• Psychotherapy & Analysis
  • Choosing a Psychoanalyst
  • Interviews and Podcasts

901-766-1890

Dr. Mark Winborn

Jungian psychoanalyst clinical psychologist.

mark winborn phd

Click on the link below to download the new patient form for Dr. Winborn

Practice Overview

Dr. Mark Winborn is a licensed clinical psychologist, Jungian psychoanalyst, and nationally certified psychoanalyst with over 30 years of clinical experience.  He provides individual psychoanalytic psychotherapy and psychoanalysis for adults in Memphis, Tennessee.  Dr. Winborn is a training and supervising analyst of the Inter-Regional Society of Jungian Analysts. He has served as the Training Coordinator of the Memphis Jungian Seminar, is on the faculty of the C.G. Jung Institute of Zurich and the Moscow Association for Analytical Psychology, as well as visiting faculty at a number of institutes and seminars both in the USA and internationally. He is also available for clinical psychoanalytic supervision and speaking engagements.  

Dr. Winborn is an approved provider for most insurance panels.  However, he is no longer a participating provider in the Cigna insurance plan but will file for out-of-network benefits if available. Also, he is not accepting United Healthcare plans when United Healthcare is the primary insurance, but does accept United Healthcare if the policy is secondary to other primary insurance. 

Long Lasting Benefits of Analytic Therapy

Located on the 16th floor of the White Station Tower Building at 5050 Poplar Avenue, Dr. Winborn's solo office environment provides a sense of privacy conducive to personal exploration and reflection.  Office hours are Monday - Friday by appointment. Click on the link for a map to the office (Map Link)  

Long Lasting Benefits of Analytic Therapy #2

Effectiveness of jungian approaches, effectiveness of psychoanalytic treatments.

Copyright © 2023 Dr. Mark Winborn - All Rights Reserved.

Powered by GoDaddy

mark winborn phd

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

  •  We're Hiring!
  •  Help Center

Curriculum Vitae

mark winborn phd

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

  • Academia.edu Publishing
  •   We're Hiring!
  •   Help Center
  • Find new research papers in:
  • Health Sciences
  • Earth Sciences
  • Cognitive Science
  • Mathematics
  • Computer Science
  • Academia ©2024

IAAP Logo

International Association for Analytical Psychology

IAAP Logo

  • Participation Mystique: An Overview

Participation Mystique: An Overview

Mark Winborn

Participation mystique has an interesting position in Analytical Psychology. It is a term rather ubiquitous within the Jungian world, however the definition of the term is somewhat opaque. At times, the term carries a negative valance within Jungian circles while also being used to describe experiences of depth and power.

Jung’s Concept of Participation Mystique

Jung adopted the term participation mystique from anthropologist Lucien Lévy-Bruhl who utilized the term in a series of books published from 1910 1 onward. Jung was taken with the idea that the ‘primitives’ think differently than ‘modern’ people and adopted Lévy-Bruhl ‘s ideas about the ‘primitive psyche’ as well as his concepts of participation mystique and representations collectives.

Jung’s most extensive discussion of participation mystique is found in his essay Archaic Man . 2 This essay outlines his ideas about the mental activity of primitive peoples, i.e. that they function in a “prelogical state of mind”, that they “were simpler and more childlike”, and “unpsychological” by which he means that psychological experiences are perceived as occurring outside of the primitive in an objective way. These inferences about primitive thinking underlie Jung’s central notion of participation mystique – namely that in participation mystique experiences there is a blurring of psychological boundaries between individuals, between individuals and their environment, and in some instance between individuals and objects. For example, if an indigenous group believed that a tree was also a dwelling for a spirit that provided protection for a nearby village, Jung would likely interpret this as a form of participation mystique . Similarly, in contemporary society it is quite common to observe participation mystique dynamics among fans in large sporting events. Jung’s defines participation mystique as follows:

Participation mystique is a term derived from Lévy-Bruhl. It denotes a peculiar kind of psychological connection with objects, and consists in the fact that the subject cannot clearly distinguish himself from the object but is bound to it by a direct relationship which amounts to partial identity (q. v. ). This identity results from an a priori oneness of subject and object. Participation mystique is a vestige of this primitive connection. 3

Jung addresses several areas with the term participation mystique ; the blurring of subject-object boundaries resulting in an experience of a priori oneness, that participation mystique is regularly observed in people from cultures which Jung labels as ‘primitive’, and that it occurs in the mental states of early infancy. Jung also calls attention to the presence of participation mystique in analytic transferences and as an unconscious component of the ‘civilized adult.’ Although Jung discusses the psychology of primitive man in way that strikes the contemporary reader as an ethnocentric perspective, he is also using this contrast to draw attention to characteristics of the modern

psychological state which he considered problematic. Specifically, Jung believes that modern persons have become so overly reliant on rational thought that we are split off from vestigial or phylogenetic layers of psychic experience.

Developments Related to Participation Mystique

Having outlined how Jung came to utilize the term and the different ways he applied it, we can turn to developments and applications of participation mystique since Jung adopted it for inclusion in Analytical Psychology.

Projective Identification and Participation Mystique : Jung indicated that projection and identification are the two primary psychological processes by which participation mystique is activated. A number of analytical psychologists have highlighted the similarity between Jung’s utilization of the participation mystique concept and the concept of projective identification, first proposed by Melanie Klein, 4 in which parts of the self and internal objects of the infant are split off and projected onto an external object. In Klein’s model, the object becomes identified with the projected split-off parts and interacted with as though the object has become one with the split-off objects, often evoking a feeling in the recipient of the projected element that is affectively congruent with the split-off part.

There are numerous passages in Jung where he refers to participation mystique , projection, empathy, and ‘feeling-into’ in ways which sound astonishingly close to Klein’s description of projective identification. Jung and Klein both conceptualize the analytic interaction as a situation in which the analyst will impact the patient and the patient will impact the analyst in nuanced but powerful ways, permitting the possibility for both to understand their interactions in new ways and facilitate the transformation of psychological experience.

mark winborn phd

Transference and Participation Mystique : Jung saw the process of participation mystique as being intimately tied with the process of projection but also with the transference dynamics of the analytic setting. Jung clearly understood the mutually influencing aspects of the transference relationship and he saw those influences as being based, in large part, on the presence of participation mystique in the analytic relationship. He recognized early on that, “It is not only the sufferer but the doctor as well, not only the object but also the subject.” 5 This perspective is captured most fully in The Psychology of the Transference which returns frequently to the image of the alchemical bath as a metaphor for the mutual unconscious influences of the analytic relationship. This reciprocal unconscious influence is also readily seen in Jung’s diagram 6 of the analytic relationship:

Similar Concepts from Analytical Psychology and Psychoanalytic Theory

There are several conceptual developments that have emerged since Jung original work on participation mystique, particularly his understanding of the application of participation mystique to the transference situation. For example, Erich Neumann’s concept of unitary reality 7 ; the bipersonal field as developed by Madeline Baranger and Willy Baranger 8 ; selfobject theory as developed by Heinz Kohut 9 ; intersubjectivity theory which developed among a number of authors, for example, George Atwood and Robert Stolorow 10 ; the interactive field 11 ; and the concept of fusional states. 12 All of these concepts articulate elements of psychological experience which parallel participation mystique. These developments illustrate the similarities with Jung’s hypothesis about the reciprocally influencing qualities of participation mystique experience and underscore the prescience of Jung’s model for Analytical Psychology.

Hopefully, this survey provides insights into the concept of participation mystique – exploring it from a variety of perspectives. When broadly held, participation mystique offers an umbrella for a wide variety of intersubjective phenomenon. The concept is most useful when used to describe a class of interactive experiences. We are at a significant juncture in the development of psychoanalysis and analytical psychology; a time of convergence and cross-fertilization in which we have the opportunity to re-examine established or accepted theories and concepts based on cumulative clinical experience, developments in other fields, and shifts in our culture – all of which ultimately impact how we practice as analysts and analytic therapists.

Further Reading:

I recommend a series of interrelated articles by Robert Segal, 13 , 14 Susan Rowland, 15 and Paul Bishop 16 which, as a group, comprise an intellectual-historical-literary-theoretical survey of the Jung’s views on ‘primitive man’ and his utilization of the concept of participation mystique. These four articles provide an excellent background to the concept of participation mystique. I also recommend a collection of essays which I had the privilege of assembling and editing, Shared Realities: Participation Mystique and Beyond, 17 which surveys contemporary perspectives on participation mystique and related concepts.

Mark Winborn

Mark Winborn , PhD, NCPsyA is a Jungian Psychoanalyst and Clinical Psychologist.

Dr. Winborn is a training/supervising analyst of the Inter-Regional Society of Jungian Analysts and the C.G. Jung Institute in Zurich, Switzerland.

He currently serves on the American Board for Accreditation in Psychoanalysis and the Ethics Committee of the International Association for Analytical Psychology, as well as the editorial boards of the Journal of Analytical Psychology and the Journal of Humanistic Psychology.

He has presentedpapersat the past four Congresses of the International Association for Analytical Psychology (2010, 2013, 2016, 2019).

His publications include Deep Blues: Human Soundscapes for the Archetypal Journey (2011, Fisher King Press), Shared Realities: Participation Mystique and Beyond (2014, Fisher King Press), and Interpretation in Jungian Analysis: Art and Technique (2018, Routledge) as well as journal articles, book reviews, and chapter contributions.

1 Lucien Lévy-Bruhl, Les fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inférieures, translated (1926) from French as How Natives Think , London: G. Allen & Unwin , 1910.

2 C.G. Jung, “Archaic Man,” in The Collected Works , Vol.10 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1931).

3 C.G. Jung, Psychological Types, in The Collected Works , Vol. 6 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971). 781.

4 Melanie Klein, ‘Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms,’ Inter, J. of Psycho-Analysis 27 (1946): 99-110.

5 C.G. Jung, “Problems of Modern Psychotherapy,” in The Collected Works, Vol. 16 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1929a), ¶173.

6 C.G. Jung, “The Psychology of the Transference,” in The Collected Works, Vol. 16 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press, 1946), ¶422.

7 Erich Neumann, The Place of Creation (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989).

8 Madeline Baranger and Willy Baranger, “The Analytic Situation as a Dynamic Field,” Inter. J. of Psycho-Analysis 89 (2008): 795-826 [originally published 1961-1962].

9 Heinz Kohut, The Analysis of the Self (New York: International Universities Press, 1971).

10 George Atwood and Robert Stolorow, Structures of Subjectivity , 1984 .

11 Murray Stein, ed., The Interactive Field in Analysis: Chiron Clinical Series (Wilmette, IL: Chiron, 1995).

12 Peter Giovacchini, “Fusion States, Collective Countertransference, and Mutual Dependence,” J. of the American Academy of Psychoanalytic Dynamic Psychiatry 23 (1995): 411-423.

13 Robert Segal, “Jung and Lévy-Bruhl,” J. of Analytical Psychology 52 (2007a): 635-658.

14 Robert Segal, “Response to Susan Rowland,” J. of Analytical Psychology 52 (2007b): 667-771.

15 Susan Rowland, “Response to Segal’s ‘Jung and Lévy-Bruhl’,” J. of Analytical Psychology 52 (2007): 659-666.

16 Bishop, Paul. “The Timeliness and Timelessness of the ‘Archaic’: Analytical Psychology ‘Primordial’ Thought, Synchronicity,” J. of Analytical Psychology 53 (2008):501-523.

17 Winborn, Mark (Ed). Shared Realities: Participation Mystique and Beyond (Shiatook, OK: Fisher King Press, 2014).

Contemporary Understandings of Analytical Psychology

  • Active Imagination
  • The Collective Unconscious
  • Individuation
  • Psychological Types
  • The Transcendent Function
  • Anima and Animus
  • The Red Book
  • Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle
  • Transference and Countertransference
  • Amplification

6. Introduction To Jungian Analysis, with Mark Winborn, Ph.D. Podcast By  cover art

6. Introduction To Jungian Analysis, with Mark Winborn, Ph.D.

  • Jan 19 2021
  • Length: 56 mins

Add to Cart failed.

Add to wish list failed., remove from wishlist failed., adding to library failed, follow podcast failed, unfollow podcast failed.

6. Introduction To Jungian Analysis, with Mark Winborn, Ph.D.  By  cover art

Mark Winborn and I discuss Jungian analysis, how it might be similar and different to other forms of psychoanalysis, what it looks like in practice, how he has worked with schizophrenics, insights into Covid anxiety, cultural shifts, and many more cool topics and avenues!

Mark Winborn, PhD, NCPsyA is a Jungian Psychoanalyst and Clinical Psychologist.  He received his BS in Psychology from Michigan State University in 1982, his MS and PhD in Clinical Psychology from the University of Memphis in 1987, and his certificate in Jungian Analysis from the Inter-Regional Society of Jungian Analysts in 1999.  From 1988 – 1990 he was the staff psychologist at the United States Military Academy, West Point, New York. Dr. Winborn is a training/supervising analyst of the Inter-Regional Society of Jungian Analysts, the C.G. Jung Institute in Zurich, Switzerland, and the Moscow Association for Analytical Psychology post-graduate studies program. He currently serves on the American Board for Accreditation in Psychoanalysis and the Ethics Committee of the International Association for Analytical Psychology. Dr. Winborn is on the editorial boards of the Journal of Analytical Psychology and the Journal of Humanistic Psychology , as well as being a member of the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis. His publications include Deep Blues: Human Soundscapes for the Archetypal Journey (2011) and Shared Realities: Participation Mystique and Beyond (2014), and Interpretation in Jungian Analysis: Art and Technique (2018), as well as book chapters, articles, and book reviews. Additionally, He has presented papers at the past four Congresses of the International Association for Analytical Psychology (2010, 2013, 2016, 2019).  Since 1990 he has maintained a private practice in Memphis, Tennessee, USA where he was the Training Coordinator for the Memphis-Atlanta Jungian Seminar from 2010 - 2016. He is a frequent invited speaker for both national and international seminars and conferences.

