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.
In Her Latest Book R. Coleman Curtis ambitiously applies concepts from social psychology, cognitive science, affective science, and behaviorism, to derive a theoretical rationale for an integrated psychoanalytic treatment model, one that incorporates behavioral, cognitive behavioral, and gestalt therapies. As if this were not enough of a task, this amalgam is
wed to key psychoanalytic concepts, all in an effort to build integrative models of three specific dimensions of an individual—what Curtis refers to as desire, self, and mind.
Why attempt this rich mix? Curtis argues that without such a blend our understanding of the factors contributing to therapeutic change is impoverished. Furthermore, she believes that her resulting clinical model allows each discipline to use something of what the others contribute to therapeutic action.
Curtis illuminates scientific concepts that for many clinicians may be unfamiliar territory. In chapter nine, for example, she comprehensively contrasts the brain mechanisms of top-down processing, a sophisticated, verbally based means of managing information, with bottom-up processing, a primitive, sensory-based means of understanding, with origins in survival mechanisms. Curtis's cogent descriptions of these and other concepts alone make the book a valuable read.
It is in the later half of the book that Curtis focuses on the clinical implications of integrating psychoanalysis with findings from “scientific psychology.” She spells out a definition of psychoanalytic work broad enough to incorporate a panoply of strategies for treating patients. She writes, “I maintain that a theory is psychoanalytic to the extent that it examines the possibilities of unconscious factors affecting current experiences, is thoughtful about the way such factors may be affecting the patient-therapist relationship, considers the potential usefulness of analyzing the patient-therapist relationship in the therapy, and considers conflict” (p. 13).
Where Curtis may su