To assimilate or not to assimilate-- a psychologist's thoughts about acculturation

Donald Winnicott

Donald Winnicott stipulated the presence of a 'true self'.  Our true selves are, according to Winnicott, the most spontaneous and authentic parts of who we are.   His idea was not a new one, and it even dates back to the Danish philosopher, Kierkegaard who referenced 'the self which truly is'.  If there is a 'true self', then how does this concept fit in with the process of acculturation and assimilation?  For those of us who are immigrants to another country, is it possible to try and fit in, while maintaining a semblance of authenticity?

To begin this exploration, I will share a personal failure:  After six years of living in Denmark jeg er stadig ikke flyende på dansk.  I chalk this up to a few things including age, perfectionism, and also the fact that most of my workdays are conducted in English.  When I moved to Denmark, I had high aspirations about mastering a second language.  Like most immigrants to Denmark, I enrolled in the free Danish classes and set myself to the task of learning how to pronounce vowels whose sounds I could not discriminate.  I failed miserably and even four years into my relocation to Denmark, could barely understand anyone who spoke to me.    Eventually, after a lot of hard work, I could understand people speaking to me but I still have to be able to hear them perfectly and see their lips move.  Danish, as a language, has humbled me.

Learning Danish is just one of the most obvious and noticeable ways one can try to assimilate.  Of course there are others-- I know people in my position who quickly switched to neutral tones in their attire.  Others learned how to make a flæske steg.  My opinion about how much effort one should put into integration has changed over the years.


I have seen people who were very good assimilators and others who weren't so good and I am not convinced it is necessarily the healthier thing to do, always, to 'fit in'.   If there truly is such a notion as Donald Winnicott's 'true self', then it makes some sense that parts of any given culture would resound with any given individual and other parts would not.  By extension, I think that means that there are also parts of the culture into which you were born that both would and would not ring true to your identity.  I have come around to the belief, however that, psychologically speaking, there is something sturdy and resilient about holding onto parts of yourself despite enormous pressure to do otherwise.

Anecdotally, in my practice, I have seen some people really try and fit in who became resentful and depressed.    On the other hand, you might ask, isn’t integration the respectful thing to try and do?

If I back up from Psychology and think about integration and assimilation from a more sociopolitical perspective, aren’t the nationalists of every country waging a losing battle?  We live in a global economy.  With the internet and inexpensive transportation, doesn’t our future hold more people in mixed cultural marriages and children who come from more than one culture?  Does it make logical sense, or is it just a romantic fancy to try and hold onto specific customs and traditions?  To be clear, I am equally skeptical about traditionalists from my own country as I am about the nationalists in Denmark.  It just seems to me that humans of the world could use a good lesson in embracing diversity if we are to co-inhabit a peaceful future world.  I am heartened that a certain percentage of the expat and immigrant community has started calling themselves 'world citizens', highlighting their loyalty first to the world, and second to the nation into which they were born.

My decidedly un-Danish sock drawer

Refocusing on the individual, of course., there is no ‘right answer’ in terms of how much one should try to integrate.  I can only share with you the conclusions I have come to which is that I have decided to continue working on my Danish pronunciation and comprehension.   But in the meantime, I’m just going continue the lifelong quest to be, in the words of Donald Winnicott, my 'true self'.  In my case, that is someone who is a mix of Latina-US, Germanic-US, and now Danish cultures.  

Meanderings about telepsychology-- Two things I have learned

I started doing telepsychology several years ago, before most people were using teleconferencing or other forms of online psychotherapy.  I am a devout technophile and admittedly like to incorporate technology into my life in whatever ways I can.  I have also had the opportunity to conduct some research online that examined virtual reality therapy and also the way people form relationships online.  I am a virtual positivist and have high hopes that technology, for all of its downfalls, will ultimately continue to advance the human race.   I thus projected that, a virtual means of therapy provision would become quite popular in my practice, if I offered it.  I assumed that, for people who sought out therapy, many individuals are busy and would like to avoid transit time to and from a therapist's office.

I began offering online therapy-- more specifically, therapy via videoconferencing, when I opened my practice in Copenhagen in 2014.  To my surprise, almost no one seemed interested.  The only clients who were keen about distance therapy were those who were moving away and who wished to maintain a therapeutic relationship via videoconferencing.  Even my busiest clients-- high achieving professionals who worked long days and weekends, still preferred to come into the office.  I would offer the option, but nearly everyone turned it down.  Interestingly, when clients have moved away and we have continued our work together, virtually, most of the time they said the sessions were 'fine' and didn't complain about the quality compared to our in-person previous sessions.  However, they still preferred the in person sessions.

Another thing I found surprising is how dissatisfied I was with videoconferencing.  I'm a long time user, as I said above, of technology.  I have sustained long-term relations for years nearly only with Skype and related services.  But still, following every provision of online service, I felt 'skeptical' that it was helpful and oddly less gratified than usual.  It has surprised me that I also prefer in person counseling to videoconferencing.

