Article Summary • Introduction (1 – 2 Sentences) •.docx

Article Summary
• Introduction (1 – 2 Sentences)
• Provide an overview of the article you selected. – Article
Overview (4-5 bullet points or
more)
• What population is under consideration? (1 line) – Population
Sample
• What was the specific intervention that was used? Is this a
new intervention or one that
was already used? (3 Bullet Points) - Intervention
• What were the author’s claims? ( 3 Bullet Points or more) –
Authors Claims
• Explain the findings/outcomes of the study in the article.
Include whether this will
translate into practice with your own clients. If so, how? If not,
why? ( 5 Bullet Points or
more) Findings or Outcomes
• Explain whether the limitations of the study might impact your
ability to use the
findings/outcomes presented in the article. (2-3 Bullet Points)
Study Limitations

• Support your position with evidence-based literature. (2-3
Lines) Position with Evidence
Based Literature
PSYCHOANALYTIC APPLICATIONS IN A
DIVERSE SOCIETY
Pratyusha Tummala-Narra, PhD
Boston College
There is considerable tension within psychoanalysis regarding
the place of
social context in the individual’s inner life. In recent years,
applications of
psychoanalytic theory have extended to contexts outside of the
therapeutic
setting, and psychoanalytic scholars have increasingly attended
to issues of race
and culture within the therapeutic setting. The present article
focuses on appli-
cations of psychoanalytic theory in clinical and community
contexts, with an
emphasis on racial and cultural diversity. The author proposes
an approach to
clinical and community interventions that integrates multiple
theoretical per-
spectives (e.g., psychoanalytic, community, multicultural) to
advance practitio-
ners’ and consultants’ engagement with issues of diversity, and
considers how
practice with racially and culturally diverse populations can

inform existing
psychoanalytic theory. Two case examples, one from
psychotherapy and the
other from a community intervention, are presented to illustrate
the ways in
which psychoanalytic theory can benefit therapeutic work and
consultation
across sociocultural contexts. Implications of the experiences of
minority indi-
viduals and communities for psychoanalytic theory, research,
practice, and
education are discussed.
Keywords: psychoanalytic theory, community, race, culture
In his paper “Wild Psycho-Analysis,” Freud (1910) cautioned
against the loose interpre-
tation of psychoanalytic theory and technique, as he offered a
glimpse into a broader usage
of psychoanalytic ideas by those not formally trained as
psychoanalysts. Inherent in his
critique was a cautionary statement about the analyst’s
interpretation of psychoanalytic
ideas, and an emphasis on self-discovery by the client without
the analyst’s imposition.
The notion of loose interpretation of psychoanalytic ideas is
complicated. On one hand,
psychoanalysis itself has been interpreted differently in some
important ways within
different schools of thought, such as ego psychology, the British
school of object relations,
and relational psychoanalysis. If psychoanalysis were not
subject to interpretation and
This article was published Online First February 4, 2013.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to

Pratyusha Tummala-Narra,
PhD, Department of Counseling, Developmental and
Educational Psychology, Boston College, 319
Campion Hall, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA
02467. E-mail: [email protected]
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m

er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li

ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r

th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to

be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
Psychoanalytic Psychology © 2013 American Psychological
Association
2013, Vol. 30, No. 3, 471– 487 0736-9735/13/$12.00 DOI:
10.1037/a0031375
471
mailto:[email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031375
modification, then these schools of thought would not have as
much to offer as they do
today. On the other hand, broader interpretations of
psychoanalytic principles may still be
experienced as precarious, particularly in the way that
psychoanalytic ideas may be
applied to understandings of diversity within clinical and
nonclinical contexts (e.g.,

community-based interventions). In some cases, the integration
of concepts from other
perspectives, such as multicultural and community
psychologies, in practice and consul-
tation may be viewed as diluting psychoanalysis.
In a way, this dilemma concerning the looseness of
interpretation raises questions
about who decides what psychoanalysis should look like in
theory and practice. I believe
that this dilemma is especially relevant to contemporary times,
as we have experienced
unprecedented changes in demography in the United States and
elsewhere, and global-
ization characterized by rapid exchange of ideas through the
media and Internet. This
dilemma is also current in that psychoanalysis continues to face
challenges to its scientific
legitimacy, or at least the public awareness of this legitimacy,
despite evidence for the
effectiveness of psychoanalytic psychotherapy (Shedler, 2010).
Additionally, questions
about the elite status of psychoanalysis and its relevance to
helping clients remain largely
controversial.
This article addresses some important ways in which
psychoanalysis can be
interpreted through broader and more inclusive lens as a way of
moving toward a more
complete understanding of racial and cultural diversity across
clinical and community
applications. This type of reshaping departs from the ways that
psychoanalysis and
other Euro-American theories have historically been applied to
racially and culturally

diverse communities, either through neglect of issues of
diversity or through over-
simplified modifications of existing psychoanalytic ideas. An
example of the latter is
the application of the concept of Oedipus complex to non-
Western cultures that lacks
a consideration of indigenous narratives of family dynamics
(Tang & Smith, 1996).
This has essentially been a colonizing approach (Altman, 2010),
rather than an
approach that considers multiple subjectivities and indigenous
narrative. From the
perspective of a 1.5-generation Indian American (born in India
and immigrated to the
United States as a child) female psychologist, the present article
considers a psycho-
analytic perspective that interfaces with multicultural
psychology and community
psychology frameworks, with the aim of addressing the
complexity of racial and
ethnic diversity within individual- and community-level
interventions, and of consid-
ering how practice across settings (e.g., psychotherapy,
community work) informs
how social context can be addressed in psychoanalytic theory.
Contemporary psychoanalytic perspectives hold the potential for
privileging individ-
uals’ and communities’ subjective experiences over theoretical
principles that have been
defined under a cultural lens that either diverges from or
devalues individuals and
communities that vary in significant ways from mainstream
cultural context. This ap-
proach is not counter, in fact, to the way that Freud and his
contemporaries engaged in

extending the practice of psychoanalysis to individuals and
communities who were
marginalized along social class lines. Such efforts culminated in
the establishment of free
clinics in Vienna and other parts of Europe, where
psychoanalysis was made accessible to
students, laborers, factory workers, farmers, domestic servants,
and several others who
were unable to pay for their treatment (Danto, 2005). As
Elizabeth Ann Danto (2005)
recognized in her notable book, “Freud’s Free Clinics,” many
early psychoanalysts, such
as Erik Erikson, Melanie Klein, Anna Freud, and Eric Fromm,
although known today for
their theoretical revisions of Freud’s theories, saw themselves
as “brokers of social
change” (p. 4) who challenged political conventions of their
time.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri

gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on

or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in

te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al

us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
472 TUMMALA-NARRA
Psychoanalysis indeed has revolutionary roots, not to mention a
history of persecution and

exile. The history of exile that is part of the psychoanalytic
movement in England and the
United States has marked a retreat from these efforts centered
on social justice. It is only
recently that psychoanalysts have written about exile and its
impact on the psychoanalytic
movement outside of Europe (Danto, 2005). Just as this part of
psychoanalytic history has been
disavowed for decades, contemporary times demand that we
reexamine history and social
context and revisit the notion of social change when we conduct
practice. In the following
sections, I review recent developments in psychoanalytic theory
concerning diversity, appli-
cations of psychoanalytic theory in community intervention, and
then describe two vignettes,
one from psychoanalytic psychotherapy and one from a
community intervention. This will be
followed by a discussion of the applicability of psychoanalytic
ideas across settings, and of
how psychoanalytic theory can be informed by practice and
consultation with racially and
culturally diverse individuals and communities.
Psychoanalytic Theory and Attending to Diversity
Over the past 15 years, psychoanalysts, particularly those using
the lens of object relations
theory and relational psychoanalysis, have written about
internal representations of
gender, race, culture, sexual orientation, and social class. For
example, scholars have
described the importance of the therapist confronting his or her
own feelings of the racial
other in order to address cross-racial and similar-racial
interactions effectively (Altman,

