What do you think?
Rate this book
Semantic Polarities and Psychopathologies in the Family
The gap between psychotherapeutic practice and clinical theory is ever widening. Therapists still don’t know what role interpersonal relations play in the development of the most common psychopathologies. Valeria Ugazio bridges this gap by examining phobias, obsessive-compulsions, eating disorders, and depression in the context of the family, using an intersubjective approach to personality. Her concept of “semantic polarities” gives a groundbreaking perspective to the construction of meaning in the family and other interpersonal contexts. At no point is theory left in the wasteland of abstraction. The concreteness of the many case studies recounted, and examples taken from well-known novels, will allow readers to immediately connect the topics discussed with their own experience.
- GenresPsychologyNonfiction
344 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1998
9 people are currently reading
110 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 21, 2017
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
Philip Larkin.
Ugazio is not as pessimistic as Larkin, and probably Larkin was over-egging the pudding for effect. But this book is about how four "psychopathologies" - depression, obsessive-compulsive disorders, eating disorders, and phobias (agoraphobia etc.) - are to a great extent defined by the dynamics within the family. Yes, "psychopathologies", as the title suggests this is an academic book, and not easy to read. But I would not say it's only for people in the business. Once you've got used to the jargon, it's surprisingly readable, even entertaining. She draws not only from case studies (always fascinating) but also fiction (is this a trend in academic literature? The 3rd one I've read recently after Piketty and Paul Mason who does this. I'm not complaining).
The main idea (I hope I don't do it a huge injustice) is that "conversations" within the family often revolve around a number of opposing poles, and everyone in the family aligns themselves at one or other pole or somewhere in between. These can be for example, good/bad, adventurous/fearful, winner/loser, clinging/independent. Things go wrong when a person's position - often at one extreme - becomes untenable, often because they are unable to maintain it due to strongly conflicting drives. For example, a person who has strong need to have a loving, exclusive relationship with someone, but can't bear the loss of autonomy and indignity that comes from dependence, or what they see as dependence. Part of the problem is that the person doesn't assess their own situation in a vaccuum - they also judge themselves in terms of how they meet up with the expectations of others in the family, especially the most admired ones, who are invariably positioned at the "good" or "admired" pole. They then get stuck in what Ugazio calls a strange loop, and the only way out is to exhibit symptoms - for example depression. This frees the person from having to make choices, and other people around them will see the symptoms and not expect them to be functioning in the normal way, positioning themselves within that polarity.
I felt there was a lot to learn, not just for people who find their family relationships problematic, but for anyone in some kind of meaningful relationship. So what's the answer? When she can, Ugazio tries to bring the whole family together to participate in therapy. This is not always possible. But one hint she gives, is that, when a person is being made ill by one of these strange loops (which is part of what she calls a semantics, and yes she treats that as a singular noun, or it's an issue with the translation), you do have to focus on that semantics to start with, but actually the answer in the end is to draw attention away from it as much as possible, identify the other relevant semantics in their life (there are always others), and try to encourage the patient to focus on them, and potentially, create a whole new defining narrative in their relationships.
Fascinating.
They may not mean to, but they do.
Philip Larkin.
Ugazio is not as pessimistic as Larkin, and probably Larkin was over-egging the pudding for effect. But this book is about how four "psychopathologies" - depression, obsessive-compulsive disorders, eating disorders, and phobias (agoraphobia etc.) - are to a great extent defined by the dynamics within the family. Yes, "psychopathologies", as the title suggests this is an academic book, and not easy to read. But I would not say it's only for people in the business. Once you've got used to the jargon, it's surprisingly readable, even entertaining. She draws not only from case studies (always fascinating) but also fiction (is this a trend in academic literature? The 3rd one I've read recently after Piketty and Paul Mason who does this. I'm not complaining).
The main idea (I hope I don't do it a huge injustice) is that "conversations" within the family often revolve around a number of opposing poles, and everyone in the family aligns themselves at one or other pole or somewhere in between. These can be for example, good/bad, adventurous/fearful, winner/loser, clinging/independent. Things go wrong when a person's position - often at one extreme - becomes untenable, often because they are unable to maintain it due to strongly conflicting drives. For example, a person who has strong need to have a loving, exclusive relationship with someone, but can't bear the loss of autonomy and indignity that comes from dependence, or what they see as dependence. Part of the problem is that the person doesn't assess their own situation in a vaccuum - they also judge themselves in terms of how they meet up with the expectations of others in the family, especially the most admired ones, who are invariably positioned at the "good" or "admired" pole. They then get stuck in what Ugazio calls a strange loop, and the only way out is to exhibit symptoms - for example depression. This frees the person from having to make choices, and other people around them will see the symptoms and not expect them to be functioning in the normal way, positioning themselves within that polarity.
I felt there was a lot to learn, not just for people who find their family relationships problematic, but for anyone in some kind of meaningful relationship. So what's the answer? When she can, Ugazio tries to bring the whole family together to participate in therapy. This is not always possible. But one hint she gives, is that, when a person is being made ill by one of these strange loops (which is part of what she calls a semantics, and yes she treats that as a singular noun, or it's an issue with the translation), you do have to focus on that semantics to start with, but actually the answer in the end is to draw attention away from it as much as possible, identify the other relevant semantics in their life (there are always others), and try to encourage the patient to focus on them, and potentially, create a whole new defining narrative in their relationships.
Fascinating.
March 18, 2014
Fascinating, exciting, and challenging to much of our culture's lazy assumptions and remedies to depression, anxiety, and eating disorders.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews