You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
When Andrew Moskowitz said in his opening presentation, that in order for us to understand trauma, dissociation, and psychosis we first need to be familiar with its historical context, this reminded me of a client who often used to tell me “I feel mad and I don't know why?” Indeed is there such thing as madness without context? The richness and material shared with such generosity by all the speakers in this conference has shed invaluable light on the many controversial aspects of psychosis and the implications for trauma, dissociation, and schizophrenia.
Andrew Moskowitz opened the conference with his first talk about a scientific revolution: “Revolutions do not occur in the absence of a suitable alternative paradigm”. This revolution means that we are now witnessing how the DSM-V and other psychiatric journals are publishing more articles on trauma and dissociation. He eloquently guided us through the aetiology of schizophrenia and dissociation in the twentieth century. The failures of the neo-Krapelinian paradigm has shown that anti-psychotic medication has proven to be less effective than previously believed, has more side-effects and does not act directly on psychotic symptoms. In addition there are substantial methodological weaknesses in genetic studies and significant overlaps between schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The emergence of attachment trauma, as seen in disorganised attachment states of mind according to Read and Gumley (2008), increases the likelihood of a range of “psychiatric disorders” including schizophrenia.
Heinimaa, Moskowitz, and Van der Hart critiqued the DSM-V proposal to conceptualise trauma without reference to a person's emotional reaction to the