The Sanity Sessions: Exploring Mental Illness And Maladaptations is a biweekly podcast featuring interviews with leading experts in psychology and mental health. Clint Sabom is Creative Director of Contemplative Light. He lived in Budapest, Hungary in 2003 as a Gilman Scholar. He speaks English, Spanish, and Portuguese. In 2007, he lived for six months in a silent monastery.. He holds bachelor’s degrees in Religious Studies and one in Spanish literature. He has traveled extensively through Europe and South America. He has spoken and/or performed at Amnesty International, Health Conferences, High Schools, and art galleries across the US. He has studied and done in his own work in Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, Shamanism, NLP, and hypnosis.    Clint offers a powerful audio mini-course on emotional release, with powerful techniques you can use the rest of your life.  Learn more here: https://contemplativelight.teachable.com/p/emotional-release

What listeners say about 6. Introduction To Jungian Analysis, with Mark Winborn, Ph.D.

Reviews - please select the tabs below to change the source of reviews., audible.com reviews, amazon reviews.

  • Help Center
  • Redeem promo code
  • About Audible
  • Business Inquiries
  • Audible in the News
  • Accessibility
  • ACX for Creators
  • Bestsellers
  • New York Times Best Sellers
  • New releases
  • Non-English Audiobooks
  • Latino & Hispanic Voices
  • Audible in Chinese
  • How to listen
  • Listen on Apple Devices
  • Listen in the car
  • Whispersync for Voice

Shrink Rap Radio

A Chronicle of Current Events

For human rights & freedom of expression in the ussr, the podrabinek case, dec 1977 to feb 1978 (48.7).

<<No 48 : 14 March 1978>>

On 1 December 1977, the brothers Alexander and Kirill PODRABINEK (CCE 47) and their father Pinkhos Abramovich PODRABINEK were summoned for a chat by Yu.S. Belov, chief of a department at the Moscow City and Regional KGB. Alexander refused to appear.

“On behalf of the Committee for State Security ” (Belov told Kirill and his father Pinkhos Podrabinek)

“I suggest that you and your families leave the Soviet Union and go abroad via Israel within 20 days. There is enough material against you, Kirill Pinkhosovich, to institute criminal proceedings. You, Pinkhos Abramovich, are also known to us for your anti-social activities. An act of humanity is being offered to you both. I advise you to make use of it.”

mark winborn phd

Alexander (b. 1953) and Kirill Podrabinek (b. 1952)

The same evening Alexander Podrabinek was arrested on the street and taken to the KGB. Belov presented him, too, with an ultimatum: all three must leave the country, otherwise criminal proceedings would be instituted against both brothers.

Belov let it be understood that the absence of an invitation and difficulties with money would not be obstacles. Belov stressed that they could only leave all together.

HOSTAGE-TAKING

Many painful disputes have sprung up around the moral problems arising from KGB’s ultimatums and blackmail. The Chronicle cannot present the arguments but at least it can accurately convey the stance of participants in such events by reproducing all their statements in sufficient detail.

On 6 December 1977, there was a press conference at Andrei Sakharov ’s flat. Pinkhos PODRABINEK read out a “Statement for the Belgrade Conference [note 1] and the Press”:

“A distinctive feature of this case is the KGB’s use of the hostage system. Not one of us can determine his own fate independently, and a decision about the fate of three people has been placed by the KGB on Alexander Podrabinek alone, in whose departure the authorities are most of all interested. “We categorically refuse to accept such conditions and insist on our right to make our choices independently…”

Then Alexander PODRABINEK read out his “Reply” to the KGB’s proposal:

“I would like to draw the attention of the world public to my brother’s painful position and to the dirty tactics of the KGB — tactics of intimidation and terror. The whole world condemns the hijacking of aeroplanes and the taking of passengers as hostages, yet the KGB is using the very same method with regard to my brother, a method commonly used by terrorists. In the situation that has arisen the most painful thing for me is my brother’s fate. “At the KGB they insistently advised me to take advantage of this ‘humane act of the Soviet government’, as they expressed it. I regard this proposal as unconcealed blackmail by the KGB. “They have given me four days to reflect. On 5 December I have to give my reply. A reply that means a great deal to me. “This is my reply.

