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.
Reading this book was a fascinating discovery of the writing of a pioneering child analyst which brought to mind some of the other inspiring books I have read by Tavistock therapists, as well as the grounding provided by the courses I personally took at the “Tavi”. They still inform my thinking even though my subsequent trainings have taken me in other directions. The articles demonstrate Hopkins’ integrative flexibility, solidly grounded in her training in the independent psychoanalytic tradition, but adept at linking and making use of different approaches. She puts her own signature on theory, the truly independent mind of the book's title. As Dilys Daws said in the Foreword:
Juliet has widened our view of what child psychotherapy can encompass, and she does it without attacking the basic concepts of individual work. She shows that diametrically different approaches can co-exist and nourish each other. It takes away the worry some therapists have that embracing, for example attachment or family therapy, might be disloyal to psychotherapy. (p. xii)
I have certainly felt nourished by what other minds and approaches tell me as well as nourished by this book.
An Independent Mind is divided into four thematic sections all illustrative of Hopkins’ approach to her work with children and their families, and of the writers who were especially influential in her thinking: John Bowlby (her uncle), Donald Winnicott (a supervisor), and Selma Fraiberg. Whilst the articles stand alone, they hang together coherently. They illustrate Hopkins’ energy and enthusiasm for her work, work that included not only an evident dedication to her patients, but also a passion for communicating theory in an accessible way to others. It is not possible to mention each paper here. But I will comment on some of the aspects of each section that struck me along with some specific examples.
One thing that interested me was what the papers showed, not just of Hopkins’ evolving ideas over a career spanning