Beyond the individual: Group, couple, and family therapy.

2014 ◽  
pp. 447-493
Author(s):  
Charles J. Gelso ◽  
Elizabeth Nutt Williams ◽  
Bruce R. Fretz
2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry Gale ◽  
Joaquin Gaete Silva ◽  
Ines Sametband ◽  
Jaqueline Amorim Webb

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. L. Friedlander ◽  
V. Escudero ◽  
L. Heatherington ◽  
G. M. Diamond

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-118
Author(s):  
Li Yanling ◽  
David E. Scharff

The following case presents the way that overtly oedipal identification in a young woman covered failure in early parental care and discontent between her parents. The case was presented by Li Yanling to her supervision group, and the commentary and elaboration have been gathered from comments from the entire group of advanced supervisees, all of whom were discussion group leaders in the Beijing Continuous Program in Psychoanalytic Couple and Family Therapy.


Author(s):  
Ursula Renz

This chapter discusses the implications of Spinoza’s concept of individual bodies, as introduced in the definition of individuum in the physical digression. It begins by showing that this definition allows for an extremely wide application of the term; accordingly, very different sorts of physical entities can be described as Spinozistic individuals. Given the quite distinct use of the terms divisibilis and indivisibilis in his metaphysics, however, the chapter argues that the physical concept of individuality is not universally applied in the Ethics but reserved for physical or natural-philosophical considerations. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the problem of collective individuals. It is argued that, while societies or states are described as individual bodies, they do not constitute individual group minds in the strict sense of the term for Spinoza. This in turn indicates that minds are not individuated in the same way as bodies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document