“I do not wish to go to prison. I value even the semblance of freedom which I possess now. I know that I would be able to live freely in the West and at last receive a real education. I know that there I would not have four agents at my heels, threatening to beat me up or push me under a train.

“Over there, I know, they will not put me in a concentration camp or a psychiatric hospital for attempting to defend people who are denied their rights and oppressed. Over there, I know, one breathes easily. While here one does so with difficulty, and they stop your mouth and stifle you if you speak too loudly. I know that our country is unhappy and doomed to suffering.

“And that is why I am staying.

“I do not want to go to prison, but neither do I fear a camp. I value my own freedom as I value my brother’s, but I am not bargaining for it. I will not give in to any blackmail.

“A clear conscience is dearer to me than material well-being. I was born in Russia. This is my country, and I must remain here, however hard it may be and however easy in the West. As far as I am able, I will go on defending those whose rights are being so brazenly trampled on in our country.

“That is my reply. I am staying.”

After this Alexander Podrabinek added that he would agree to leave the country only if Kirill were to ask him to do so.

On 7 December 1977, Kirill PODRABINEK made a statement:

KGB Blackmail

1. The KGB is using the hostage-taking method. They are basically blackmailing my brother Alexander, while I am the hostage. 2. The very formulation of the question: ‘leave or we will put you in prison’, is contrary to the law. If a man has committed a crime he must be prosecuted. However, in this case the KGB does not want to stage a new political trial but prefers to dispatch us abroad. The KGB has employed a well-calculated device — to exploit the insolubility of a situation with a hostage. All this blackmail is patently a consequence of the public stand taken by our family … “If any one of the three of us is arrested and any charge whatsoever brought against him, it can only be viewed as an act of revenge by the KGB and not as a requirement of justice.”

On 12 December 1977, Kirill Podrabinek informed Belov that he had decided to leave. Belov replied that Kirill could hand in his emigration documents, and on the same day Kirill did so. On 14 December Kirill Podrabinek made an addition to his previous statement:

“On 12 December, I telephoned investigator Belov at the KGB. Permission to go abroad has been granted; there was no mention of my only being able to leave only with my brother. Does this mean that the KGB has given up its hostage-taking and will really allow me to leave? In the very near future this will become clear … In view of all the circumstances, and fearing for my life” (see CCE 47) “I have taken the decision to leave.” *

KIRILL PODRABINEK (b. 1952)

On 27 December 1977, the police in Elektrostal (Moscow Region) brought charges against Kirill Podrabinek under Article 215 (RSFSR Criminal Code: “Illegal possession of arms, ammunition” etc). Kirill refused to sign the record of this charge. Investigator Radygin obtained his written undertaking not to leave town but said he would not need Kirill before the middle of January and, if need be, he could go to Moscow.

When Kirill Podrabinek came out of the Elektrostal police station he was met at the door by KGB Investigator Belov, who had arrived from Moscow. The condition of Kirill’s departure remained unchanged, Belov said, and gave him three days in which to persuade his brother to agree to leave.

From that day onwards, KGB employees began trailing Kirill Podrabinek . (His brother Alexander had been under a similar “escort” since 10 October 1977, see below). The same day 22 Muscovites issued a statement:

“Wishing to force Alexander Podrabinek to leave the country, the KGB is openly blackmailing him with his brother’s fate. A method of hostage-taking used thus far only by irresponsible criminal-terrorists is in the present case being adopted as a weapon by the official representatives of a powerful State. This blackmail clearly demonstrates the value of the charges brought against Kirill Podrabinek. “We call upon our fellow countrymen and world public opinion to protest against the use of hostage-taking, unprecedented in the practice of civilized states. We call upon our fellow countrymen and world public opinion to follow attentively the fate of the Podrabinek family.”

On 28 December Kirill Podrabinek made a statement:

State Terrorism

“… The KGB has resorted to hostage-taking. My brother Alexander has made a statement for the press saying that he does not wish to leave, but he will leave if I so demand. “Under no circumstances will I make this demand of Alexander. In the first place, that would mean becoming a blind instrument of blackmail in the hands of the KGB, exploiting a situation created by them for my own sake. In the second place, it is impossible for me to even ask, let alone demand such a thing. “However, I have resolved to pursue my chosen line of action and try to obtain permission to leave.”

On the evening of 29 December 1977, Kirill Podrabinek was arrested.

On the day of his arrest, he declared a hunger strike. After a few days he was transferred from Elektrostal to Moscow, to the MVD’s detention centre on Matrosskaya Tishina Street.

