One of the Supreme Court’s most significant First Amendment rulings may be in peril. For the past 60 years, the landmark 1964 decision of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and the cases that followed have secured strong First Amendment protections for the press and others who speak on public affairs. Under these cases, public officials and public figures must show that the speaker acted with “actual malice” or “reckless disregard” of the truth in order to win a libel suit. This chapter draws heavily on my book Actual Malice: Civil Rights and Freedom of the Press in New York Times v. Sullivan (Oakland: University of California Press, 2023). Scholars and advocates have long celebrated Sullivan as one of the most important Supreme Court rulings for the protection of press freedom. Yet, this history also lays bare the high stakes of losing the First Amendment protections recognized in Sullivan. Prior to the Court’s ruling in Sullivan, government officials and other public figures routinely weaponized libel laws to suppress their critics, particularly members of the press. This chapter uses history to explain how and why Sullivan nearly eliminated those overwhelming threats to the press. If New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and related cases are overruled, libel suits could again become weapons of blatant political suppression.

The psychoanalytic movement introduced the study of unconscious processes that influence human activity. The movement was fully consistent with the German model of mental activity, going back to the writings of Leibniz and Kant. Although act psychology and the Gestalt movement were also modern expressions of the German model, psychoanalysis emphasized the goal of a homeostatic balance of unconscious energies within personality. Its founder, Sigmund Freud, used his keen powers of observation to devise much-needed therapeutic approaches, and later expanded his formulations to a psychodynamic theory of personality growth dependent on tension reduction. Other theorists modified Freud’s model to include cultural influences (Jung) and social needs (Adler and Horney). In addition, scholars have integrated the psychoanalytic model with a field approach (Sullivan) and existential assumptions (Fromm). As a contemporary movement, psychoanalysis still exerts considerable influence in psychiatry and clinical psychology, although the movement is fragmented owing to a lack of methodological agreement. In addition, Freud’s statements on the unconscious have led to new interpretations of artistic expression. However, as a viable model for psychology, psychoanalysis has departed from the empirical foundations of psychology and shares little with other systems of psychology that rely on that methodological approach.

This chapter gives an account of the different psychoanalytic traditions and their approaches to PD: the Kleinian/Bionian model, the British object relations perspective, Kohut’s self psychology, the structural object relations model, the interpersonal-relational approach, and mentalizing theory. The chapter goes on to describe two contemporary psychodynamic treatments, along with their evidence base: transference-focused therapy and mentalization-based treatment. Recent developments in the authors’ thinking in relation to PD are then described, partly in the context of recent work in the area of a general psychopathology or “p” factor. In particular, the authors discuss personality disorder in relation to epistemic trust, and suggest that psychopathology might be understood as a form of disordered social cognition, perpetuated by the obstacles to communication that these social cognitive difficulties create. It is postulated that effective therapeutic interventions for PD possess the shared characteristic of stimulating epistemic trust and creating a virtuous circle of improved social communication.

Scholars writing about Gilbert and Sullivan prefer ‘Savoy Operas’ to ‘operettas’, taking their lead from history and often hoping to place these shows on a par with more highly regarded comic operas. Whatever one calls them, they provide plenty of interest for musicologists working on operetta, and the status anxiety surrounding them is especially revealing. An opening section on their history shows that concerns over respectability lay behind every aspect of the way the shows were created and marketed, and formed the background to changing perceptions of the two creators. New critical attention is given here to the continued entanglement of ethical and aesthetic concerns in scholarly writing on composer and librettist. The second section addresses distinctive features of the content, in particular Gilbert’s legal influences and stagecraft, and Sullivan’s musical deadpanning. Anxiety appears again over the quotations and references in both the music and text, but this can be understood as a fundamental part of the audience experience, closely tied to the creation of class identity. Finally, a discussion of modern Gilbert and Sullivan performances and enthusiast communities serves as a springboard for considering issues of politics in staging and performance and points the way to possible left-wing interpretations.