依恋与家庭治疗 pdf mobi txt 2024 电子版 下载

依恋理论一经提出，在学术界引起广泛重视，大量的研究和实践越来越证明依恋理论对人类的意义。本书便是对依恋理论的细化和应用。 本书将依恋理论与家庭系统疗法相结合，以孩子发展阶段为主线，同时细分各依恋类型下的不同应对策略并指出持不同应对策略的家庭成员互动时可能存在的问题，本书提出了依恋的动态成熟模型并将该模型与家庭系统疗法相结合使用，实践证明，二者结合对帮助来访者具有良好的效果。书中理论均以案例形式生动呈现，然后结合理论进行解读，易于阅读，易于理解。 本书适合所有心理学工作者、社会工作者、教育工作者以及广大心理爱好者阅读。

目　录

引言 人类生命的律动：循环与变化 001

本书的主题 001

人际神经生物学 001

多样性 003

我们的目标 003

概念关联 006

一些案例 009

症状的功能 011

本书的创作特点 011

本书章节和重点问题的编排方式 012

对心理治疗师的建议 012

第 一章 出生与婴儿期 015

出生 015

适应行为的周期：人生的第 一年 018

出现问题时 030

为婴儿家庭提供更好的服务 041

概念和治疗原则总结 042

第二章 学步期以及意识与意图的萌芽 047

学步期的个体发展 048

依恋关系中的变化：目标矫正型伙伴关系 052

二元关系、三元关系和家庭功能 059

出现问题时 064

出生缺陷的创伤 073

概念和治疗原则总结 076

第三章 学前期：交谈与商量 079

个体发展上的变化 079

教养策略和教养模式 081

从二元关系到文化 085

当父母的意见不一致时 086

通过话语来认识事物 087

新的自我保护策略 090

出现问题时 094

自闭症 097

概念和治疗原则总结 108

第四章 四五岁的儿童：信心、胜任力与其他儿童 111

孩子的兄弟姐妹 112

逐渐了解祖父母 120

婴儿夭折，改变整个家庭 122

改变、家庭与文化 124

出现问题时 126

概念和治疗原则总结 142

第五章 上学 147

个体发展上的进步 147

出现问题时 154

注意力缺陷多动障碍 155

在人际关系框架中考虑ADHD 176

概念和治疗原则总结 177

第六章 学龄期：学习、归属和身份 181

发展过程：发育成熟的变化与新的调整 183

父母的发展 188

学龄期儿童的自我保护策略 188

基于人际关系的生理症状 190

人际关系中的适应性 192

出现问题时 194

教益 208

概念和治疗原则总结 210

第七章 成长与疗伤：DMM-FST 整合治疗 215

本书的价值 215

几个核心主题 216

关键的发展过程和治疗过程 219

家庭关系的评估 227

DMM-FST 整合治疗 234

附录 评估 249

婴儿关爱指数评估 249

幼儿关爱指数评估 250

“陌生情境”程序 250

学前期儿童依恋评估 251

学龄期儿童依恋评估 252

青春期依恋评估 253

成人依恋访谈：DMM 方法 253

父母访谈 254

帕特里夏·克里腾登曾师从玛丽·安思沃斯(Mary Ainsworth)，多年研究依恋与适应的动态成熟模型（DMM）。她针对个体一生中的各个阶段开发了依恋关系评估工具。2004年，欧洲家庭治疗协会向她授予事业成就奖。现在为国际依恋研究协会创始人兼主席。 鲁迪·达洛斯是英国普利茅斯大学临床心理学培训中心教授兼主任。他提出了依恋叙事疗法并通过这种方法进行家庭治疗。 安德烈娅·兰迪尼是儿童与青少年精神科医师。过去20年来，他与帕特里夏·克里腾登合作，共同研究DMM。他在多个国家教授该模型及其评估方法，目前已经发表多篇文章并编著了多部图书。他在意大利多所认知与家庭系统心理治疗学院任职。 卡西亚·科斯洛斯卡是澳大利亚悉尼儿童医院儿童与青少年精神科医师，悉尼大学医学院精神病学、儿科学和儿童健康临床副教授、脑动态中心临床研究员。目前已经发表大量论文，研究课题主要包括身心互动、如何治疗具有躯体症状的儿童、多模型处理复杂表征，以及如何将DMM和系统性思维融入临床实践。

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：依恋与家庭治疗在线阅读

在线听书地址：依恋与家庭治疗在线收听

在线购买地址：依恋与家庭治疗在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

书籍介绍

依恋理论一经提出，在学术界引起广泛重视，大量的研究和实践越来越证明依恋理论对人类的意义。本书便是对依恋理论的细化和应用。 本书将依恋理论与家庭系统疗法相结合，以孩子发展阶段为主线，同时细分各依恋类型下的不同应对策略并指出持不同应对策略的家庭成员互动时可能存在的问题，本书提出了依恋的动态成熟模型并将该模型与家庭系统疗法相结合使用，实践证明，二者结合对帮助来访者具有良好的效果。书中理论均以案例形式生动呈现，然后结合理论进行解读，易于阅读，易于理解。 本书适合所有心理学工作者、社会工作者、教育工作者以及广大心理爱好者阅读。

• 作者：离离草上云 发布时间：2022-01-18 21:28:30

  每个出生的婴儿都需要与养育者建立紧密的依恋关系才能有机会存活下去。但养育者并不一定拥有卓越正确的养育能力，所以婴儿们就必须适应养育者的养育风格。这种情况下，婴儿就偏离了正确的成长路径。强迫自己压抑需求以讨好养育者，或者给养育者添乱来迫使养育者来关注自己。长此种种下去，彼此形成的不健康依恋关系，会造成婴儿的心理问题不断。

• 作者：贺小田 发布时间：2022-03-01 16:24:51

  说是家庭治疗，其实还是讲的儿童治疗。

• 作者：Vicking 发布时间：2022-03-08 19:20:33

  依恋是为了学习在他人身上获得的安全感，建立自己能给自己带来的安全体验。但学会依恋本身就好难，好像总会失去那样

• 作者：ungdin 发布时间：2022-10-30 18:50:43

  dmm-fst

• 作者：艾米啦啦啦 发布时间：2022-10-17 14:46:50

  将依恋评估加入家庭治疗中，从DMM角度出发开展家庭治疗。是个不错的角度。书中主要侧重于对个体青春期前各个阶段特点，可能出现的问题，以案例的形式展示如何进行DMM-FST，但缺乏对各阶段依恋评估如何开展的详细展开。有一种知道了，但是不知道如何具体应用的感觉。还需要结合其他谈依恋的书籍来看。

• 作者：梦魇 发布时间：2016-06-17 15:15:24

  挺丰富的内容

• 核心概念总结与思考

  作者：Vicking 发布时间：2022-03-27 11:46:06

• Division of Labor: Solidarity or Collapse?

  作者：MrVeritas 发布时间：2012-11-01 12:12:31

  Foundations of modern social theory的final，纪念某个清晨，一个睡眼朦胧的女孩被涂尔干的思想醍醐灌顶而清醒无比的感觉。

  ——————

  As two of the three greatest sociologists in the 20th century, Durkheim and Marx have different interpretations of division of labor in modernity. In this essay, I will discuss their views on the role of division of labor in modernity and whether pathologies resulting from division of labor can be resolved within capitalism.

  I. Role of division of labor in modernity

  Both Durkheim and Marx did vertical (historical) and horizontal analysis on the role of division of labor. They both admit that division of labor is a vital momentum in social structural changes, though they have different attitudes on it-Durkheim is more positive about future social structural adjustment while Marx regards it as an ultimate power in self-destruction of capitalism.

  A

  In vertical analysis, Durkheim describes the social structural evolution as mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity, with analogy of biological evolution from lower organisms to higher organisms. And it was the division of labor that forced the change. In mechanical solidarity, people were united by similarity, with lower level of division of labor. However, demographic and technological factors, as well as heightened social interactions all made contributions to the development of division of labor. Because of the division of labor, the original work was divided into different pieces, occupied by different persons – people became more specialized and concentrated on narrower fields. Such specialization weakened the similarity among mechanical solidarity, which is the basis of collective consciousness. People feeling alienated from each other and the binding of society being loose, mechanical solidarity was finally deconstructed.

  Nonetheless, the advanced division of labor, leading to the destruction of mechanical solidarity, is exactly the force to shape the society into organic solidarity and the binding to maintain the organic solidarity. People realized that the more solidary they became, the more interdependent they are. For example, in the streamline construction of car, every worker is in charge of a tiny part of the car, which would drastically improve the work efficiency. Also, without any one part, they would fail to build a perfect and complete car. Therefore, a new form of social structure has generated. In the organic society, people are so specialized that no one can be an “encyclopedia”. On the contrary, it is the specialization that leads them to self-realization, achieving greatness in their own fields. Besides, interdependence brought up by division of labor makes it impossible to be a real solitary, thus maintaining the organic solidarity.

  However, Marx has a bitter interpretation of division of labor, instead, quite contrary to Durkheim’s. Although Marx admit the division of labor is the force to change the social structure, unlike Durkheim’s positive interpretation of it, Marx regards it as evil but functional. His invention of class analysis helped him extract two classes from the society, the oppressor and the oppressed. Capital accumulation was based on division of labor, which drastically improves the work efficiency. It is because the estranged labor in the streamlining manufacturing process can produce much more productions, thus giving rise to the genesis of bourgeoisie and supporting their political powers. The intensified tension between bourgeoisie and the lords finally let all that is solid melt into air.

  Nonetheless, division of labor, which serves as supportive power in the social structural change from feudalism to capitalism, in turn generates the ultimate power in self-destruction of capitalism. The division of labor was necessarily followed by alienation of the workers, which finally triggers a new form of class struggle: bourgeoisie versus proletariat. In this struggle, the proletariat must win, Marx stated, for the bourgeoisie is dependent on the labor, the majority of the society. The appropriation of property, which attributes most part of property to small amounts of capitalists, is the terminal illness of capitalism. Therefore, just as the way capitalists united together to overthrow feudalism, the tense contradiction between capitalists and workers brought up by division of labor - or we can say, alienation - leads capitalists to the road of self-destruction.

  B

  In horizontal analysis, Durkheim and Marx have very different methodologies. Durkheim’s analysis is labor-labor based while Marx is person-person based. Let me illustrate it:

  Durkheim knows that in the organic solidarity with highly developed division of labor, people and labor slots are separate. Occupation is stable while people in the slots change over the years. Because Durkheim focused on the stable labor slots, he can easily find from them the collective consciousness, which is based on the interdependence of each labor slots. From the social structural perspective, such interdependence driven by division of labor is the gluten of organic solidarity. Besides, from the aspect of individual, he states that normal form of division of labor is good for everyone to exert himself. Specialization would help each individual to explore deeper in his or her own field, which would in turn benefit the society and make the collective consciousness even stronger.

  While Marx’s horizontal analysis is individual based. Instead of focusing on the advantages of divided slots filled with different workers, Marx lays more emphasis on the individuals. He pointed out that the workers were alienated from the object of production, the act of production, species being as well as fellow man. The alienation from the object of production makes workers not able to enjoy the fruits of labor – the appropriation of property occurs; the alienation from the act of production makes them not able to freely develop his physical and mental energy and enjoy their jobs; the alienation from species being dehumanizes them into machines; the alienation from fellow man makes them lose the communication with each other as well as their employers. Such alienation won’t last too long for workers will finally stand up to fight against it, thus shaping the society into communism where class struggle disappears forever.

  The divergence between Durkheim and Marx in terms of horizontal analysis results from their different perspectives and methodologies on division of labor, which also lead to their opposite predictions of capitalism.

  II. Whether pathologies can be resolved within capitalism

  Durkheim pointed out that organic society is more complex than mechanical society where similarity serves as the foundation of collective consciousness to unite the human beings - whereas the organic solidarity is based on division of labor. Division of labor will automatically generate two forces: centripetal force versus centrifugal force. Centripetal force is the unifier of the solidarity, based on interdependence, forming collective consciousness; centrifugal force is the alienating workers from labor and the whole social vision, which could be strong enough to generate pathologies. Durkheim pointed out three pathologies: anomic division of labor (such as bankruptcy), force division of labor and mismatch.

  Anomic division of labor can be attributed to the excess strong centrifugal force. In the huge global market, we get lost because we cannot see or even imagine the market. The only thing that we are sure about is our own labor slot. Such blindness leads to inefficient production – it’s one form of market failure. But Durkheim thinks such situation is abnormal, rather than natural feature of division of labor. Normally, workers are able to realize their roles in the society without getting lost.

  Force division of labor and mismatch are similar with Marx’s interpretation of alienation. Because the distribution of property is routinized to form classes, we lack absolute freedom to choose the job that we really want and be able to do. And Durkheim prescribes a solution – it’s the only and final solution – we should eliminate external inequality to maintain a free and equal condition for making contracts. “The ideal of organic society is to inject an even greater equity into our social relationships, in order to ensure the free deployment of all those forces that are socially useful.” His attention to justice is based on social function rather than morality. (His morally neutrality would attract high praise from Weber, I guess.)

  Anyway, Durkheim posited that all these are pathologies that can be resolved within capitalism. He conceived of a social system that can automatically adjust its operation in response to extrinsic factors and feedback. He assumed that these pathologies are common and normal to the social operation, just like illness and malfunctions occasionally occurring in our body. Actually, after overcome the pathologies, the social structure would be refreshed and more stable.

  However, Marx made a pessimistic interpretation of these pathologies. He focused on individuals’ reactions – such alienation would finally burst into destructive power to capitalism. He regards these pathologies as terminal illness that would necessarily occur, which capitalism would finally fail to devour them. His incisive observation of capitalistic economic operation let him believe that the deep contradiction between bourgeoisie and proletariat will finally lead to radical social structural change. Like the triad thesis – antithesis – synthesis, proletariat would someday unite to fight against bourgeoisie and reach harmonious communism where no class struggle exists. Whether the bourgeoisie would remain antagonistic to proletariat and whether proletariat, as alienated workers, could communicate and unite are two questions that only time could tell. One thing to clarify, division of labor itself is not always a bad thing – even in communism, there exists division of labor, which is the indispensable feature of modernity. But in capitalism, division of labor would necessarily goes to extreme to alienation, which will destroy capitalism in the end.

  III. Comments

  First, Durkheim’s analysis is based on social level instead of individual’s. His advocating eliminating the external inequality may just be wishful thinking, because the contemporary capitalism is dependent on inequality. Take American criminal law for example. Although consciously, people believe the equality before law, the truth is, the poor, the minority and the uneducated burden more liabilities than the privileged – they would be sentenced to death because they cannot afford excellent lawyers to defend for them. The formal justice of law would be distorted into double standard in the administration of criminal justice system due to the economic and social inequalities. Without inequality, the privileged cannot enjoy their constitutional rights on minimal cost. And they also lack the motives to reform the social system to realize true equality before law. This is capitalistic intrinsic contradiction. For the purpose to maintain their privileges, capitalism may adopt different methods to alleviate the contradiction between classes, while I think ultimately eliminating the equality is impossible. On the other hand, Durkheim’s analogy of biological structure also has bugs. He ignores the individual characters. In our body, we know that some organs are more important than others, such as brain. But our organs lack consciousness and humanity, so they would not complain the equalities and still work together for the whole body. While human beings have the instinct to compare with each other so the unequal levels of their roles and functions can spur a huge problem in the society. So I think his social based analysis absent individual level’s attention is the Achilles heel.

  Second, I think Durkheim and Marx can be complementary. Marx focused on the ultimate effects of class struggle while contemporary capitalism proves that it has the elasticity to adjust to the contradiction in class struggles. Durkhiem can explain the social state of peace; Marx can explain the radical reform of social structure. We can see after every economic crisis, capitalism is refreshed instead of destroyed. It processed in an upward spiral and that’s the best routine of social structural evolution ever. It is still unknown whether the society will radically change its form into communism.

  Third, the reason why we cannot tell the future of social structural evolution is that we cannot predict the war of centripetal force versus centrifugal force generated by division of labor. Division of labor has pros and cons. Durkheim believes pros - centripetal force will be the winner while Marx the opposite. And the result of war will decide whether pathologies would be resolved within capitalism.