Michael Miller

In athletics, coaches and athletes share a unique and important relationship. Recently Jowett and her colleagues (Jowett & Cockerill, 2003; Jowett & Meek, 2000; Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2003, 2004; Jowett & Timson-Katchis, 2005) utilized relationship research (focusing on, for example, marital, familial and workplace relationships) from conjoining fields, and in particular social and cognitive psychology, to develop and test a four-component model (4 C’s) that depicts the most influential relational and emotional components (closeness, commitment, complementarity and co-orientation) of coach-athlete relationships. Proceeding from a review of the literature on human touch communication to examine research on the power of touch to exchange relational and emotional messages (Hertenstein et al., 2006), the present study explores coaches’ and athletes’ collective experiences of communicating via touch, utilizing in-depth interviews with eight college coaches and athletes. A phenomenological approach was used to gather, analyze and interpret the data, drawing on Merleau-Ponty’s (1945/1962) philosophical exploration of perception and human experience, which emphasizes the body as a means of communicating with the world. The findings indicate that touch between coaches and athletes increased at major events when emotions and tensions ran high. In addition, touch involved showing appreciation, instructing, comforting and giving attention, and affected perceptions of relationships. The findings also show that touch communication is influenced by societal factors, such as gender, relational stage, and what spectators, parents and other athletes may think. By illustrating how touch is enacted and experienced by a group of college coaches and athletes, the study represents an initial step toward understanding touch communication in the coach-athlete dyad. Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology , Volume 7, Edition 2 September 2007

In 2025, the American Psychological Association Committee on Accreditation suspended enforcement of key training standards relating to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Taking this decision as an example, I ask how American psychology understands and teaches ethics. An examination of APA policy and research on ethics and training finds little discussion of foundational ethical theory. In its place, I identify a tacit "reciprocity assumption" that takes psychological competence as normative. I then identify three iterations of the resultant notion of "ethico-competence:" Communitarian, Compulsory, and Acculturative, each of which attempts grounding for ethics but fails to escape the reciprocity assumption. Because of their reliance on psychological competence, these models force the abdication of autonomy, authorship, and risk, and are therefore insufficient to ground an ethics.

The critiques of the ego central to the existential, phenomenological, and psychoanalytic traditions have lately been jettisoned by contemporary scholarly and popular discourse about identity recognition, despite its grounding in these traditions. This essay examines a recent example of this turn in recognition theory, which treats the demand for identity recognition as an ethical imperative. Such an imperative asks us not to recognize the "truth" of the self, but rather to mirror the empty and illusory self-certainty of narcissism. This has significant consequences for psychiatric and psychological clinicians—especially those informed by the above traditions—who look to engage what is excessive to the ego. I return to Hegel, Kierkegaard, and Lacan to elaborate these consequences. On the basis of their work, I suggest that the ego-recognition imperative presents an ethical dilemma: the choice between "humble courage" and "solemn cowardice."

The critiques of the ego central to the existential, phenomenological, and psychoanalytic traditions have lately been jettisoned by contemporary scholarly and popular discourse about identity recognition, despite its grounding in these traditions. This essay examines a recent example of this turn in recognition theory, which treats the demand for identity recognition as an ethical imperative. Such an imperative asks us not to recognize the "truth" of the self, but rather to mirror the empty and illusory self-certainty of narcissism. This has significant consequences for psychiatric and psychological clinicians—especially those informed by the above traditions—who look to engage what is excessive to the ego. I return to Hegel, Kierkegaard, and Lacan to elaborate these consequences. On the basis of their work, I suggest that the ego-recognition imperative presents an ethical dilemma: the choice between "humble courage" and "solemn cowardice."

"The work of Jacques Lacan is associated more with literature and philosophy than mainstream American psychology, due in large part to the dense language he often employs in articulating his theory - often at the expense of clinical illustration. As a result, his contributions are frequently fascinating, but their utility in the therapeutic setting can be difficult to pinpoint. Lacanian Psychotherapy aims to fill in this clinical gap by presenting theoretical discussions in clear, accessible language and applying them to several chapter-length case studies, thereby demonstrating their clinical relevance. The central concern of this book is the application of Lacan’s notion that the unconscious is structured like, and by, language. This implies a peculiar manner of listening ("to the letter") and intervention, which Miller applies to a number of common clinical concerns - including case formulation, dreams, transference, and diagnosis - in the context of psychotherapy"–Provided by publisher.