Healing Estranged Sorrows Through Narrative, Imaginal, and Mythic Amplification
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The abstract requires structural adjustments so that its content is functionally organized into sections: introduction, method, results, and discussion. Likewise, more precise information regarding the method is needed, given that it does not provide information regarding the study design and type of article being presented. The entire section requires adjustments in terms of writing and argumentative quality. Regarding keywords, a maximum of 3 to 5 keywords are recommended, using empirically validated terms as references. The term "depth psychology" is striking given that it is not accompanied by a technically and epistemologically grounded description.
The introduction presents a diffuse and ambiguous writing style, with a certain disorganization and lack of consistency between paragraphs. Each idea opens new avenues for the topics discussed, without a clear guiding thread toward the problematization of the study. Attempts are made to address diverse phenomena, such as grief, childhood, trauma, imagination, and depth psychology, significantly compromising consistency and coherence. Theoretical subsections are included on: 1) Trauma: The Origin of Insane Sorrows; 2) Healing: The Potential of Productive Imagination; 3) Grief: The Process of Imaginary Identification and Burial; 4) Recovery: Lamentation and Mythic Return. The sections are developed in a style more similar to an essay, with shortcomings in terms of writing, grammar, consistency, and scientific/disciplinary novelty. Furthermore, some authors are cited repeatedly (Weller, 2015; Dunlea, 2019; Amias, 2024; Hillman, 1983; Stein, 1983), which demonstrates a lack of bibliographic diversity in the treatment of the central categories. Furthermore, there is a limited and traditional approach to the grieving process, which significantly restricts the quality and scientific novelty offered by the work. Beyond the contributions of Kubler-Ross, it would be interesting to contrast this perspective with those of other authors such as Stroebe and Shut; Tehedeschi and Calhoun; Klass, Silverman, and Nickman; Prigerson et al., 2022; O'Connor, 2019, etc. The integration of diverse theoretical perspectives favors the contextualization and foundation of the work.
In another area, the theoretical development is replete with verbatim quotations, which impoverishes the work and the integration of personal contributions to the treatment of the topic, especially in a reflective essay. Consequently, the theoretical foundation of the work requires adjustments and structural improvement. Its review and analysis do not allow a clear identification of the purpose of the study or the identification of emerging categories relevant to understanding the topics raised.
The submitted work does not include a section on methods, results, discussion, or conclusions, which significantly affects the quality or overall contribution of the proposal for potential publication in the journal. The manuscript fails to theoretically represent some of the keywords mentioned in the abstract, such as "depth psychology," "identity," and "positive disintegration." It requires structural improvement. Limitations or projections of the study are not incorporated.
No comments.
Author Response
1: The title is excessively ambiguous and long. It requires adjustments based on the purpose of the study.
Reply 1: I changed the title and feel it is far more clear.
2: The abstract requires structural adjustments so that its content is functionally organized into sections: introduction, method, results, and discussion. Likewise, more precise information regarding the method is needed, given that it does not provide information regarding the study design and type of article being presented.
Reply 2: I rewrote the abstract to more clearly reflect more precise information regarding the method and the type of article being presented (which, consistent with depth psychology, features theory for how to work with individuals rather than study design)—see lines 8-19
3: The entire section requires adjustments in terms of writing and argumentative quality. Regarding keywords, a maximum of 3 to 5 keywords are recommended, using empirically validated terms as references. The term "depth psychology" is striking given that it is not accompanied by a technically and epistemologically grounded description.
Reply 3: I reduced the number of key words, reflecting the suggestion of empirically validated terms. I added more information about depth psychology (Lines 86-120) so that it now has a technically and epistemologically grounded description for those who are unfamiliar with the field.
4: The introduction presents a diffuse and ambiguous writing style, with a certain disorganization and lack of consistency between paragraphs. Each idea opens new avenues for the topics discussed, without a clear guiding thread toward the problematization of the study. Attempts are made to address diverse phenomena, such as grief, childhood, trauma, imagination, and depth psychology, significantly compromising consistency and coherence.
Reply 4: I rewrote the introduction to provide a clearer guiding thread toward the problem that this study investigates. This allows me to show how the main factors you identified are part of a clear, coherent picture. The style is consistent with the literary mode used often in depth psychology (beginning with Freud and Jung), which has extended to post-Jungian authors referenced throughout this material. It differs from the more scientific/analytical style favored in other areas of psychology.
5: The submitted work does not include a section on methods, results, discussion, or conclusions, which significantly affects the quality or overall contribution of the proposal for potential publication in the journal.
