The Seba library treats Steele in 8 passages, across 4 authors (including Romanyshyn, Robert D., Ogden, Pat, Siegel, Daniel J.).
I have taken some time with Steele’s article in order to give a context for his own indirect questioning of himself at the close of his article. He wonders if his readers might be ‘startled by these revelations’
Romanyshyn uses Steele’s self-doubt about going ‘too far’ in critical hermeneutics as the central demonstration that an interpreter’s own complexes may remain unexamined even when deploying rigorous critical methods.
, The Wounded Researcher: Research with Soul in Mind, 2007thesis
Steele uses the term ‘resistance’ to characterize six potential obstacles to engaging in the kind of critical reading he has proposed. Of the six that he discusses, four are cultural-historical resistances that a critical hermeneutic reader can, more or less, become conscious of
Romanyshyn’s analysis of Steele’s taxonomy of resistance distinguishes between culturally accessible biases and the deeper, complex-rooted resistances that critical hermeneutics cannot itself dissolve.
, The Wounded Researcher: Research with Soul in Mind, 2007thesis
the same point applies to Steele’s critical h[ermeneutics]
Romanyshyn extends to Steele the argument that any critical interpreter, Jungian or otherwise, may be as blind to their own complex as the subject they are reading.
, The Wounded Researcher: Research with Soul in Mind, 2007supporting
phase 3 the therapeutic focus shifts to themes of self-development, adaptation to normal life, and relationships (Brown et al., 1998; Chu, 1998; Courtois, 1999; Herman, 1992; Steele et al., 2005b), addressing the profound developmental neglect endured by so many clients
Ogden cites Steele, van der Hart, and Nijenhuis as the primary theoretical authority for phase 3 trauma treatment, focused on developmental deficits and relational capacity beyond symptom reduction.
, Trauma and the Body: A Sensorimotor Approach to Psychotherapy, 2006thesis
Steele, K., & van der Hart, O. (2001). The integration of traumatic memories versus abreaction: Clarification of terminology.
This bibliographic entry situates Steele and van der Hart’s foundational clarification of abreaction versus integration as a key theoretical resource in sensorimotor trauma psychotherapy.
, Sensorimotor Psychotherapy Interventions for Trauma and, 2015supporting
(2005); Steele and Steele (2008); van IJzendoorn and Bakermans-Kranenburg (2008); Hesse (2008).
Siegel clusters Howard Steele and Miriam Steele’s 2008 work with other canonical attachment transmission-gap studies, affirming their place within the empirical literature on intergenerational attachment.
, The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are, 2020supporting
in 2013, I must add Arietta Slade, Peter Fonagy, and Mary Target, Howard Steele, Everett Waters, Maurice Eagle, Richard Mizen, and Jeremy Safran.
Howard Steele is acknowledged among the scholarly readers who provided critical commentary on Holmes’s intellectual biography of Bowlby, marking his standing within mainstream attachment theory discourse.
, John Bowlby and Attachment Theory (Makers of Modern, 2014supporting
Wallis and Steele (2001); Riggs and Jacobvitz (2002); Patrick et al. (1994)
A bibliographic citation grouping Steele with researchers studying disorganized attachment and its relational correlates in the Adult Attachment Interview tradition.
, The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are, 2020aside