2010; Bonovitz, 2005; Leary, 2006, 2012; Yi, 1998). Emotional
insight in psychotherapy,
within their perspectives, lies in the conceptualization of
therapeutic interaction as
co-constructed by the therapist and client, and the ability to
tolerate ambivalence, anxiety,
sadness, guilt, and shame as negotiated within the therapeutic
dyad. These perspectives
emphasize attachment, separation, and related mourning as
essential components of the
individual’s growth process, where the client and the therapist
are changed by virtue of
relating to one another (Mitchell, 1988; Stolorow, 1988).
Psychoanalysts have also explored intrapsychic and
interpersonal changes in the
context of immigration. Akhtar (1999, 2011) described the many
challenges of the
mourning process for immigrants, including regression into
earlier stages of development,
culture shock and discontinuity of identity, disorganization, and
a third separation-
individuation process. Various aspects of immigrant adjustment
and identity, such as
bilingualism, pre- and postmigration character, challenges with
acculturation, and the role
of fantasy about country of origin and adoptive country, have
been described in the
psychoanalytic literature (Ainslie, 2009; Akhtar, 2011; Eng &
Han, 2000; Foster, 2003;
Tummala-Narra, 2009a). Additionally, in recent years, issues of
spirituality (Aron, 2004;
Roland, 1996; Tummala-Narra, 2009b), sexual
orientation/identity, and gender identity
(Drescher, 2007; Suchet, 2011) have been recognized as central
to individual develop-

ment. Indeed, there have been considerable advances in the
psychoanalytic understanding
of diversity within the context of the therapeutic relationship.
Psychoanalytic ideas on diversity have been further developed
by scholars who would
consider themselves as psychodynamic feminist thinkers.
Scholars who integrate perspec-
tives from psychoanalysis and multicultural psychology have
approached psychoanalytic
concepts such as culturally and racially based transference in
the therapeutic relationship
with an emphasis on the role of power, privilege, and social
hierarchies in interpersonal
and intrapsychic experience (Comas-Diaz, 2006; Greene, 2007;
Tummala-Narra, 2007).
These developments in psychoanalytic perspectives and
diversity are largely influenced by
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri

us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
473PSYCHOANALYTIC APPLICATIONS
multicultural and feminist frameworks, which have been
instrumental in raising awareness

of the unique experiences of gender, racial, and cultural groups
and related structural
power dynamics inherent to mainstream society. The influence
of multicultural psychol-
ogy in particular is evident in research, practice, and training
guidelines that emphasize
psychologists’ awareness, knowledge, and skills in effectively
working with individuals
from diverse sociocultural backgrounds (Sue, 2001; Vasquez,
2007).
Psychoanalysis has the potential to provide depth and meaning
to various aspects of
diversity (e.g., race, culture, social class, sexual orientation,
dis/ability) within the pro-
fession of psychology. Indeed, psychoanalytic literature has
increasingly recognized the
need to attend to social context in the therapeutic dyad. For
example, Flores (2007) noted
the importance of “a mode of psychoanalytic listening” (p. 255)
that involves the psychic
and social aspects of the therapeutic dyad. The
decontextualization of individual experi-
ence in psychotherapy has been thought to be as a dissociative
process that interferes with
therapeutic work (Bodnar, 2004). Smith (2006) noted that
psychoanalysts work with the
specifics of clients’ intrapsychic lives, and, as such, the analyst
should consider the
specifics of experiences with diversity and how they shape the
psyche. He further
cautioned that we have to be in a position to recognize the
specifics in order to “analyze
what is manifest or infer what is unconscious” (p. 9). The
alternative to this, of course, is
to disavow relevant aspects of our clients’ and our own

identities, and render these
dimensions of the psyche invisible. Unfortunately, this has been
the case for a good part
of psychoanalytic history, as evidenced in Freud’s ambivalence
toward and rejection of
cultural specifics, reducing cultural dimensions to neurotic
adaptation (Akhtar & Tum-
mala-Narra, 2005; Altman, 2010).
Psychoanalytic Theory and Community Intervention
Psychoanalytic concepts have been increasingly applied in
community-based interven-
tions over the past decade. Some theorists have integrated
concepts such as transference,
enactments, defense mechanisms, and working through to
understand their experiences of
working with clients in community interventions (Borg, 2004;
Darwin & Reich, 2006;
Miller, 2008; Twemlow & Parens, 2006). Borg (2004) described
a project with a
low-income community in Los Angeles in the aftermath of the
riots following the Rodney
King verdict in 1992. In this account, he noted the shared
emphasis on collaboration in
community empowerment theory and interpersonal
psychoanalysis, and emphasized the
importance of addressing tensions related to conflicting points
of view within this
collaborative approach. Borg coined “community character,”
which “reflects unconscious
internalization” of patterns of behavior and unspoken rules that
help the community cope
with anxiety (p. 151). In the case of the riots in Los Angeles, he
conceptualized the
relational patterns of community residents as characterized by

racial, ethnic, and gender
stereotyping, and hostility toward outsiders, reflecting both
actual relationships with
significant others and the broader social context (Borg, 2004).
Relatedly, King and Shelley
(2008) drew connections between community psychology and
psychoanalysis, highlight-
ing Adler’s (1966) valuing of social context and community
feeling as essential to the
individual’s adjustment to communal life.
Twemlow and Parens (2006) further described the overlap
between psychoanalysis
and community psychology, including the use of a
developmental perspective, respecting
and privileging all sides of conflict in the working through
process, the importance of
holding and containing, appreciation of subjectivity, and
assessing for a sufficient level of
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py

ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti

on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is

in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du

al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
474 TUMMALA-NARRA
anxiety to motivate change. They suggested that psychoanalytic

knowledge is critical for
community-based work and advocated for an actively supportive
community psychoan-
alytic method with less emphasis on interpretation. This
approach (Twemlow & Parens,
2006; Volkan, 2001) involves several features: establishing a
point of similarity between
participants allowing for tolerance of differences and negative
emotions; collaboration,
developing personal relationships such that the process becomes
humanized; establishing
mutual respect for differences that can trigger racial, religious,
gender, and ethnic
stereotypes; developing a common language for better
communication; accepting that the
process requires ongoing maintenance; understanding that
collaborative nonblaming pro-
motes change; and the adoption of a neutral position of the
facilitator who encourages
mutual problem solving. Such an approach may pose challenges
to the psychoanalytic
practitioner’s sense of identity, as it requires an integration of
multiple theoretical
perspectives in a nonclinical context.
Several psychoanalytic practitioners have written about how
their experiences of
working in community settings, many of which suffered
considerable trauma, raised
questions about their psychoanalytic identity. For example,
Miller (2008) described his
experience working with a New York City firehouse in the
aftermath of severe loss at the
World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. In his account,
Miller recognized his role as
requiring flexibility to best suit the needs of the community. In

one example, he noted
potentially conflicting roles, as he questioned whether his
identification with the trauma-
tized members of the community interfered with his sense of
neutrality. In a different
account, Granatir (2004) described how his personal experience
as a Jew and minority
helped him identify with and relate to boys and girls in a
school-based program in
Washington, D.C. He noted how his training as an analyst
prepared him to listen with
openness, curiosity, and acceptance of differences across
people. In each of these exam-
ples, psychoanalytic practitioners point to the ways in which
their personal and profes-
sional identities expanded through their efforts with integrating
psychoanalytic perspec-
tives beyond the clinical setting.
Liang, Tummala-Narra, and West (2011) reviewed several
psychoanalytic concepts,
such as intersubjectivity, transference, enactments, and the role
of affect, as highly
relevant to community based interventions. They encourage all
practitioners and consul-
tants involved in community-based work to actively integrate a
psychodynamic under-
standing of interpersonal aspects of interventions, including
racial and cultural conflicts,
with a collaborative approach that fosters empowerment and
meaningful change. In this
perspective, psychoanalytic theory approaches the study of
power and social injustice with
complexity and multidimensionality, such that community
collaborators (e.g., consultants
and community members) can more effectively address

individual, group, and environ-
mental stress.
Interestingly, although recent psychoanalytic applications in
community interventions
have raised interest in how best to conceptualize group
dynamics in the community setting
from a psychoanalytic perspective, few scholars have addressed
how community-based
work may better inform an understanding of social context
within psychoanalysis more
broadly (Twemlow & Parens, 2006; Twemlow, Fonagy, Sacco,
Vernberg, & Malcolm,
2011). In the following sections, I describe two case vignettes
that include components of
my work in a psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy and a
community based inter-
vention, both focusing on racial and cultural dynamics. These
vignettes are presented with
the purpose of (a) illustrating potential applications of
psychoanalytic concepts and an
integration of multicultural and community psychologies in
addressing racial and cultural
dynamics in two distinct settings, and (b) considering the
implications of therapeutic
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en

t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A

ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar

ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e

in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.

practice and community consultation with racial and ethnic
minority clients for psycho-
analytic theory and identity.
Case Example: Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy With “Reena”
“Reena” is a 30-year-old Hindu, Indian American woman, born
and raised in the
northeastern part of the United States. She works full time and
sought psychotherapy to
cope with her increasing anxiety at work. She was referred to
me by her primary care
physician. She had never previously worked with a
psychotherapist. I worked with Reena
in weekly psychotherapy for approximately 3 years.
Reena’s parents immigrated to the United States from a northern
region of India in the
late 1970s, during a time of mounting violence between Hindus
and Muslims in the
region. Her parents spoke little English and worked in a family
business when they first
arrived in the United States. Reena has a younger sister with
whom she feels close. She
described her childhood as feeling “hectic,” with her parents
working most of the time and
her relatives (aunts, uncles at varying times) taking care of her
and her sister. She stated
that this experience was mixed in that she felt safe when her
parents were there and most
of the time with her relatives. However, she did recall that

between ages 5 and 8 years,
she periodically witnessed her maternal uncle physically abuse
his wife, during times
when they were babysitting her and her sister. She did not tell
her parents about these
incidents, as she did not want to upset them and felt as though
there was not another
alternative. In one session, she told me that she felt scared
during these times, especially
for her aunt.
Reena spoke in Hindi primarily at home, and in English outside
of the home. She and
her sister would often translate for their parents outside the
home. She recalled this
experience as a generally good one in that she felt that she was
contributing to her family
and that her parents appreciated her help. The family’s visits to
India were infrequent, due
to limited financial resources. Reena was encouraged to excel
academically and took on
this role as a shared dream with her parents. She completed her
graduate education and
feels that she has fulfilled her wishes as well as that of her
parents. Reena reported having
a closer relationship with her mother than her father, and that
she felt sorry for her mother,
who carried the burden of working outside the home and taking
care of children at home.
She stated, “It’s like she never had a break until we left home.”
At the time that I met
Reena, she had been living far away from her parents’ home,
and maintained frequent
contact with them by phone and e-mail.
Reena’s school experiences were characterized by considerable

anxiety. She recalled
having few friends in her school and mostly interacted with
friends in her neighborhood.
Most of the children in her school (elementary through high
school) were from middle-
class White European American backgrounds. Reena recalled
being teased because of her
Hindu background, her brown skin color, and for wearing her
hair in a braid and a bindi
(dot) on her forehead when she was in elementary school. As
she entered middle school,
she told her parents that she no longer wanted to wear the bindi.
Difference at school,
more generally, was considered to be bad. Reena recalled an
experience in high school
where a Sikh boy was teased to a point when his parents moved
to a different school
district. She remembered feeling afraid of being seen as
different and, at the same time,
angry about what had happened to this boy. Reena began to hide
her Indian identity when
she was around her non-Indian friends in high school, and found
partial success in doing
this. She felt that she was more included by others, and yet, felt
that her Indian and
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en

476 TUMMALA-NARRA
American worlds were disconnected. In college, she began
dating men whom she never
introduced to her parents. In fact, she worked hard to keep these
relationships a secret
from them.
In her late twenties, Reena began to feel pressured by her
parents to marry an Indian
American man. When I met her, Reena had been dating a White
American man who was
of Italian and French heritage for about 1 year, and she felt
increasingly anxious about her
intimacy with him. This fear was in part related to her memories
of her abusive uncle, and
in part to her concerns about racial and cultural differences. She
worried about the
difference in their cultural background and further separating
from speaking in Hindi.
However, she felt somewhat more comfortable with his
working-class background, as it
resembled her own social class background growing up. At the
same time, she was upset
about what she experienced as racist attitudes of his parents. In
one incident, when she
went out for dinner with his family, his father made derogatory
statements about African
Americans. Reena was taken aback and wondered about how he
felt about her racial
background and her brown skin color. Although she felt as
though she loved her
boyfriend, she remained cautious about their relationship. She

found herself increasingly
worried at her workplace as well, having thoughts about others
viewing her as inferior in
some way. Her concerns at her workplace were especially
salient when some coworkers
commented on how “exotic” she looked, which she experienced
as derogatory.
In psychotherapy, Reena and I worked on better understanding
her anxiety both within
and outside of the therapeutic relationship. She asked me on two
different occasions if I
felt that her contact with her parents was too frequent. She
spoke with them twice a week
by phone and e-mailed them twice a week. I asked her if she
enjoyed talking with her
parents. She said “Yes, it’s important to me that I talk with
them.” When we talked about
her questioning herself, she expressed that most of her friends
who are not Indian told her
that she was too dependent on her parents. I believe that it was
important for her to hear
that it is fine to talk with her parents as much as she wanted and
to be able to speak in
Hindi with them. Early in our work, we began to challenge some
of these assumptions that
were based on Western, European American ideas about parent–
child relationships, about
which she felt ambivalent.
As our work progressed, Reena expressed concern that I would
not approve of her
relationship with a non-Indian man, especially one that comes
from a “racist family.” In
one session, she stated, “You’re probably thinking about why
I’m with this guy. I don’t

