Abstract
Although it is believed by many that the application of psychodynamic concepts to social problems can produce unique and surprising results, examples of this kind of work are far too few. One group reports a remarkable effort to intervene using mentalization and power-issues approaches to a failing and violent school in Jamaica. The goal of the study was to determine whether a “highly insecure and disadvantaged school could be stabilized by promoting an understanding and practice of mentalization” (p. 498). The investigators applied to social systems Fonagy’s definition of mentalization as the “capacity to see human relationships in terms of ideas, beliefs, and feelings that are personal, and provide a bridge to communication with others” (p. 498). Thus, a mentalizing individual will reflect, empathize with self and others, modulate affect storms, set boundaries, and become a self agent (initiating). If a social system is dysfunctional, mentalization will be replaced by behaviors directed only toward control (power issues), which frequently results in physical violence. Such was the case with the school that was the site of the study.
The intervention was introduced around the activity of making bread. This valued activity created a locus of quiet, respected activity during which two staff members “acted as role models and insisted on positive reflective behavior” (p. 503). As stated by the investigators, “The design of the program was to mentor 7–9 grade students through a mentalization / power dynamics focused activity with a chance of creating a secure attachment system in the school, through trickle down to the 1–6 graders, who were being cared for and made to feel secure by the transformed bullies, who themselves were more securely attached” (p. 503). The hypothesis was that if the older school children could successfully begin to mentalize both themselves and others, this would result in a reduction of violence in favor of collaboration as a way to solve problems and internal conflicts. Since the older kids bullied the younger children, a change in the behavior and mood of the older school population should have a robust trickle-down effect on the younger kids.
A school with a student population similar in age, gender, socioeconomic status, and academic performance was used as a control comparison for the study site school.
The results suggest that over the three years of the intervention there were significant changes in the target population, a hoped-for trickle-down effect on first through sixth graders, and some unexpected beneficial effects: teachers became much more comfortable because the atmosphere was more pleasant and conducive to work; parents now wanted their children to come to this school above others. “Perhaps most dramatic was the increase in educational attainment of children between 2005 and 2008. Over a time when no improvement (and a slight deterioration) was noted in most schools within the District, the distribution of examination scores improved substantially from an average score of 30% in 2005 to 46% in 2008” (p. 506). The authors concluded that “the school changed from an impoverished environment . . . to become an emotionally rich environment where children felt valued and appreciated” (p. 508).
This study has an abundance of methodological limitations, including no assessment to see if the intervention affected mentalization or simply had nonspecific effects; very limited description of what actually happened during the intervention; and questionable control conditions. However, to consider the findings of the study within the context of the methodological limitations, albeit correct, would be misleading with respect to the importance of this study. The significance is in the attempt to apply psychodynamic principles to help a complex and daunting social problem.