Mentalization, embodiment, and narrative: Critical comments on the social ontology of mentalization theory

Abstract

Recently, mentalization theory has risen to fame as a theoretical framework emphasising social cognition as a key issue in its approach to psychopathology and psychotherapy. In this paper, I review and criticise the social-ontological assumptions made by mentalization theory, arguing that, in spite of a strong interactive focus, it remains fundamentally rooted in a Cartesian ontology, overlooking embodied, expressive, enactive and sociocultural dimensions of social cognition. Furthermore, since mentalization theory was originally developed as a framework for understanding Borderline Personality Disorder [BPD], I offer a reinterpretation of the issue of social cognition reported in BPD from a more embodied and interactional perspective.Contrary to the received view, I suggest that issues of social cognition in BPD should not necessarily be seen as a partial or total inability to mentalize, but rather as a hypersensitivity to expressivity resulting in what I suggest we understand as acts of disnarration.

From Wide Cognition to Mechanisms: A Silent Revolution

“…Zawidzki, 2012). Understanding of hidden psychological causes, especially propositional attitudes, depends on prior enculturation in culturally specific practices (Køster, 2017), and is useful only in making sense of deviations from or exceptions to typical behavioral patterns.…”

Mentalisering –

“…I tillegg til å vaere et perspektiv på barns selvutvikling, psykiske lidelser og behandling, er mentalisering også et perspektiv på hvordan vi mennesker kan forstå hverandre, og dermed på hvordan sosialt fellesskap er mulig. Mentalisering omtales som «evnen til å holde sinnet i sinnet» (Allen, 2006), som handler om personers evne til å oppfatte og fortolke andres handlinger og atferd som forbundet med indre mentale tilstander, slik som ønsker, antakelser, hensikter, tanker og følelser (Køster, 2017). Utviklingen av kapasiteten til mentalisering er ifølge Fonagy-gruppen en utviklingsmessig milepael, forankret i barnets tilknytning til naere omsorgspersoner.…”

“…Likeledes overses pragmatiske, interaktive og sosiokulturelle aspekter ved forståelse mellom mennesker. De mulighetene for forståelse mellom mennesker som ligger i sosial samhandling, vektlegges ikke (Køster, 2017;Aagaard, 2015).…”

The Assessment of Mentalization: Measures for the Patient, the Therapist and the Interaction

“…Despite the acknowledged influence of the relational field on the meanings that are constructed (Mitchell, S 2000), there has been greater attention in the clinical and research literature to the assessment of mentalization as an individual capacity than to its emergent properties within dyadic and social contexts (Sperry, 2013;. Koster, 2017).…”