The widening scope of mentalizing: A discussion

Liotti and Gilbert’s (2011) paper is exceptionally thought provoking. As we understand it, Liotti and Gilbert link attachment processes to mentalization in an evolutionary rather than an ontogenetic sense: attachment processes are seen as an avenue provided by evolution for the recovery of mentalization against a background of potential threats that can be mitigated by a relational experience of safety. This perspective, in addition to more recent empirical findings from developmental psychology, has encouraged us to revise our views and consider alternatives. Liotti and Gilbert suggest that the activation of the attachment system does not necessarily facilitate mentalizing and the relationship between the two (what we have called loosely coupled systems; Fonagy & Target, 2000; Fonagy, Steele, Steele, & Holder, 1997) is moderated by the context and background against which activation takes place. They helpfully identify the intense activation of the attachment system in the face of threat as a cause of inhibition rather than facilitation of mentalizing. This is consistent with our theorizing based on neuroscientific observations that have also guided our clinical interventions (Bateman & Fonagy, 2004). In contrast to our attachment theory perspective, Liotti and Gilbert suggest that a feeling of ‘social safeness’ could be a pre-requisite for successful mentalizing. For them, ‘social safeness’ encompasses a broader range of settings than those covered by the attachment construct. Social safeness may arise from being in a position of authority, for example, which would promote mentalizing according to Liotti and Gilbert’s model. (Anecdotally, our encounters with Chief Executives of National Health Service Trusts do not confirm this hypothesized association.) The issue they raise is