The first response to Kirill’s arrest was “The Christmas ‘Feat’ of the KGB”, a short article by Victor Nekipelov [note 2]:

“… The arrest of Kirill Podrabinek is an act of deliberate, demonstrative revenge. The authorities know full well that they are thereby dealing the severest blow to both Alexander Podrabinek – Take that for not accepting our offer! – and to his father — While you didn’t steer your sons to a compromise!”

On 1 January 1978, Yevgeny Nikolayev (see “In the Psychiatric Hospitals”, CCE 48.12 ) sent a letter to the RSFSR Procurator’s Office, protesting against the arrest of Kirill Podrabinek.

On 4 January 1978, Alexander and Pinkhos Podrabinek asked Belov for a meeting with Kirill.

Belov refused but promised to pass Kirill a note from them, “if there are no objections on the part of the investigator”. In the note Alexander and his father asked Kirill: “Do you agree to leave if there is no need to ask Alexander to do the same?”

On the same day, at 11.30 pm, Belov came to Elektrostal to see Pinkhos Podrabinek . He informed him that the investigator “had not allowed” the note to be passed to Kirill. If Alexander handed in his application to emigrate within three days, however, all three could leave the USSR. Otherwise, Alexander  would also be arrested. Belov suggested that P.A. Podrabinek go at once to Moscow and persuade Alexander to change his mind: he even gave Pinkhos Abramovich a lift back to Moscow in his car.

On 5 January 1978, Alexander Podrabinek appealed in an open letter to Amnesty International, calling on the organisation to speak out in Kirill’s defence.

On 9 January Alexander Podrabinek telephoned Belov at the KGB. When Belov asked if he intended to leave, Alexander replied that he could only decide this matter together with his brother.

On 15 January 1978, the Christian Committee for the Defence of Believers’ Rights in the USSR called upon “world public opinion” to speak out in defence of Kirill Podrabinek and condemn the policy of hostage-taking.

At the beginning of February 1978, the Podrabineks were summoned to Elektrostal for interrogation in connection with Kirill’s case.

Pinkhos Podrabinek replied to questions about Kirill but refused to sign a record of the interrogation. Alexander declined to answer questions, stating that the case was inspired by the KGB and was being conducted with violations of norms laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ALEXANDER PODRABINEK (b. 1953)

From 10 October 1977, Alexander Podrabinek was under constant KGB surveillance. Round the clock he was pursued by two cars carrying seven or eight employees of the security services.

Whenever he was inside a building the cars stood in front of the doorway. Whenever he walked along the street or travelled in public transport there were always several agents at his side. They threatened Alexander’s acquaintances and took photographs of them. Sometimes they interfered more actively with the life of their charge: on Sunday 18 December the escort prohibited Alexander from going skiing with friends in the Orekhovo-Borisovo district [Moscow Region]. Podrabinek wrote about this incident to [KGB chairman] Andropov:

“… Since 10 October of this year I have been under the continuous and unconcealed observation of our glorious Chekists. Defending the State’s security, I understand, it is essential for the KGB to search my home, call me as a witness in the case of Yury Orlov, suggest that I leave the USSR, blackmail me, make an attempt on my brother’s life, and do much else to ensure that I do not, accidentally, undermine the foundations of the Soviet political and social system. All this I understand. “I am not even particularly annoyed when one of the eight officers who perpetually watch over me swears he will break my legs or push me under a train. I understand the full difficulty of this highly complex, responsible and dangerous work and do not get angry with these heroic young people who, performing their civic duty, freeze on cold December nights outside the entrance to my house or squeeze after me onto a city bus in the rush-hour. I am enraptured by their daring, their persistence and their indifference to the cold … “Citizen Andropov! On behalf of myself and six of my friends I beg you: Provide your employees with skis and toboggans and, please, teach them how to use them, if they do not know. Then I shall be able to enjoy my on Sundays and the KGB will be able to work normally and not violate the Soviet Constitution. This can only enhance the reputation of our valiant organs and promote their physical development.”

From January 1978, the constant “escort” was replaced from time to time by ‘ordinary’ shadowing.

The security services are trying by any means to prevent Alexander Podrabinek from continuing his activities on the Working Commission (to Investigate the Use of Psychiatry for Political Purposes). In particular, they are hampering him from meeting, in the flats of his Moscow friends, people who have been subjected to “psychiatric persecution” and their relatives. Podrabinek and his friend Dmitry Leontyev , in whose flat he was living, were fined for violating the city residence regulations. Podrabinek was forbidden to continue residing at the flat.

Alexander Podrabinek was warned that he was liable to be charged with “parasitism”. In February 1978, having given his shadow the slip, he managed to get a job as a medical orderly (he is a qualified paramedic).

The pre-trial investigation of Kirill Podrabinek ’s case was completed in February 1978.

