For a decade following World War II social psychologists tended to view the individual as an element in a larger system. Research on small groups prospered, and attitudes and social perceptions were conceived to be antecedents and consequences of group activity. But by the 1960's social psychology had become much more individualistic. Interest in the group as a system had waned and research was generally focused on intraindividual events or processes that mediate responses to social situations. We now appear to be passing through a period of transition during which both the content and methodology of past research are being re-evaluated, and from which new trends are likely to emerge. Possible explanations of the changing orientation of social psychology are discussed, and predictions are advanced concerning future developments. It is suggested that social psychologists are responsive to the mood of the times, and that recent social and political unheavals presage a revival of the collectivistic approach.
Freud speaks of an ego, partly in a sense that foreshadows considerably later developments of ego psychology. However, the closer elaboration of this part of his work had to be postponed during a period in which his main concern was with the development of other aspects of psychoanalysis. All the revolutionary work of those years approached personality via what today we would call the study of the id. Thus, in analysis, a broad fundament of facts and hypotheses was laid down—on the laws governing unconscious mental processes, on the characteristics and development of instinctual drives and on some aspects of psychic conflict—the absence of which had been a severe handicap to preanalytic psychology. The fact that Freud's investigation of the id preceded his approach to structural psychology is indeed one of the most momentous events.
Children's play has been the subject of scientific discussion for many psychologists of various schools of thought, Child psychology, as it is taught in our universities, has occupied itself with the remarkable phenomenon that a considerable part of a growing child's day is taken up with play and has undertaken to make various contributions to the interpretation of this phenomenon. It will now be our endeavor to see what psychoanalysis has to contribute to the question of children's play.
Comparing the literature of academic psychology with the more casual psychoanalytic publications dealing with the subject, it will immediately be noticed that each draws attention to a different group of games. Academic psychology studies chiefly what one might designate "official" games of children—games which are typical and played by all children. In psychoanalytic literature, on the contrary, interest is chiefly centered on games of a different type—those of a more individual.
The work of Kurt Lewin dominated the theory and practice of change management for over 40 years. However, in the past 20 years, Lewin's approach to change, particularly the 3-Step model, has attracted major criticisms. The key ones are that his work: assumed organizations operate in a stable state; was only suitable for small-scale change projects; ignored organizational power and politics; and was top-down and management-driven. This article seeks to re-appraise Lewin's work and challenge the validity of these views. It begins by describing Lewin's background and beliefs, especially his commitment to resolving social conflict. The article then moves on to examine the main elements of his Planned approach to change: Field Theory; Group Dynamics; Action Research; and the 3-Step model. This is followed by a brief summary of the major developments in the field of organizational change since Lewin's death which, in turn, leads to an examination of the main criticisms levelled at Lewin's work. The article concludes by arguing that rather than being outdated or redundant, Lewin's approach is still relevant to the modern world.
A number of recent works on the history of group psychotherapy have misrepresented the nature of psychodrama and Moreno's contributions. In a recent book on the history of psychoanalysis in America, for example, Hale notes that Moreno was "inspired" by Freud. Others have erroneously claimed that Moreno was a "disciple" of Freud, or that he was a "psychoanalyst" who then developed psychodrama. The truth is that psychodrama arose quite independently from psychoanalysis. Moreno was aware of Freud and his method, but found it on the whole highly artificial and in being so limited to verbal interchange, unable to tap into the holistic process of human self-expression. Of course, Moreno shared with depth psychology the general idea of helping patients become more aware of disowned feelings and ideas. In finding psychoanalysis less than compelling, Moreno wasn't being unusually contrary; through the 1930s and well into the 1940s--the period in which Moreno did his most seminal work--a significant percentage of other psychiatrists in Europe and America were similarly doubtful of the claims of the psycho-analysts.
Carl Ransome Rogers, one of the giants of 20th-century psychology, has been recognized for his immense contribution to the science of psychology. At the same time, millions have found his person-centered philosophy to be a deeply satisfying moral system and have been willing to place their faith in what can be seen as Rogers's metaphysics.
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą