Psychoanalysis Approach In Service-Learning

What is the perfect balance between freedom and order? Not only is it a question American society has been asking itself since its creation but also a question humanity has yet to answer. In all likelihood such a perfect balance will never be achieved but doesn’t mean people won’t strive for such perfection. Before delving on deeper one must first ask, ‘what is order?’ Order is the limitation of freedom; limitation of freedom is necessary, to an extent, to uphold society. Human society has two extremes at each end of its spectrum, anarchy and tyranny. Two complete opposites, anarchy is pure freedom and tyranny is the ultimate repression of freedom. In the middle

Psychoanalysis is also used in the treatment of anxiety disorders and depression. It states in the behavioral observations that this is evidenced by the shaking hands the tearing when fill out the intake forms. I would then use free association in

This is not an easy motion to debate on. Thus, this piece of writing will mention, discuss and bring forward the irrationality of choosing either freedom over equality or visa versa, without having a harmonious counterbalance between the two factors, implemented by a regulatory body. It will also include examples of countries which "total freedom" or "total equality" is in practice, where the search for total freedom led to total anarchy, or the pursuit for total equality curtailed the freedom in all areas of life. This short writing will be concluded with a personal view.

Following the publication of Freud’s ‘Papers on Technique’ between 1912 and 1917, there have been papers and symposia on the subject. Four symposia in 1937, 1948, 1958, and 1961 were devoted to the examination of therapeutic results of psychoanalysis, the mechanisms behind its curative factors, variations in technique and the ego-psychological approach to interpretations (Rosenfeld, 1972, 454). In 1934, James Strachey published his paper on “The Nature of the Therapeutic Action of Psychoanalysis,” which has since been considered one of the most seminal works on the subject. He holds that his paper is “not a practical discussion upon psychoanalytic technique,” and that “it’s immediate bearings are theoretical” (Strachey, 1934, 127). However, as Herbert Rosenfeld points out in his 1972 critical appreciation of Strachey’s paper, “this is clearly an understatement; the paper both challenges one’s clinical experience and has important clinical implications even though actual case material is not quoted” (Rosenfeld, 1972, 454). It would not be difficult to summarize Strachey’s main points regarding therapeutic action and mutative interpretation, and it would prove similarly sterile to simply compare his ideas with the views of other psychoanalysts, contemporaneous and contemporary. Instead, as Strachey concerns himself primarily with the structural nature of mutative change, this paper will aim to delineate a more in-depth exploration of the way different structures of the

One of the greatest and more fundamental gifts of life is the autonomy that comes with being a sentiment human being. This hasn’t always been considered a human right, however, and many eastern hemispheres are struggling to catch on to the concept that people should be allowed to make the decisions they choose without the external pressure to do otherwise. Thus, the question that should be asked is whether or not every human being on this planet is free, whether they should be free and what does free really mean. For many, freedom is all about that ability to to choose what they want, make their own decision and be able to move around as they please. Freedom is about equity, free speech and the guarantee of life, no matter how good or bad.

Just like there are up sides to freedom, there can be positive outcomes from controlling environments as well. In order for freedom to be a positive thing, it needs to be a privilege that people are only granted as much of as they can handle. In high school students are given a range of classes they are allowed to choose from, but ultimately they are still controlled by teachers and parents. As children grow up they are given freedom in stages, a little but at a time so it is never too overwhelming. Until one reaches full adulthood, there will always be other people that have control over certain factors of their life. This is necessary for most children to be successful in school so that they can later reach their aspirations in life. However,

Many believe that order should be applied by the government; though it should be allowed to a certain limit and should not interfere in a citizen’s personal life. However others believe that full freedom should be given to individuals and that nothing should be enforced as it brings along many differences between citizens. This

It is also a “boundary spanning” activity in that it requires active involvement from people both within and outside of the classroom context, often resulting in participant contributors who represent a variety of generations, ethnicities, social groups, and experience levels (Billig and Furco, 2002, p.vii). Service-learning is designed to reduce the boundaries between an institutional campus environment and the community around it. It is designed to connect learning to real experience through service and reflection (Ball and Schilling, 2006; Becker, 2000). As a baseline to facilitate this development, service-learning is distinct from other types of community service and civic engagement experiences in that the service-learning experience must not only have a service and reflective component but also be clearly tied to the curriculum through learning objectives and theoretical underpinnings (Bloomquist, 2015; Pritchard, 2001). As Barbara Holland, former Director of the U.S. National Service-Learning Clearinghouse, shared, “Service-learning is all in the hyphen. It is the enrichment of specific learning goals through structured community service opportunities that respond to community-identified needs and opportunities.” (Kenworthy-U’Ren, Taylor, and Petri, 2006: 121).

Undoubtedly, everyone craves a sense of freedom, but when given too much of it, freedom corrupts the mind. It corrupts the mind into thinking that whatever that person does, whether it involve them self or others, will go unchecked. For example, “He took a step, and able at last to hit someone, stuck his fist into

From the earlier times in our lives till now, we humans have been struggling hard to be free and independent of the things that limit our right to be free. And even though some people say that having security in life can regulate our lives and messy societies, I believe that too much security or limitation causes more dilemmas. Also, by being independent and free, one can learn new things rather than just by sticking to some widely held beliefs. We can see many examples related to this assumption everywhere in our lives, movies, books, and history.

Perhaps the biggest disadvantage to individual rights is asking ourselves what societal rights we want to protect. There is a need to keep order, to protect life and liberty, but at what cost? By keeping individual rights that we currently have, we face the disadvantage of have the guilty set free. Yet, we still have the assurance that we can be more secure in life and liberty, by enforcing certain rights, even if it doesn't always go the way we feel it should.

The first major component in life is to know that there is no such thing as being completely free. In the world, to be free means, one must have money and to be able to make sacrifices. Additionally, in order for one to earn the freedom they shall defend countries that already spoken as free, to stay free. A great President, Harry Truman, once said, “we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way (Doc 1 A).” This President spoke of freedom, and the problems of the government. President Truman also said, “ the present moment in world history nearly every nation must choose between alternative ways of life. The choice is too often not a free one. One way of life is based upon freedom of

Although it sounds appealing to make one's own decision freely, it is actually an impractable goal as the society has exerted significant influence and restrictions on individuals and has shaped one's value of what they should do and what they should not do. In today's society, people are more free to make our own choices than we were before, but it is true that we canno indulge our interests at the cost of transgressing the basic rules of the society.

Psychodynamic counselling has a long history and vast literature to condense so only a brief overview is possible here – following on from the themes already discussed and with particular focus on four psychologists: Freud, Jung, Adler and Klein.

First and foremost, I am a proponent of Negative Liberty. Not only does this mean that individuals should be free from external impediments to action by other people, but also that a government should primarily remove obstructions to our freedom, which is in contrast to Positive Liberty, for the purpose of preserving individual liberties. The lack of hindrance to human action will limit government activities and create a free, tolerant society. In addition, Negative Liberty supports the individual freedom of choice and movement. With this in mind, I cannot help but emphasize the significance of the degree to which individuals encounter interferences from others. Some may argue that a government should actively create conditions necessary for self-determination and freedom to act in the presence of internal capacities; however, I interpret that as a sense of entitlement that requires a redistribution of wealth and ultimately violates the human right of private property. For this reason, I find Positive Liberty to be an infringement of others’ liberty. Throughout mankind’s history, there have been many types of oppression that illustrate my support for Negative Liberty, such as the exploitative authoritarian regimes, economic hardships, and racial oppression.