=======================

[1] Representatives of all 35 member-States of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) assembed in the Yugoslav capital Belgrade to discuss the implementation of the 1975 Helsinki Accords five years on.

[2] Victor Nekipelov

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

' src=

  • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
  • Subscribe Subscribed
  • Copy shortlink
  • Report this content
  • View post in Reader
  • Manage subscriptions
  • Collapse this bar

19th Edition of Global Conference on Catalysis, Chemical Engineering & Technology

  • Victor Mukhin

Victor Mukhin, Speaker at Chemical Engineering Conferences

Victor M. Mukhin was born in 1946 in the town of Orsk, Russia. In 1970 he graduated the Technological Institute in Leningrad. Victor M. Mukhin was directed to work to the scientific-industrial organization "Neorganika" (Elektrostal, Moscow region) where he is working during 47 years, at present as the head of the laboratory of carbon sorbents.     Victor M. Mukhin defended a Ph. D. thesis and a doctoral thesis at the Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia (in 1979 and 1997 accordingly). Professor of Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Scientific interests: production, investigation and application of active carbons, technological and ecological carbon-adsorptive processes, environmental protection, production of ecologically clean food.   

Title : Active carbons as nanoporous materials for solving of environmental problems

Quick links.

  • Conference Brochure
  • Tentative Program

Watsapp

IMAGES

  1. Shrink Rap Radio

    mark winborn phd

  2. "C.G. Jung and Becoming a Psychoanalyst". Dr. Mark Winborn in conversation with Stefano Carpani

    mark winborn phd

  3. Speaking of Jung, Ep. 36: Jungian analyst Mark Winborn, Ph.D. on

    mark winborn phd

  4. New Book "Interpretation In Jungian Analysis: Art And Technique" By

    mark winborn phd

  5. Exploring The “Participation Mystique” with Mark Winborn

    mark winborn phd

  6. 10 mecanisme de apărare ale psihicului uman

    mark winborn phd

VIDEO

  1. Mark Winborn (traduzido)

  2. Black Widow

  3. Up to 80 % off ANY FDA-Approved Medicine!

  4. Prophet Winborn- Money Answers All

  5. 2023-12-31

  6. 2023-11-26 Guest Speaker Dr. Jim Henry

COMMENTS

  1. Dr. Mark Winborn

    General Insurance Insurance Dr. Mark Winborn is a licensed clinical psychologist, Jungian psychoanalyst, and nationally certified psychoanalyst with over 30 years of clinical experience. He provides individual psychoanalytic psychotherapy and psychoanalysis for adults in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr.

  2. Mark Winborn, PhD, NCPsyA

    Mark Winborn, PhD, NCPsyA Psychoanalyst-Psychologist: Private Practice Memphis, Tennessee, United States 979 followers 500+ connections Welcome back Join now New to LinkedIn? Join now Join to...

  3. Mark D Winborn

    Mark Winborn, PhD, NCPsyA is a Jungian Psychoanalyst and Clinical Psychologist. He received his BS in Psychology from Michigan State University in 1982, his MS and PhD in Clinical Psychology from the University of Memphis in 1987, and his certificate in Jungian Analysis from the Inter-Regional Society of Jungian Analysts in 1999.

  4. Jungian Psychoanalysis A Contemporary Introduction

    Mark Winborn offers a succinct introduction to the key elements of Jung's conceptual model and method, as well as an outline of the major transitions, critiques, and debates that have emerged in the evolution of analytical psychology.

  5. Mark Winborn

    Winborn Vita Mark Winborn, PhD, NCPsyA 5050 Poplar Ave., Suite 1633 Memphis, Tennessee 38157 901-766-1890, [email protected] Education Bachelor of Science in Psychology, Michigan State University, 1978-1982 Master of Science in Clinical Psychology, University of Memphis, 1982-1985 Doctor of Philosophy in Clinical Psychology, U...

  6. Dr. Mark Winborn, PHD

    Dr. Mark Winborn, PHD is a clinical psychologist in Memphis, TN. 5.0 (3 ratings)

  7. PDF The Fate of Ruthlessness in Analysis Mark Winborn, PhD, NCPsyA

    Mark Winborn, PhD, NCPsyA Presented at the spring meeting of the I-RSJA, Boulder, CO March 14, 2011 I find myself at an unexpected destination of late: frequently, wondering about the fate of ruthlessness in analysis. More often I have the sense that what is needed in the analytic

  8. Participation Mystique: An Overview

    Mark Winborn, PhD, NCPsyA is a Jungian Psychoanalyst and Clinical Psychologist. Dr. Winborn is a training/supervising analyst of the Inter-Regional Society of Jungian Analysts and the C.G. Jung Institute in Zurich, Switzerland.

  9. 6. Introduction To Jungian Analysis, with Mark Winborn, Ph.D

    Mark Winborn, PhD, NCPsyA is a Jungian Psychoanalyst and Clinical Psychologist. He received his BS in Psychology from Michigan State University in 1982, his MS and PhD in Clinical Psychology from the University of Memphis in 1987, and his certificate in Jungian Analysis from the Inter-Regional Society of Jungian Analysts in 1999. ...

  10. Mark Winborn, PhD, NCPsyA's Post

    Mark Winborn, PhD, NCPsyA on LinkedIn: Book Launch - Jungian Psychoanalysis: A Contemporary Introduction Mark Winborn, PhD, NCPsyA's Post Mark Winborn, PhD, NCPsyA Psychoanalyst-Psychologist:...

  11. #427

    Mark Winborn, PhD, NCPsyA is a Jungian Psychoanalyst and Clinical Psychologist. He is a training and supervising analyst of the Inter-Regional Society of Jungian Analysts and is also affiliated with the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis and the International Association for Analytical Psychology.

  12. Mark Winborn (Author of Interpretation in Jungian Analysis)

    Mark Winborn, PhD, NCPsyA is a Jungian Psychoanalyst affiliated with the Inter-Regional Society of Jungian Analysts, National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis, and the International Association for Analytical Psychology.

  13. Amazon.com: Jungian Psychoanalysis (Routledge Introductions to

    Mark Winborn, PhD, NCPsyA is a Jungian Psychoanalyst and Clinical Psychologist. He is a training and supervising analyst of the Inter-Regional Society of Jungian Analysts and a faculty member and supervisor at the C.G. Jung Institute of Zurich. He is also affiliated with the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis, on the ...

  14. Deep Blues: Human Soundscapes for the Archetypal Journey

    Mark Winborn, PhD, NCPsyA is a Jungian Psychoanalyst and Clinical Psychologist. He is a training and supervising analyst of the Inter-Regional Society of Jungian Analysts and is also affiliated with the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis and the International Association for Analytical Psychology. Dr.

  15. Mark Winborn, PhD, NCPsyA'S Post

    Mark Winborn, PhD, NCPsyA Psychologist - Psychoanalyst 5050 Poplar Ave., Suite 1633 Memphis, TN 38157 (901)766-1890 www.drmarkwinborn.com ...

  16. Dr. Mark Winborn, PHD, Clinical Psychologist

    Overview Locations Ratings Insurance About Education About Dr. Mark Winborn, PHD is a Clinical Psychologist in Memphis, TN. They currently practice at Practice. At present, Dr. Winborn received an average rating of 5.0/5 from patients and has been reviewed 3 times. Their office is not accepting new patients. Dr.

  17. Dr. Mark Winborn, PhD, Psychology

    Dr. Winborn works in Memphis, TN and specializes in Psychology. RATINGS AND REVIEWS Dr. Winborn's Rating 0 Ratings Be first to leave a review Leave a review LOCATIONS 5050 Poplar Ave Ste 1633...

  18. The Podrabinek case, Dec 1977 to Feb 1978 (48.7)

    The Podrabinek case, Dec 1977 to Feb 1978 (48.7) 1 February 2021. <<No 48 : 14 March 1978>>. On 1 December 1977, the brothers Alexander and Kirill PODRABINEK (CCE 47) and their father Pinkhos Abramovich PODRABINEK were summoned for a chat by Yu.S. Belov, chief of a department at the Moscow City and Regional KGB. Alexander refused to appear.

  19. PDF Russian-American MPC&A

    ed, and Mark Mullen, Gene Kutyreff, and I (Ron Augustson) began to devel-op a plan. We designed the lab-to-lab MPC&A program to be a joint effort like the sci-entific program. Money would be di-vided into three roughly equal parts: Russian salaries, American salaries, and equipment. Our initial effort would focus on creating a demonstration of

  20. Active carbons as nanoporous materials for solving of environmental

    Catalysis Conference is a networking event covering all topics in catalysis, chemistry, chemical engineering and technology during October 19-21, 2017 in Las Vegas, USA. Well noted as well attended meeting among all other annual catalysis conferences 2018, chemical engineering conferences 2018 and chemistry webinars.

  21. Victor Mukhin

    Catalysis Conference is a networking event covering all topics in catalysis, chemistry, chemical engineering and technology during October 19-21, 2017 in Las Vegas, USA. Well noted as well attended meeting among all other annual catalysis conferences 2018, chemical engineering conferences 2018 and chemistry webinars.