The data supporting the use of videoconferencing and other forms of virtual psychotherapy continues to look promising.  There is quite a bit of research, these days, about the effectiveness of distance therapy.  Most supports teletherapy as being as effective as in-person therapy.  This is good news for many reasons;  Telepsychology allows people in rural communities to receive proper psychological care, for example.  However, it seems, from the research and from my observations, that while telepsychology is effective, it probably is not going to replace in-person sessions anytime soon, simply because people seem to prefer the precence of a real-life office and psychologist.

What are your thoughts about online versus offline therapy?  Do you know what you would/do prefer and why?

Psychological scientists could be their own worst enemies

Stanley Milgram's famous obedience study has been recently found to have had serious flaws

Some political pundits have noted that we now live in a 'post fact' society where the brash assertions of politicians are given the same weight as scientifically backed facts.  Kellyanne Conway, advisor to US president Donald Trump famously referred to the phenomenon of an 'alternative fact'.  Also famously, despite the fact that most scientists argue that climate change is real, there exists a vocal number of politicians who deny it is so.

This is why it is particularly disheartening when science fails us.  Scientists who fabricate data, and journals who only publish 'positive' results.  Like everything, science has been compromised by the capitalism of rewarding the results that have the highest consumer demand.  New review processes need to emerge that reward the rigor with which the study was conducted regardless of the results.  New processes also need to emerge that retain professors to universities also based on scientific rigor rather than number of publication notches they can carve on their belts.  We, as Psychologists, need to hold ourselves accountable for the data we present to the public.  They should expect no less.

Post- Postmodernism and Psychology

I teach two college classes every semester.  My students are typically bright, curious, and motivated.  In a weekly assignment associated with the course materials,  I have them provide an analysis and critique of the assigned readings. They are brilliant at this.   They seem to be well trained, by their home universities, in the criticism and deconstruction of other peoples' works. 

Often times the critiques are the predictable and uninspired:  Freud was misogynistic and only relied on case studies.  The researchers relied too heavily on college students as subjects.  While these appraisals are valid, I worry that modern day students are being taught more about what not to believe than what to believe in.  More personally, I have misgivings that I contribute to an academic culture that glorifies tearing down at all costs, with little to no emphasis on creation and inspiration.  At the risk of politicizing this blog post, there are some people who will admit that they elected the US president simply because he promised to destroy existing systems.  I think this is attitude is corrosive to society.

How does this relate to clinical psychology, you ask?  For one, I think that the deconstruction that academics teach, on a micro level, is all too often turned inward on oneself.  Other- criticism becomes self-criticism and self-criticism  can morph into anxiety and depression.  We have become a culture of doubters and naysayers with lessened capacity to dream and believe.

As an example or societal pessimism, we mock parents who teach their children that they are 'special'  It is not possible for all children to be special, realists and scientists argue.  Not everyone deserves a reward for playing soccer.  Some of the kids truly were better than others.   However, in the context of one's close relationships, is genuinely not possible to be special, unique and extraordinary?  I think so.

Finally, therapeutic psychology is about hope-- a term that is exceedingly optimistic.  Hope is the belief that things will get better. I believe part of my job is to peddle hope.  I have seen people with your particular problem get better.  A good amount of research has been done about the contribution of hope to therapy outcomes.  Hope has even been implicated by researchers as one of the three factors that make most psychotherapies equally effective.

In sum, I hope we are all special to at least one person in the world, and I hope that we spend equal times standing up for our beliefs, as we do poking holes in other peoples' beliefs.

Review of the book 'And Baby Makes Three'

I wrote a post several months ago about the Danish baby boom of the 2010s.  Click here if you have missed it.  I have a number of 30-somethings who are having babies.  They tend to be educated and aware, and relatively high achievers.  Adding a baby to a marriage changes it significantly.  A great deal of research has been conducted about this already.  If you are familiar with my work, you know that I rely on the Gottman's contributions to the field of relationship therapy quite a bit.  Consistent with that, I have been recommending 'And Baby Makes Three' to some of my couples because it's written by them.

I have read two books by John Gottman and found them extremely useful for my professional practice.  I like their practical, data-driven approach to couples therapy.  As I have written before, I think it's elegant and makes sense to both the couple and the practitioner.  With that in mind, I have compiled a short list of pros and cons.

The pros:

1) As is usual, there are some very specific recommendations that can be fairly easily implemented while and after the couple has read the book.
2) Also, as usual, the Gottmans provide a fair amount of data (though much of it is quasi-experimental) to help make support their suggestions.
3) The Gottmans often provide a fair number of questionnaires that I think couples will find helpful at assessing their particular trouble spots.
4) It's fairly easy-to-read and not full of professional jargon.

The cons:

1) Many of the gender references in this book are already highly outdated.  I checked the publication date, and it is listed as 2007.  I think that there are a lot of people who will find this book at best, difficult to relate to, and at worst, offensive.  The book suggests that fathers are better at playing with their children and mothers are better at nurturing.  While that may be true, on average, not at least acknowledging some of the variability in mens' and womens' parenting is alienating to many people.
2) On a similar note, some LGBTQ+  individuals will feel marginalized by this book.  It makes hardly any reference (I think it does just once) to gay and lesbian parents.  Since I have had exposure to the Gottmans, I respect them and think that they generally make efforts to be inclusive but in this particular book, I believe they fail.
3) The other complaint I have is that, If you have read their other work, there is very little here that is new.  There is some interesting discussion about how the parental relationship affects the baby and perhaps even just that, makes it worth buying.  One of the most interesting sections I found was about the parents' style of play around the baby.  When parents play cooperatively, together with the baby, baby laughs and clearly LIKES it better.  However the baby notices and reacts negatively if one parent undermines the other in their play.  I found this part of the book really informative and useful.

At any rate, I probably am NOT going to recommend this book to people who have already read Gottman in the future.  However, for new and expecting parents who have never read Gottman, I will.

Please check out my website at debbiequackenbush.com to see more about what I do, and how I work in my Copenhagen practice.

RIP Koko

Koko and one of her pet kittens

Koko the gorilla just died. This happened when I was travelling with my students.  I told them, and it turned out that many of them had never heard of her.  Koko was a western lowland gorilla who was particularly known for having learned over 1000 signs in American Sign Language.  She was a skilled communicator who proved that gorillas are capable of empathy, compassion, and grief.  In her travels, she met many famous people including Robin Williams and Mr. Rogers.  I followed her since I was a young girl and will miss her.  RIP Koko.

Travels to Vienna with my students

Psychology has its roots in the upper class of Vienna, in the early 1900s.  Freud famously was one of the first to engage in talk therapy- mostly with upper class, neurotic Viennese women who didn’t have anything to do but spend their money on expensive analysis.

I am privileged every year to take a group of mostly American university undergraduates to visit the city and get an immersive experience amongst psychology’s beginnings.  This year, as is usual, we left on a Monday and began with a walking tour of old Vienna.   As a city, Vienna is replete with relevant history about both world wars.   Hitler came to Vienna to annex Austria and set up some of the first concentration camps.   Though many Austrian people prefer to think of themselves as victims to an occupation, some younger people are starting to take more ownership as guilty bystanders who could have done more for the Jews. We saw a lot of the infamous historical sites and also some of the older ones that were more associated with the Habsburg empire.

The Austrian countryside on the way to the concentration camp

We also visited the Viktor Frankl museum and attended a talk about his life and theory.  A volunteer named Karl Konig usually gives this talk and he always seems to really be passionate about the subject matter.  If you have not read ‘Man’s search for meaning’, I highly recommend it; Frankl wrote much of it when he was in a Nazi concentration camp and its beautiful testament to hope and survival despite cruel and extended mistreatment.  To supplement this visit, the class took a tour of Mauthausen concentration camp, the next day, where the saw the remains of the camp and the memorial and museum.  It’s a troubling visit which I purposely distance myself from.  I have been there about five times and I was fully present the first two and it really is just an awfully dark experience to repeat.  I think that everyone should visit one once, however.  We humans need reminders of our own atrocities and the depths to which we can sink as a warning to avoid the pitfalls of dehumanization.  At any rate, it was sobering, and my students and I had a wrap-up afterward.  Interestingly, though the concentration camp seemed to hit most of them hard, a sense of worry was prevalent: many fear that history is, or will soon, repeat itself and that fascism and racism are on the rise.  I share their concerns on one hand, but also find that, in a parental way, I am concerned about them how worried they are.  As a group, they have grown up with school shootings and terrorism.   They seem to walk through life with more thoughts about their own deaths than I did at their age.  They shouldn’t have to be so worried.

The last part of the week was rounded off by a visit to the Adler Institute and the Freud Museum.  I have never quite been able to relate to Adler’s theories, but still find it impressive how he was able to bring psychoanalysis to the community.  He found it important to treat everyday people, unlike Freud, who only treated the Vienna elite.

Where the Wednesday Society met

The Freud museum is interesting, and I am always a little awed to stand in the room where the Wednesday group met.  I can imagine myself sitting in his waiting room, studying at his name plate.  I find it interesting that Sigmund Freud, a man who thought it was important to be a ‘blank slate’ and thus let one’s clients project their innermost feelings onto the analyst, had an office that was ornate and filled with archeological relics.  Certainly, he must have known that his taste in décor said something about his own unconscious. 

This post is just an overview of many of the historic and educational places one can visit in Vienna, for the person who is studying psychology.  Going as part of a University class gives one an excuse to visit places where one might not normally bother, if one was travelling just for pleasure.  It’s a unique and fun way to Vienna and I look forward to taking another group of students, next year.