude Lorrain, Poussin and Canaletto — it is in the work of Venetsianov and his followers (for example, in his Summer: Harvest Time and Spring: Ploughing) that landscape with a truly Russian character makes its first appearance.
Two of Venetsianov’s most promising pupils were Nikifor Krylov (1802-31) and Grigory
Soroka (1823-64). Despite the brief span of their working lives, both of these artists were to have a considerable influence on the painters who came after them. The countryside in
Kryiov’s best-known picture, Winter Landscape (1827), is unmistakably Russian, as are the people that enliven it. In order to paint the scene realistically, he had a simple wooden studio erected, looking out over the snow-covered plain to the woodlands visible in the distance. Krylov’s artistic career had barely begun when, at the age of twenty-nine, he succumbed to cholera. Only a small number of his works have survived.See All
|Helen Tookey||Carcanet Press Ltd.|
from Pawson & Brailsford’s Illustrated Guide to Sheffield 1862:
In 1849 the Guardians leased from the Duke of Norfolk about
50 acres of moorland, at Hollow Meadows, about six miles from the town, with a view of reclaiming it by pauper labour.
Nearly the whole of the land has been brought under cultivation, and sub-let to farm tenants. The Farm, as it is called, is still retained by the Guardians, and a number of the able-bodied men who require relief in times of bad trade are sent to labour at it. The undertaking has been so successful that at the time we write (February 1862) the Guardians are in negotiation for the leasing of further land. from White’s Directory 1901:
The Truant School, at Hollow Meadows, was established in
1879 as a means of discipline for recalcitrant children, and will hold 90 boys. from White’s Directory 1919/20:
The Sheffield Educational Committee Industrial School is at
Hollow Meadows, about seven miles from the City, on the main road to Manchester, and provides for 90 boys, the average number of inmates being about 80. The boys are largely employed in market-gardening. Superintendent, MrSee All
Business & Economics