know that I really understand.” When I asked her to say more
about what she was
imagining about my response, she said, “I don’t know if you
would think this is ok, I mean
to be with someone not Indian. You are probably married to
someone Indian. I’ve
wondered about this. Then, I wonder what it will be like to tell
my parents, when I don’t
even know if I want to be with him.” I responded, “What would
it be like for you if I was
married to an Indian man?” She stated, “Well, it would be good,
I guess. You would be
doing all the right things, you know being a professional and
marrying the right type of
person, bring a good Indian woman.” We went on to explore the
“right type of Indian
woman” and her feelings of difference from me. Difference was
also apparent in the
contrast between Reena’s light brown skin tone and my darker
brown skin tone. Through
our discussions of our skin color differences, Reena understood
her fantasy of me being
married to an Indian man as reflecting her association between
darker skin color and a
stronger Indian identification. These discussions about skin
color provoked anxiety for
both of us, as we had each brought to our interaction
complicated histories with race and
skin color as Indian American women. For example, Reena felt
unsure about what her
relationship with her boyfriend and his family would mean for
her own racial identity
T
hi

s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch

ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs

.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al

us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at

ed
br
oa
dl
y.
development, specifically that her racial minority status and her
experiences with discrim-
ination would be invisible to them. Memories of my own
experiences with racial and skin
color discrimination outside of the Indian American community
and within the Indian
American community, respectively, were elicited while working
with Reena. As I identify
with a bicultural Indian American orientation and as a person of
color in the United States,
I recognized that I shared some of Reena’s experiences and, at
the same time, wanted to
help her become more aware of the conscious and unconscious
meanings accompanying
her experiences with race and ethnicity. Attending to our
differences in skin color
facilitated an exploration of authenticity as Indian origin
women and a sense of belonging
within and outside of the Indian American community
(Tummala-Narra, 2007).
We further struggled with difference and similarity as Reena
later revealed that she felt
as though I could understand her Indian American and Hindu

backgrounds, but perhaps
not her working-class background. Reena imagined that our
shared cultural experience
was disrupted by the possibility that I am married to an Indian
man. I was also aware of
the absence of the Hindi language in our work, another point of
separation for us. Some
of my countertransferential reactions included feeling rejected
by her, as I felt that she had
not seen my experiences with social class. I immigrated to the
United States as a child and
experienced shifts across social class throughout my life.
Somehow, in our interactions,
Reena had not recognized this part of my life and it
disappointed me. Perhaps, I, too, felt
distant from her and my own past in these moments. Like
Reena, I had struggled with
separation from my parents and acculturating to the Western
cultural context. At the same
time, I recognized that we were both experiencing ambivalence
about our relatively
privileged positions, with cultural identifications, and
separation from parents. My expe-
rience was invisible to her, as hers was invisible to her parents,
her peers in school, and
her boyfriend and his family. Our work evoked questions about
the position of the
therapist or analyst whose multiple identities are both seen and
unseen by the client.
In the course of our work together, we increasingly talked about
her experience of
hiding aspects of her life from important people in her life (e.g.,
parents, boyfriend) and
the experience of talking about these “hidden parts” with me.
This discussion of her social

context and identity, particularly with respect to culture, race,
gender, and social class,
helped to create a space in which Reena could more fully
explore her racial and cultural
identities, an essential component of her conflicts with intimacy
with family members,
friends, and boyfriend.
Case Example: Community Intervention
As a coordinator for a community-based outreach project in a
large city in the northeastern
part of the United States, I was asked by an administrator in an
urban middle school to
help develop psychoeducational group meetings in an
afterschool program. The staff and
majority of the students at the middle school are African
American, and the rest of the
students are of Latino or multiracial backgrounds. The staff at
the afterschool program had
been increasingly concerned about students’ exposure to
violence in their neighborhoods.
Many of the staff members recognized the stress experienced by
the students, particularly
a few boys who verbally expressed their anger after witnessing
two men mugging a young
woman. My colleague, a White American woman, and I
arranged a meeting with the staff
of the afterschool program.
At this initial meeting with the staff, my colleague and I learned
that this type of
incident was a relatively common experience for many students
and that traumatic
T

hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy

ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he

rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on

al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in

at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
478 TUMMALA-NARRA
experiences were typically not talked about in the family or at
school. The staff hoped to
find ways to address students’ exposure to violence at a weekly
discussion group focused
on health topics (physical and emotional), which the students
were required to attend.
During our meeting, an African American staff member also
expressed concern about the
ability of “doctors from a predominantly White institution” to
relate to the concerns of the
school, students, and community. When I heard this staff
member’s response, I was
moved by her honesty and, at the same time, felt as though she
had not noticed my race
or ethnicity. It was as though she was solely responding to my
White colleague, who was
silent through most of the meeting. I acknowledged to the staff
that my institution was
predominantly White and asked them to provide more detail
about their concerns. A
different staff member stated, “We really want to make sure that
you all understand the

community here, and what our kids go through and what is
realistic for them.” Other staff
members agreed and joined in voicing their concerns about our
approach to the afterschool
program. It was clear that the staff were understandably
protective of the students’ welfare
and cautious about any negative outside influence that would
further stress the students.
The staff’s concerns reflected previous experiences with health
care professionals who had
disappointed the school community. One example of this was
raised by a staff member
who stated, “I’m worried about how many of our boys have the
label ADHD, and the
parents are just told to give them medicine. Some of these boys
just need someone to talk
to, not all of these drugs, but this is what the doctors tell them
to do.” As the staff
discussed their concerns, I was aware that many of staff and
students had previously
experienced institutional racism, and aware of the cultural
mistrust toward me, possibly
because of a concern that I may have internalized the oppressive
culture of these
institutions and toward my colleague, who may have been
experienced as representing
institutions that have discriminated against African Americans
and other ethnic minorities.
Toward the end of our first meeting, my colleague and I thanked
the staff for sharing their
concerns, and we requested several more meetings prior to
starting the discussion groups
with the students in the afterschool program. We felt that this
was necessary to establish
a collaboration to develop an adequate intervention.

