What do you think?
Rate this book
Development, Motivation, and the Work of Silvan Tomkins
The Affect Theory of Silvan Tomkins for Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy explores central issues in current clinical work, using the theories put forward by Silvan Tomkins and presenting them in detail, as well as integrating them with the most up-to-date neuroscience findings and infancy research, all based on a biopsychosocial, dynamic systems approach.Part I describes the essentials of life, based on our evolutionary and biological heritage, namely a need for a coherent understanding of one's world and the capacity to act in that world; the infant's capacities are described in detail as embodying both. Longitudinal data is provided beginning at birth into the third year of life. Part II reviews current debates in psychoanalysis relating to motivation, and the lack of an internally consistent theory. Recent neuroscience findings are presented, which both negate drive theory, and support Tomkins' theory. His theory is then described in detail. In Part III, two case histories are one is a clinical case illustrating one of Tomkins' affect powered scripts. The second case is drawn from a longitudinal study extending from birth, into early adulthood, which is made sense of with the help of Tomkins' theory. Demos concludes with a look at competing approaches to theory and responds to recent cognitive-based attempts to disprove both Tomkins' work and the latest findings from neuroscience.The Affect Theory of Silvan Tomkins for Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy will appeal to psychoanalysts and psychoanalytic psychotherapists, as well as psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and psychiatric nurses.
298 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 4, 2019
2 people are currently reading
17 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 of 1 review
March 14, 2024
Wow, just wow. That’s how I categorize this book, one that causes me to say, “Wow, just wow.”
Demo’s main thesis is that — thanks to the likes of embryologists, infant researchers, and neuroscientists — we can finally fulfill Freud’s desire “to ground [human] motives in the neurological functioning of the body.” Put differently, we can finally understand what motivates us to do the things we do.
After surveying much of this research, she concludes that we should fully retire Freud’s drive theory and replace it with an affect theory. She advocates the affect theory advocated by Silvan Tomkins, a prolific 20th century theorist whose writings are not widely known. I find Tomkins’ ideas, as presented here, fascinating, and I’m persuaded by his explanations of affects, scripts, and the like.
I don’t know if I agree with everything she writes about our two basic psychological priorities, which she lists as coherence (i.e., we’re impelled to constantly make meaning of our experience) and agency (i.e., we’re impelled to try to play an active role in our own lives). I’m persuaded that these are indeed basic priorities, but I’m confused why she doesn’t reference the works of Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, the developers of self-determination theory. These men and their colleagues have produced a tremendous amount of research for their claim that we have three basic priorities (in their words, “needs” or “motivations”): autonomy, competence, and relatedness. This isn’t a huge deal, and I imagine that she would largely agree with Deci and Ryan and they with her.
I’m also confused by her reason for excluding attachment from the list of basic priorities. She acknowledges that we’re born wanting to connect with others and that doing so is optimal. She then writes that she’s excluding attachment from the list because people “born into dire or less than optimal environments can live without becoming bonded or attached to other people.” That’s obviously true, and I don’t think that even John Bowlby would disagree, but based on my understanding of her terms, it still seems that it should be considered a basic psychological priority. Again, this isn’t really a big deal, just more a curiosity on my part.
Demo’s main thesis is that — thanks to the likes of embryologists, infant researchers, and neuroscientists — we can finally fulfill Freud’s desire “to ground [human] motives in the neurological functioning of the body.” Put differently, we can finally understand what motivates us to do the things we do.
After surveying much of this research, she concludes that we should fully retire Freud’s drive theory and replace it with an affect theory. She advocates the affect theory advocated by Silvan Tomkins, a prolific 20th century theorist whose writings are not widely known. I find Tomkins’ ideas, as presented here, fascinating, and I’m persuaded by his explanations of affects, scripts, and the like.
I don’t know if I agree with everything she writes about our two basic psychological priorities, which she lists as coherence (i.e., we’re impelled to constantly make meaning of our experience) and agency (i.e., we’re impelled to try to play an active role in our own lives). I’m persuaded that these are indeed basic priorities, but I’m confused why she doesn’t reference the works of Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, the developers of self-determination theory. These men and their colleagues have produced a tremendous amount of research for their claim that we have three basic priorities (in their words, “needs” or “motivations”): autonomy, competence, and relatedness. This isn’t a huge deal, and I imagine that she would largely agree with Deci and Ryan and they with her.
I’m also confused by her reason for excluding attachment from the list of basic priorities. She acknowledges that we’re born wanting to connect with others and that doing so is optimal. She then writes that she’s excluding attachment from the list because people “born into dire or less than optimal environments can live without becoming bonded or attached to other people.” That’s obviously true, and I don’t think that even John Bowlby would disagree, but based on my understanding of her terms, it still seems that it should be considered a basic psychological priority. Again, this isn’t really a big deal, just more a curiosity on my part.
Displaying 1 of 1 review