Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah

Barlow, 2000

Barlow provides us a thorough examination of the state of the most prominent models of anxiety. Though his findings are, not surprisingly, quite compelling, it is interesting to think of them in light of our previous readings. For instance, his framing of the relationship of anxiety & depression (p. 1252) follows from the model presented in the Cuellar et al. article. Just as there is an intersecting track between depression & mania, it seems like, likewise, it may be the same for anxiety and depression. I’m not sure what the implications of this may be for diagnosis (is it useful to reframe our terminology to accept this, or can this model be effectively implemented under the current terminological paradigm?), it does seem useful for better approximating etiology and treatment.

Additionally, Barlow speaks frequently of the role of parenting and early development in contributing to anxiety. Specifically, he seems to allude to a uniquely important role in this case. Though he does this in the context of something like a largely interactional model of anxiety, I wonder of Coyne would consider this an example of what Coyne calls “neocryptopsychoanalytic” thinking? Inasmuch as early psychology blamed parents for quite nearly everything, I can sympathize with Coyne’s aversion to this kind of formulation. However, is it incumbent upon David Barlow to know and address this in his presentation of findings, or is it up to us – the academic readership – to take these findings with a historical grain of salt, and to translate them with care and caution to our … anxious… clients?

Mineka & Zinbarg, 2006

So, here we are again, deep in the throes of classical conditioning and its offspring. It seems to turn out that these principles may underlie – every major disorder thus far? I’m increasingly unsure of whether I am heartened by the flexibility inherent in each person’s psyche to be able to adapt, learn, and insulate himself or herself against disorder – or scared stiff by the notion that our innate biological defenses may be largely helpless against the unwavering assault of conditioning. Aside from some mildly-influential genetic predisposition to the contrary, it seems I could very easily – and unpredictably – find myself afflicted with an anxiety disorder. Perhaps only Tony Soprano knows my newfound fear more fully than I.

Be that as it may, there were some interesting – and not totally discouraging – parts of this article. Most notably, the sections on “vicarious conditioning of fears and phobias” (p. 11) under “specific phobia,” and “social learning and social phobia” (p. 14) seem to point to a neurological phenomenon about which I (admittedly) know little, but nonetheless find fascinating: mirror neurons. These little bundles of cells in our brains (examined, of late, for their role in the development of Theory of Mind and empathy) simulate the experience of doing or feeling whatever it is you are watching someone else do. Implicated in such dubious human activity as the vast success of the porn industry, it seems to me that they may prove to be the best place to look for the neurological proof vicariously acquired fears and phobias. If “simply observing others experiencing a trauma or behaving fearfully could be sufficient for some phobias to develop,” (p.11) and “simply observing another being ridiculed or humiliated… may be sufficient to make the observer develop social phobia,” (p. 14) then it seems a fruitful place to look for proof of concept may be the very part of our brain that may be responsible for vicarious sensation and emotion. Then again, in light of the anxiety that all this anxiety research has provoked in me … maybe I don’t want to know.