While driving back to our office, I asked my colleague why she
had remained silent
through this meeting. She shared with me that she felt
overwhelmed by a sense of sadness
and guilt, and worried that she would enact the situation that the
staff and she feared by
“taking over” the meeting by talking. She chose to stay silent to
cope with feeling
simultaneously like an outsider and oppressor. I told her that,
interestingly, I felt like an
outsider because my race and ethnicity were treated as
irrelevant or invisible, and that
racial difference had been conceptualized around Black–White
lines, as they typically are
in mainstream American society. My colleague stated that she
felt surprised by my
reaction and that she had seen me as an insider because of my
Indian background. Indeed,
the consultants had felt “othered,” and, at the same time, we
wondered whether we had
“othered” the staff in some way. We were also aware of being
outside of the comfort zone
of our offices and potentially imposing ourselves at the school.
It was clear that my
colleague’s feelings of White guilt and my feelings of
invisibility, which were connected
with long-standing racial dynamics concerning Black–White
lines and the ambivalent
position of race and racial identity among Indian Americans
(Tummala-Narra, Inman, &
Ettigi, 2011), contributing to racial dynamics among
professionals from African Ameri-
can, Indian American, White American backgrounds that are
typically unexplored.
Toward the end of our second meeting, an African American

staff member asked me
where I was from. I replied by saying that I was born in India
and grew up primarily in
the United States. She then stated that she knew that I was not
from the United States. I
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m

be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
responded by saying, “I’m Indian American. Where did you
grow up?” She then told me
that she had been raised in the local area. In the coming weeks,
during the periods between
our meetings with staff, I wondered if I should interpret what I
had repeatedly experienced
as being “othered” because of my non-Black and non-White
racial status. I also wondered
for whom (i.e., staff, me, my colleague) and at what point in
time an interpretation of
racial dynamics would be experienced as helpful. The insider–
outsider dynamic that was
apparent from the beginning of our interactions conflicted with
my wish to belong and be
accepted as a credible professional who could consult

effectively in the afterschool
program. In the third meeting with the staff, we engaged in a
discussion about students’
self-care in the context of violence exposure. Several staff
members reported that they
worried about the students’ physical health as much as their
emotional health. Some
students mostly depended on fast food restaurants for their
meals and other students ate
only one meal per day, at school. The staff also expressed that
many of the students did
not have access to annual physical exams because of parents’
work hours or unavailability.
A staff member stated, “They (students) are treated sometimes
like they are adults, like
they are supposed to feed themselves, take care of their bodies,
and sometimes nobody
there to protect them.”
As the discussion progressed, we talked about the possibility of
developing discussion
groups after school, focused on physical stress related to
exposure to violence in the
neighborhood. Specifically, we planned a discussion with the
students about how being
exposed to violence can be stressful to the body, and strategies
to cope with this stress. My
colleague and I asked the staff to tell us about their perceptions
of students’ attitudes
toward nutrition. Most of the staff expressed that the students
had little exposure to healthy
eating. My colleague suggested that we discuss healthy eating
habits with the students. I
joined by stating that it may be helpful to provide handouts
about healthy meals. When we
ended the meeting, I realized that the staff had not actually

responded explicitly to our
suggestions, and that, in fact, my colleague and I had not
considered how this approach
would be experienced by the staff or the students. I also
recognized that I was disappointed
in myself for not thinking through the social contextual
implications of the nutrition
education. In retrospect, I think that joining with my colleague
in simplifying or neglect-
ing the social context of the intervention was, in part, a
reflection of my wish to identify
with someone (my colleague) who had been more emotionally
accessible to me. Up to this
point, I had been unsuccessful in my attempts to connect with
the program staff and had
perhaps resigned to the idea that my help was not going to be
accepted.
With three remaining meetings before the initial student
workshop, I asked the staff to
talk about their reactions to our suggestions from the previous
meeting. Although some
staff seemed reluctant to share their reactions, others stated that
they did not know how
the students would be able to relate to a healthy eating plan that
assumes that people have
adequate resources and access to markets and restaurants that
sell or serve healthy foods.
One staff member stated, “There is no Subway in this
neighborhood— only McDonalds
and KFC.” I then commented, “You may feel then that our idea
of talking about healthy
foods raises some important questions, like is this plan realistic,
or how might someone
who doesn’t live in this neighborhood understand what it is like
here.” Several staff

members expressed that they wanted this intervention to be
productive for the students and
that providing handouts may not feel relevant to the students.
Interestingly, no one
explicitly questioned our credibility. After raising our outsider
status as a potential barrier
to the intervention again, one staff member stated, “I don’t want
to offend anyone, but it’s
hard to know if what you suggest would actually be what we
need here.” Another staff
member stated, “I think this is a little hard to talk about, but
yes, there is a difference in
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by

th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of

it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so

le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d

is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
480 TUMMALA-NARRA
where we come from.” I responded, “Thank you for telling us
how you feel. I think that
this conversation is really important for us to actually be
productive and plan a discussion
that will help the kids.” My colleague joined me in thanking the
group for sharing their
thoughts.

Later in the discussion, I revealed to the group that I, too, had
experienced feeling
alienated and disempowered in predominantly White institutions
and by people who were
not familiar with my Indian ethnicity. Several staff members
expressed that they appre-
ciated hearing about my experience and that they had indeed
assumed that I would not be
able to relate to their context because of my privileged status as
a professional. Further,
they talked about their interactions with some Indian people,
whom they experienced as
“acting more White than people of color.” I responded by
sharing that race indeed held an
ambivalent position with many Asian Indians and with
immigrants more broadly, and that
I sometimes feel like I was searching for a place of belonging
and identity because race
is often seen along Black–White lines in the United States.
These moments in the meeting marked an important shift in how
my colleague and I
connected with the staff. Everyone in the room seemed more
relaxed with each other, as
though we had all felt a bit safer with each other. I came to
realize that this discussion was
not only critical for creating a general feeling of safety in the
room but also for moving
toward a conversation about exposure to violence in the
community—an experience
shared by the students and staff. In the last two meetings, the
staff began sharing some of
their own experiences of witnessing and being victimized by
community violence. They
talked about how they often felt isolated, with few resources to
access the help that they

need. It became clear that the staff’s ability to connect with the
students’ experiences with
community violence would be an important part of the
afterschool intervention. We talked
in depth about how the staff could potentially talk about some
of their own experiences
early on in the intervention (e.g., discussion groups with
students) as a way of helping to
validate the students’ experiences and to collaborate with the
students to develop strate-
gies that are culturally and contextually grounded. The staff and
students worked together
to develop ways of coping with physical and emotional stress
related to violence exposure.
We decided to continue meeting once every other week over the
next several months to
discuss the progress of the afterschool intervention and to
collaborate on brainstorming
any potential conflicts or problems that would arise in the
program. The staff expressed
several times that they appreciated the guidance with attending
to the affective and
interpersonal processes in our group meetings and in the
meetings with the students.
Revisiting Psychoanalytic Applications and Diversity
The case examples that I have presented reflect ways in which
psychoanalysis is relevant
across treatment and consultation settings, and how community
psychology and multi-
cultural psychology can be integrated to better address
sociocultural context with indi-
viduals and communities. Since its inception, psychoanalytic
theory has been rooted in
observations from the clinical encounter. In reflecting on the

case examples, it is worth
considering how psychoanalytic, community, and multicultural
frameworks shaped the
interventions, and the questions that racial and cultural
dynamics in the different practice
settings raise for psychoanalytic theory.
In the psychoanalytic perspective, the practitioner/consultant
helps to foster emotional
insight, and the uncovering of conscious and unconscious
feelings and thoughts, which is
central to identifying conflict and promoting change.
McWilliams (2003) noted that
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d

by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e

of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed

so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an

d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
uncovering feelings can allow for experience to be organized,
giving “form to chaos” (p.
251). In my work with Reena and with the afterschool program
staff, attending to affective
experiences was necessary for self-understanding. The difficult
interactions in which my
client (e.g., Reena, afterschool staff) and I were able to talk

about our emotional reactions
to events both inside and outside the therapy/consultation
setting helped to create a real
sense of safety. I understood these exchanges as the basis for
our collaboration. This
collaboration established itself through an examination of the
intersubjective space in
which affect and enactment were mutually influenced by the
client, me, and both of our
social contexts (Liang et al., 2011). This is evident, for
example, when Reena wondered
if my spouse is Indian, reflecting both her transference toward
me as an Indian woman
who does what an Indian woman is supposed to do (e.g., marry
an Indian man), and her
wish to be seen by me as someone who can make choices that
diverge from this idealized
conception of Indian women, and still remain emotionally
connected to me and her Indian
heritage.
Psychoanalytic theory emphasizes the therapist’s ability to bear
witness to the client’s
past and present life experiences and to hold the client’s
perspective, even when it may
sharply contrast with that of the therapist. Psychoanalytic
practitioners are well aware of
the intrapsychic and interpersonal effects of trauma. Through
interpretation of transfer-
ence and education about the problematic nature of trauma, the
therapist attempts to
differentiate himself/herself from the perpetrator (McWilliams,
2003). The ability to
tolerate and engage with multiple subjectivities in the case of
traumatic exposure was
clearly important in the afterschool intervention. For example,

it was important that I
understood the staff’s ambivalence about engaging with mental
health professionals from
a predominantly White institution as reflective of previous
experiences of trauma, both
violence in the community and racial trauma directed against
African Americans and other
ethnic minorities (e.g., Latino/a American). In honoring the
reality and significance of
these traumatic experiences, I needed to simultaneously
recognize my personal experi-
ences of racial trauma as an Indian American, my feelings of
sadness about the staff’s and
students’ experiences of racial trauma, and our shared feelings
of “otherness.” This
attempt to examine multiple subjectivities was critical for
addressing the insider– outsider
dynamic that characterized the group dynamic throughout our
meetings.
In bridging a psychoanalytic perspective with community
psychology and multicul-
tural psychology, it is worth noting some areas of common
ground across these frame-
works. All three perspectives value the enormous challenges
posed to individuals in the
face of loss and injustice. The validation of the individual’s
distress under circumstances
of trauma and cruelty is an important aspect of all of these
frameworks. Community
psychology and multicultural psychology, however, attend to
larger systemic problems,
such as racism and poverty, as sources of emotional distress,
and emphasize the role of
resilience as a contextually determined phenomenon (Liang et
al., 2011). Psychoanalytic

theory, which has historically decontextualized individual
psychological distress, has the
potential to more closely examine the interaction between
systemic, interpersonal, and
individual sources of distress and resilience. Specifically, the
psychoanalytic emphasis on
unconscious processes facilitates a more in-depth understanding
of individual and collec-
tive meanings of experience. For example, a multicultural
psychology perspective allowed
for closer attention to the effects of racism on Reena’s
experiences as an Indian American,
and a psychoanalytic perspective was essential to discovering
the unique meanings that
Reena’s experiences of racism held for her sense of self, her
relationships with others, and
for the therapeutic alliance. A community psychology
perspective was instrumental in
helping me to develop a frame for the consultation in the
afterschool program through its
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co

py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia

ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e

is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi

du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
482 TUMMALA-NARRA

questioning of power, privilege, and expert knowledge, which
indeed belonged to the staff
and students in the program. A multicultural perspective helped
me with understanding the
importance of social location (e.g., race, immigration) in
developing a collaborative
intervention. Further, a psychoanalytic perspective allowed for
an examination of how
best to address the fears and hopes that lay beneath the
dynamics of race, power, and
privilege for both the staff and the consultants.
Another area of emphasis shared by these three perspectives
concerns the issue of
self-examination. Over the past decade, community
psychologists and multicultural
psychologists have described the importance of examining one’s
values, biases, and
social location in the context of community collaboration and
psychotherapy, respec-
tively (Goodman et al., 2004; Liang et al., 2011).
Psychoanalytic scholars have
increasingly attended to the influence and use of
countertransference and intersubjec-
tivity on the therapeutic relationship (Altman, 2010). The role
of self-examination was
salient in both case examples. For instance, recognizing my
wish to belong and be
accepted in my relationships with both Reena and the
afterschool staff was an
important step in understanding power differentials in the
treatment/consultation
relationship and for creating an interpersonal space where
authentic discussions about
race and ethnicity were possible.

Bearing in mind the potential of bridging psychoanalytic,
community, and multi-
cultural perspectives, it is worth considering some implications
of such integration on
the identity of psychoanalytic practitioners who work across
clinical and community
settings. Different theoretical perspectives have privileged
certain contexts of indi-
vidual and social change. For example, community psychology
has argued against
individual psychotherapy in promoting social change (Albee,
1990), and psychoanal-
ysis has tended to dismiss community level interventions as
superficial or incapable
of fostering deep internal change (Kaufmann, 2003; King &
Shelley, 2008). Multi-
cultural psychology has historically denounced the use of
traditional, especially
classical psychoanalytic theory, as this perspective has not
integrated an understand-
ing of sociocultural context (Sue, 2001). However, in recent
years, practitioners and
consultants who work across diverse contexts (e.g., clinical,
community), and with
clients of diverse racial and cultural backgrounds, have
increasingly recognized the
need to revisit these theoretical assumptions (Altman, 2010;
Comas-Diaz, 2006;
Leary, 2012; Liang, Tummala-Narra, & West, 2011).
The reconsideration of psychoanalytic theory and practice is
important for several
reasons, including the ability and competence of practitioners
and consultants to
provide treatment and consultation that fosters meaningful
change to individuals and

communities who face social marginalization and lack of access
to adequate re-
sources. It is worth noting that the valuing of social justice has
always been an
inherent part of psychoanalytic history, and yet social justice
has largely remained
disconnected from a more complete integration of social context
in psychoanalytic
practice, research, and training. Attending to diversity as
psychoanalytic practitioners,
researchers, and educators would potentially mean that we raise
new questions and
redefine our roles. In particular, we can examine how
knowledge about specific racial
and cultural contexts can inform both conceptualization and
technique, in an effort to
move beyond only applying existing psychoanalytic concepts to
different practice
settings and communities. Psychoanalytic technique, such as the
use of interpretation,
can be modified based on a deeper knowledge of both
sociocultural context and the
individual’s conscious and unconscious identifications with this
context. Psychoanal-
ysis can further integrate knowledge of the impact of racial
trauma on the individual’s
T
hi
s
do
cu
m

en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al

A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s

ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th

e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl

y.
and community’s day-to-day life, which shapes the psyche. We
can examine how our
practice, research, and teaching either influence or neglect
socially marginalized
communities. For example, what part do we play in the “social
mirroring” (Suárez-
Orozco, 2000) of individuals and communities? Do we explore
the potential meanings
of our social location in our interactions with clients in
psychotherapy? How do we
address “microaggressions” (Pierce, 1995; Sue, Bucceri, Lin,
Nadal, & Torino, 2007)
directed against our clients and those directed against us? How
is psychoanalytic
practice experienced differently by minority therapists and
clients when compared
with majority therapists and clients? What role do we as
therapists/analysts play in
perpetuating institutional discrimination directed against
marginalized communities?
How might we consciously or unconsciously either encourage or
discourage minority
individuals and communities to seek help from us?
These questions require a broadening of psychoanalytic theory
and technique such
that there is a more active exploration of interaction between
sociocultural contexts,
communities, and individuals. As such, this is time of great
opportunity for psycho-

analytic theorists and researchers to expand both the theory and
applications of
psychoanalysis. Eisold (2003) proposed that psychoanalysis
move away from a point
of isolation and collaborate with other disciplines in order to
expand its relevance to
broader society. As pluralism within psychoanalytic theory has
produced both ten-
sions and creativity in practice, an integration of frameworks
that emphasize social
context can help to deepen psychoanalytic approaches to
diversity. Psychoanalytic
practitioners, researchers, and educators would have to further
consider changes
within institutions, such as acceptance of multiple theoretical
perspectives and a
commitment to developing relationships with individuals and
communities (e.g.,
minority populations) that do not typically look to
psychoanalytic practitioners,
researchers, and educators for help. We would have to listen
intently to indigenous
conceptualizations of health and pathology that contrast with
conceptualizations based
on our personal life experience or traditional psychoanalytic
training. Researchers
would approach psychoanalytic concepts such as attachment and
object relations from
culturally relevant perspectives, rather than solely rely on
Western, Euro-American
developmental perspectives.
Such an effort would further involve modifications to training,
including broad-
ening skills both within and outside of the psychotherapy
setting and educating

communities and institutions (service and training) about the
benefits of psychoana-
lytic applications within their contexts. In fact, curricula have
been proposed for
training as a community psychoanalyst (Twemlow & Parens,
2006). However, train-
ing curricula that specifically focus on racial and cultural
diversity, and psychoana-
lytic theory and technique, have yet to be developed and
implemented. Furthermore,
the experiences of minority trainees and therapists in
psychoanalytically oriented
graduate programs or institutes are rarely discussed in the
psychoanalytic literature,
contributing to the problem of isolation for these individuals
and communities.
Unfortunately, the experiences of minority trainees, in
particular, may be additionally
influenced by the “authoritative culture of psychoanalytic
education” (Lhulier, 2005, p.
468). It would indeed be helpful for psychoanalytic educators to
learn more about the
experiences of minority trainees and therapists and utilize this
knowledge to modify
theory, practice, and education. These changes require a closer
look at systemic issues
within the psychoanalytic profession, through increased
dialogue both within and outside
of psychoanalytic circles.
T
hi
s
do

cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og

ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T

hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e

of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br

oa
dl
y.
484 TUMMALA-NARRA
Concluding Comments
I chose to present case examples from two distinct contexts as a
way to illustrate the
potential breadth of psychoanalytic applications, and to
consider how practice across
contexts can inform psychoanalytic understandings of racial and
cultural diversity. In both
examples, the mutual impact of the therapist and client, and the
consultant and the
community, shapes the experience of the healing relationship
and raises questions about
how we construct theory from real world interactions with
clients. Our clients’ sociocul-
tural histories and their ongoing negotiation of social and
political aspects of their identity
in contemporary society lie at the root of psychoanalytic theory
development. The
therapist’s/consultant’s negotiation of these issues in his or her
life is also critical to this
process of understanding. The examination of multiple
subjectivities and narratives drives
a psychoanalysis that attends to social and cultural specifics. It
is my hope that psycho-
analysis moves in the direction of conceptualizing the specifics
of diversity and diverse
contexts as essential components that shape the psyche, rather

than dismiss these specifics
as sociological artifacts. I hope that we can consider imagining
ourselves as agents of
social change in a broader sense than what we have collectively
done in past decades, and
expand discourse on how psychoanalytic practitioners,
consultants, researchers, and
educators can integrate multiple perspectives in better attending
to the needs of minority
individuals and communities. I believe that the future of
diversity studies depends on
psychoanalysis, and perhaps the future of psychoanalysis
depends on better attending to
diverse contexts.
References
Adler, A. (1966). The psychology of power. Journal of
Individual Psychology, 22, 166 –172.
Ainslie, R. C. (2009). Social class and its reproduction in
immigrants’ construction of self.
Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society Special Issue: Immigration,
14, 213–224.
Akhtar, S. (1999). Immigration and identity: Turmoil,
treatment, and transformation. Northvale, NJ:
Jason Aronson.
Akhtar, S. (2011). Immigration and acculturation: Mourning,
adaptation, and the next generation.
Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson.
Akhtar, S., & Tummala-Narra, P. (2005). Psychoanalysis in
India. In S. Akhtar (Ed.), Freud along
the Ganges (pp. 3–25). New York, NY: Other Press.

Albee, G. W. (1990). The futility of psychotherapy. Journal of
Mind and Behavior, 11, 369 –384.
Altman, N. (2010). The analyst in the inner city (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Aron, L. (2004). God’s influence on my psychoanalytic vision
and values. Psychoanalytic Psychol-
ogy, 21, 442–451. doi:10.1037/0736-9735.21.3.442
Bodnar, S. (2004). Remember where you come from:
Dissociative process in multicultural indi-
viduals. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 14, 581–603.
doi:10.1080/10481880409353128
Bonovitz, C. (2005). Locating culture in the psychic field:
Transference and countertransference as
cultural products. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 41, 55–75.
Borg, M. B. (2004). Venturing beyond the consulting room:
Psychoanalysis in community crisis
intervention. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 40, 147–174.
Comas-Diaz, L. (2006). Latino healing: The integration of
ethnic psychology into psychotherapy.
Psychotherapy (Chicago, Ill.), 43, 436 –453. doi:10.1037/0033-
3204.43.4.436
Danto, E. A. (2005). Freud’s free clinics: Psychoanalysis and
social justice, 1918 –1938.New York,
NY: Columbia University Press.
Darwin, J. L., & Reich, K. I. (2006). Reaching out to the
families of those who serve: The SOFAR
project. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37,
481–484. doi:10.1037/0735-
7028.37.5.481

Drescher, J. (2007). Homosexuality and its vicissitudes. In J. C.
Muran (Ed.), Dialogues on
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic

an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu

bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e

pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di

ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0736-9735.21.3.442
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10481880409353128
difference: Studies of diversity in the therapeutic relationship
(pp. 85–97). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11500-009
Eisold, K. (2003). The profession of psychoanalysis: Past
failures and future possibilities. Contem-
porary Psychoanalysis, 39, 557–582.
Eng, D., & Han, S. (2000). A dialogue on racial melancholia.
Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 10,
667–700. doi:10.1080/10481881009348576

Flores, J. (2007). Social conflict and subjectivity: The analyst’s
involvement. International Forum
of Psychoanalysis, 16, 254 –258.
doi:10.1080/08037060701745733
Foster, R. P. (2003). Considering a multicultural perspective for
psychoanalysis. In A. Roland, B.
Ulanov, & C. Barbre (Eds.), Creative dissent: Psychoanalysis in
evolution (pp. 173–185).
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Freud, S. (1910). “Wild” psycho-analysis. The standard edition
of the Complete Psychological
Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XI (1964): Five Lectures on
Psycho-Analysis, Leonardo da
Vinci and Other Works (pp. 219 –228). Oxford, England:
Macmillan.
Goodman, L. A., Liang, B., Helms, J. E., Latta, R. E., Sparks,
E., & Weintraub, S. (2004). Major
contribution: Training counseling psychologists as social justice
agents: Feminist and multicul-
tural theories in action. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 793–
836. doi:10.1177/
0011000004268802
Granatir, W. L. (2004). A retired psychoanalyst volunteers to
promote school-based mental health.
In B. Sklarew, S. W. Twemlow, & S. M. Wilkinson (Eds.),
Analysts in the trenches: Streets,
schools, war zones (pp. 136 –167). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic
Press.
Greene, B. (2007). How difference makes a difference. In J. C.
Muran (Ed.), Dialogues on
difference: Studies of diversity in the therapeutic relationship

(pp. 47–63). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11500-005
Kaufmann, W. (2003). Freud, Adler, and Jung: Discovering the
mind (Vol. 3). London, UK:
Transaction Publishers.
King, R. A., & Shelley, C. A. (2008). Community feeling and
social interest: Adlerian parallels,
synergy and differences with the field of community
psychology. Journal of Community &
Applied Social Psychology, 18, 96 –107. doi:10.1002/casp.962
Leary, K. (2006). In the eye of the storm. The Psychoanalytic
Quarterly, 75, 345–363.
Leary, K. (2012). Race as an adaptive challenge: Working with
diversity in the clinical consulting
room. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 29, 279 –291.
doi:10.1037/a0027817
Lhulier, J. (2005). Learning in an increasingly multitheoretical
psychoanalytic culture: Impact on the
development of analytic identity. Psychoanalytic Psychology,
22, 459 –472. doi:10.1037/0736-
9735.22.4.459
Liang, B., Tummala-Narra, P., & West, J. (2011). Revisiting
community work from a psychody-
namic perspective. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 42, 398 –404. doi:10.1037/
a0024687
McWilliams, N. (2003). The educative aspects of
psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 20,
245–260. doi:10.1037/0736-9735.20.2.245

Miller, I. S. (2008). Brief communication preparation for
psychodynamic consultation following
community trauma: Learning from the “Firehouse Project.
International Journal of Applied
Psychoanalytic Studies, 5, 68 –79. doi:10.1002/aps.105
Mitchell, S. A. (1988). Relational concepts in psychoanalysis:
An integration. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Pierce, C. (1995). Stress analogs of racism and sexism:
Terrorism, torture, and disaster. In C. Willie,
P. Rieker, B. Kramer, & B. Brown (Eds.), Mental health,
racism, and sexism (pp. 277–293).
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Roland, A. (1996). Cultural pluralism and psychoanalysis: The
Asian and North American expe-
rience. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shedler, J. (2010). The efficacy of psychodynamic
psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 65,
98 –109. doi:10.1037/a0018378
Smith, H. F. (2006). Invisible racism. The Psychoanalytic
Quarterly, 75, 3–19.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m

y.
486 TUMMALA-NARRA
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11500-009
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11500-005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/casp.962
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aps.105
Stolorow, R. D. (1988). Transference and the therapeutic
process. Psychoanalytic Review, 75,
245–254.
Suárez-Orozco, C. (2000). Identities under siege: Immigration
stress and social mirroring among the
children of immigrants. In A. C. G. M. Robben & M. M. Suárez-
Orozco (Eds.), Cultures under
siege: Collective violence and trauma (pp. 194 –226). New
York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Suchet, M. (2011). Crossing over. Psychoanalytic Dialogues,
21, 172–191. doi:10.1080/

10481885.2011.562842
Sue, D. W. (2001). Multidimensional facets of cultural
competence. The Counseling Psychologist,
29, 790 –821. doi:10.1177/0011000001296002
Sue, D. W., Bucceri, J., Lin, A. I., Nadal, K. L., & Torino, G.
C. (2007). Racial microaggressions
and the Asian American experience. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13,
72–81. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.13.1.72
Tang, N. M., & Smith, B. L. (1996). The eternal triangle across
cultures: Oedipus, Hsueh, and
Ganesa. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 51, 562–579.
Tummala-Narra, P. (2007). Skin color and the therapeutic
relationship. Psychoanalytic Psychology,
24, 255–270. doi:10.1037/0736-9735.24.2.255
Tummala-Narra, P. (2009a). The immigrant’s real and imagined
return home. Psychoanalysis,
Culture & Society Special Issue: Immigration, 14, 237–252.
Tummala-Narra, P. (2009b). The relevance of a psychoanalytic
perspective in exploring religious
and spiritual identity in psychotherapy. Psychoanalytic
Psychology, 26, 83–95. doi:10.1037/
a0014673
Tummala-Narra, P., Inman, A. G., & Ettigi, S. (2011). Asian
Indians’ responses to discrimination:
A mixed-method examination of identity, coping, and self-
esteem. Asian American Journal of
Psychology, 2, 205–218. doi:10.1037/a0025555

Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F. C., Vernberg, E., &
Malcolm, J. M. (2011). Reducing
violence and prejudice in a Jamaican all age school using
attachment and mentalization theory.
Psychoanalytic Psychology, 28, 497–511. doi:10.1037/a0023610
Twemlow, S. W., & Parens, H. (2006). Might Freud’s legacy lie
beyond the couch? Psychoanalytic
Psychology, 23, 430 –451. doi:10.1037/0736-9735.23.2.430
Vasquez, M. J. T. (2007). Cultural difference and the
therapeutic alliance: An evidence-based
analysis. American Psychologist, 62, 875–885.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.8.878
Volkan, V. D. (2001). Psychoanalysis and diplomacy: Potentials
for and obstacles against collab-
oration. In D. E. Scharff (Ed.), The psychoanalytic century:
Freud’s legacy for the future (pp.
279 –295). New York, NY: Other Press.
Yi, K. Y. (1998). Transference and race: An intersubjective
conceptualization. Psychoanalytic
Psychology, 15, 245–261. doi:10.1037/0736-9735.15.2.245
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t

is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss

oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti

cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in

di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10481885.2011.562842
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10481885.2011.562842
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.8.878
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0736-
9735.15.2.245PSYCHOANALYTIC APPLICATIONS IN A
DIVERSE SOCIETYPsychoanalytic Theory and Attending to
DiversityPsychoanalytic Theory and Community
InterventionCase Example: Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy With
“Reena”Case Example: Community InterventionRevisiting
Psychoanalytic Applications and DiversityConcluding
CommentsReferences

Article Summary • Introduction (1 – 2 Sentences) •.docx

More Related Content

Similar to Article Summary • Introduction (1 – 2 Sentences) •.docx (20)

More from festockton (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Article Summary • Introduction (1 – 2 Sentences) •.docx