(Dis)embodiment in Psychology and Psychotherapy: A Critical Historical Analysis and Clinical Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Embodiment may refer to a centering and acknowledgement of the felt and physical body as an active agent in the experiencing, processing, and interpretation of one’s environment. In contrast, disembodiment decenters the body and internal processes. Despite body-based perspectives and practices being present within psychology since its inception, the body has historically been marginalized within psychological theory and clinical practice. The present analysis aims to answer the question of why disembodiment is woven into psychological and psychotherapeutic practices by examining the historical roots of disembodiment in the west. Beginning with philosophical foundations which have formed the tenets of Western tradition, Descartes’ mind-body dualism (i.e., a concept in which mind and body are distinct entities, often placing the mind in a dominant position over the body) and Foucault’s notion of the docile body (i.e., the body as a subject to discipline and control) are discussed. These prominent philosophical roots are connected to dominant Western institutions, in which dynamics of discipline and control are manifested. Subsequently, philosophical underpinnings are present in the subject areas created within such institutions (i.e., psychology and psychotherapy). Examining historical roots of embodiment can be viewed in relation to Edward Sampson’s (1996) seminal paper, which called for a more embodied psychology. Critical to the employment of embodied practices in psychotherapy via increasingly popular cognitive-behavioral third-wave therapies (e.g., Acceptance and Commitment Therapy [ACT], MindfulnessBased Cognitive Therapy [MBCT]), a historical perspective brings to light deep roots of disembodiment that must be overcome to access a more embodied psychology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".