No, I think Gendlin is genuine embodiment,
however, not explicitly and not in the sense embodiment approaches are
now coming in from the basic sciences.
Does that make sense?
I am attaching another short piece of mine (the introduction to a book
about movement analysis), hope this can rehabilitate Gendlin ;-)
The texts are taken from the edited volumes:
*Koch, S. C., & Bender, S. (2007).* /Movement Analysis -
Bewegungsanalyse. //The Legacy of Laban, Bartenieff, Lamb and
Kestenberg./ Berlin: Logos.
*Koch, S. C., & Bräuninger, I. (2006). */Advances in Dance/Movement
Therapy./ /Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Findings./ Berlin: Logos.
Sabine
Franc Chamberlain schrieb:
> Hi Sabine,
>
> interesting piece you posted -- I wasn't sure I understood this:
>
> "There is, however, no explicit embodiment approach in clinical psychology and
> psychotherapy research."
>
> Does this mean that you wouldn't consider the work of, say Eugene
> Gendlin, as involving an explicit embodiment approach in clinical
> psychology and psychotherapy research? One example amongst many, but
> if I can understand why you would exclude Gendlin's approach that
> might help me exclude a number of others without asking you.
>
> thanks
>
> Franc
>
>
--
Dr. Sabine C. Koch
Institute of Psychology
University of Heidelberg
Hauptstrasse 47-51
69117 Heidelberg/Germany
phone: ++49 (0) 6221 547297
eMail: [log in to unmask]
|