ABSTRACT
The commentaries by Foehl and Altman bring up many issues. Foehl emphasizes that the micro-temporal analysis needs to mooded to capture aspects of an exchange which it misses. It is an important emendation, or better said a needed addition. Altman argues that my work does not full consider the interweaving of culture into the individual or the dyad. Although I feel my work deeply considers how development is a culturated process, Altman is correct in arguing that psychoanalysis must continue to incorporate culture and race into its formulations and treatments if it is going to more effectively relieve suffering.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Ed Tronick
Ed Tronick is a developmental and clinical psychologist, Professor of Psychiatry and Pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School and a past member of the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute and the Boston Process of Change Group. He created the Fellowship in Early Relational Health at the Medical School. Dr. Tronick has focused on neurosomatic and psychodynamic processes of meaning making and the inevitability of mismatches and their repair. He sees infant-parent engagement as metaphors for psychoanalysis therapy. He created the Still-Face Paradigm, the Caretaker Acute Stress Paradigm and formulated the Mutual Regulation model. His research focuses on the effects of maternal depression, infant memory for stress, and epigenetic processes affecting behavior and trauma. He has studied development and parenting in India, Guatemala, Peru, and several communities in Africa. Related studies are being carried out on the relation of stress hormones to SES, exposure to violence and possible unique effects in ethnic and racial groups. He has published more than 300 scientific articles and 7 books, several hundred photographs and has appeared on national radio and television programs.