Reply 5: I put a section heading around “methods” (Lines 85-140) and added more information to it, as well as a discussion and conclusion section (933-992). I explained why “results” are not typically part of work in depth psychology.
6: The manuscript fails to theoretically represent some of the keywords mentioned in the abstract, such as "depth psychology," "identity," and "positive disintegration." It requires structural improvement. Limitations or projections of the study are not incorporated.
Reply 6: I eliminated positive disintegration as a keyword, provided a more indepth explanation of depth psychology and identity recovery. I also included limitations and projections in the conclusion (971-991).
7: In another area, the theoretical development is replete with verbatim quotations, which impoverishes the work and the integration of personal contributions to the treatment of the topic, especially in a reflective essay.
Reply 7: I explained how depth psychology often involves citing quotations from past scholars in the field, but also trimmed most of the verbatim quotations away. I also added introductions to the theoretical sections that emphasize my personal contribution of the topic.
8: Consequently, the theoretical foundation of the work requires adjustments and structural improvement. Its review and analysis do not allow a clear identification of the purpose of the study or the identification of emerging categories relevant to understanding the topics raised.
Reply 8: I adjusted and improved upon the structure of this essay, adding in the section headings you desired, and clarifying the purpose of the study This helped to emphasize the methodology—the three relevant ways of understanding the connection of grieving and estranged sorrow through the method of amplification.
9: The introduction presents a diffuse and ambiguous writing style, with a certain disorganization and lack of consistency between paragraphs. Each idea opens new avenues for the topics discussed, without a clear guiding thread toward the problematization of the study. Attempts are made to address diverse phenomena, such as grief, childhood, trauma, imagination, and depth psychology, significantly compromising consistency and coherence.
Reply 9: See response to reply 4.
- Theoretical subsections are included on: 1) Trauma: The Origin of Insane Sorrows; 2) Healing: The Potential of Productive Imagination; 3) Grief: The Process of Imaginary Identification and Burial; 4) Recovery: Lamentation and Mythic Return. The sections are developed in a style more similar to an essay, with shortcomings in terms of writing, grammar, consistency, and scientific/disciplinary novelty. Furthermore, some authors are cited repeatedly (Weller, 2015; Dunlea, 2019; Amias, 2024; Hillman, 1983; Stein, 1983), which demonstrates a lack of bibliographic diversity in the treatment of the central categories.
Reply 10: The discipline of depth psychology tends to engage in a more in-depth, exploratory mode, which includes multiple citations from the same work. I expanded the bibliographic diversity to show why most previous work on grief and trauma excludes mention of estranged sorrow. This rewritten draft both honors the tradition of depth psychology that I’m most familiar with an easier way for those less familiar with these conventions to appreciate the ideas.
11: Furthermore, there is a limited and traditional approach to the grieving process, which significantly restricts the quality and scientific novelty offered by the work. Beyond the contributions of Kubler-Ross, it would be interesting to contrast this perspective with those of other authors such as Stroebe and Shut; Tehedeschi and Calhoun; Klass, Silverman, and Nickman; Prigerson et al., 2022; O'Connor, 2019, etc. The integration of diverse theoretical perspectives favors the contextualization and foundation of the work.
Reply 11: I added the suggested authors to more clearly indicate the gap in the current literature, and very much appreciate these suggestions.
12: In another area, the theoretical development is replete with verbatim quotations, which impoverishes the work and the integration of personal contributions to the treatment of the topic, especially in a reflective essay. Consequently, the theoretical foundation of the work requires adjustments and structural improvement. Its review and analysis do not allow a clear identification of the purpose of the study or the identification of emerging categories relevant to understanding the topics raised.
Reply 12: While maintaining some use of verbatim quotations in alignment with the traditional approach to publications in the field of depth psychology, I also have pruned these in order to offer readers a more clear identification of the purpose of the study and emerging categories.
13: The submitted work does not include a section on methods, results, discussion, or conclusions, which significantly affects the quality or overall contribution of the proposal for potential publication in the journal. The manuscript fails to theoretically represent some of the keywords mentioned in the abstract, such as "depth psychology," "identity," and "positive disintegration." It requires structural improvement. Limitations or projections of the study are not incorporated.
Reply 13: I added a section on method, discussion and conclusion. I also amplified the definition of depth psychology and took out positive disintegration as a key word. My conclusion section provides a depiction of limitations and projections of study.
Reviewer 2 Report
The focus of this article is therapy for implicit memories, which are not accessible to the person, and explicit memories, which are capable of conscious retrieval. These are similar to the Freudian categories of unconscious and preconscious memories. The article emphasizes the role of 'estranged sorrow', which cannot be properly grieved. The therapy supported by the writer uses narrative as a means of rewriting the past, based on the Jungian process of amplification. The therapeutic use of story or 'musing' allows past trauma to become externalized, and thus accessible. Recomposition allows the ego to fully grieve, and the amplification process reveals relevant archetypes, allowing for grief to become shared rather than individual.
The writing style is fine, and the usual psychological jargon is explained by the writer. He or she might place less emphasis on the distinctions between implicit and explicit memory, as there is rarely a sharp line between conscious and unconscious traumatic memory. What we tend to see instead is a continuum, with each trauma having both conscious and unconscious elements.
The article is largely descriptive, and it has interesting segments from a variety of writers. But what the article needs is an original argument. The various emphases in the article appear to come from other writers, and it is difficult to tell what is original. If there is an original argument in there, it needs to be emphasized and then contrasted with the other writers cited. As of now, it sounds like just one more Jungian interpretation. This is not a bad thing- the world of psychology could use more writers from a Jungian perspective- but for a journal article, there needs to be a stronger original argument.
One suggestion for the writer is to do some comparison with the Internal Family Systems approach. The 'implicit memories' described here sound very similar to the 'exiles' or traumas that have been exiled from awareness in IFS. Indeed, they sounds almost identical. A comparison would add some original material to the article.
This is not necessary, the article is not statistical.
Author Response
Thank you again for taking time to read this over and provide me with such helpful feedback for improvements.
The focus of this article is therapy for implicit memories, which are not accessible to the person, and explicit memories, which are capable of conscious retrieval. These are similar to the Freudian categories of unconscious and preconscious memories. The article emphasizes the role of 'estranged sorrow', which cannot be properly grieved. The therapy supported by the writer uses narrative as a means of rewriting the past, based on the Jungian process of amplification. The therapeutic use of story or 'musing' allows past trauma to become externalized, and thus accessible. Recomposition allows the ego to fully grieve, and the amplification process reveals relevant archetypes, allowing for grief to become shared rather than individual.
Reply: Thank you for taking time to read this over and for sharing your thoughts. I think it is a far stronger argument based on your input.
1: The writing style is fine, and the usual psychological jargon is explained by the writer. He or she might place less emphasis on the distinctions between implicit and explicit memory, as there is rarely a sharp line between conscious and unconscious traumatic memory. What we tend to see instead is a continuum, with each trauma having both conscious and unconscious elements.
Reply 1: I worked to point more specifically to why non-event traumas are necessarily implicit, as opposed to event-based traumas that can hold conscious and unconscious elements. Because estranged sorrows often precede language and involve “loss” of what was never had, the trauma can only be part of the implicit memory. (See Lines 150-220)
2: The article is largely descriptive, and it has interesting segments from a variety of writers. But what the article needs is an original argument. The various emphases in the article appear to come from other writers, and it is difficult to tell what is original. If there is an original argument in there, it needs to be emphasized and then contrasted with the other writers cited. As of now, it sounds like just one more Jungian interpretation. This is not a bad thing- the world of psychology could use more writers from a Jungian perspective- but for a journal article, there needs to be a stronger original argument.
Reply 2: I provided a clearer abstract and introduction (Lines 8-84), and added a paragraph to the beginning of the theoretical sections to illustrate what is original in what I’m weaving together (142-151, 326-332, 576-585, 821-830). I also worked to clarify moments when I build on or develop from the cited authors, so as to make more clear what of the ideas originate in this article. In addition to innovating a new definition of trauma, I’m also innovating ways of healing from it using a variety of approaches throughout the humanities.
3: One suggestion for the writer is to do some comparison with the Internal Family Systems approach. The 'implicit memories' described here sound very similar to the 'exiles' or traumas that have been exiled from awareness in IFS. Indeed, they sounds almost identical. A comparison would add some original material to the article.
Reply 3: I added a comparison to Schwartz’s IFS work and exiles (Lines 258-268).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, the article has integrated and addressed the various comments, observations, and suggestions raised in the initial revision, improving its structure, internal consistency, and theoretical and conceptual clarity. Consequently, the work meets the journal's editorial parameters and becomes a relevant contribution to the topics addressed in the manuscript.
Overall, the article has integrated and addressed the various comments, observations, and suggestions raised in the initial revision, improving its structure, internal consistency, and theoretical and conceptual clarity. Consequently, the work meets the journal's editorial parameters and becomes a relevant contribution to the topics addressed in the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The arguments in the paper have been clarified, and the typology included makes it an original contribution.
The writing is fine.
