@article{Burston, author = {Burston, Daniel}, title = {Preface}, series = {Critical Theory and Psychoanalysis. From the Frankfurt School to Contemporary Critique, London and New York (Routledge) 2022, pp. xiii-xxiv.}, journal = {Critical Theory and Psychoanalysis. From the Frankfurt School to Contemporary Critique, London and New York (Routledge) 2022, pp. xiii-xxiv.}, language = {en} } @article{Burston, author = {Burston, Daniel}, title = {Myth, Religion and Mother Right. Bachofen's Influence on Psychoanalytic Theory}, series = {Contemporary Psychoanalysis, New York (William Alanson White Institute), Vol. 22 (No. 4, 1986), pp. 666-687.}, journal = {Contemporary Psychoanalysis, New York (William Alanson White Institute), Vol. 22 (No. 4, 1986), pp. 666-687.}, abstract = {The trends, convictions, and intellectual influences shared by a variety of psychoanalytic dissidents are elucidated through their individual and collective responses to Sigmund Freud's psychology of religion. This psychology as epitomized in Totem and Taboo (1913) constitutes an Oedipal monism, in which the stages between totemism and Christianity represent increasingly complex derivates of unconscious parricidal fantasies. In The Future of an Illusion (1922), Freud argued that animism represents a defensive measure to minimize anxiety in the face of overpowering and incomprehensible natural forces. Carl Jung, O. Rank, Erich FROMM, and I. Suttie all rejected this reductive strategy of interpretation, arguing that religious beliefs and aspirations may have profound developmental significance. Significantly, they were all influenced, directly or indirectly, by J. J. Bachofen, the Swiss jurist and mythographer, and author of Das Mutterrecht (The Mother Right, 1861). Jung, Rank, FROMM, and Suttie emphasized the role of cultural and historical factors in shaping the individual psyche. Apart from Bachofen's pervasive influence, one way of accounting for their differences with Freud is to see Freudian theory as a psychology that emphasizes biology and treats the contents of consciousness as the surface of a sexual or aggressive character. In contrast, Jung, Rank, FROMM, and Suttie were skeptical about the contents of consciousness, and acknowledged the role of unconscious motivation and conflict in clinical psychopathology and social behavior. At the same time, however, they attempted to rejoin the older, pre-Darwinian philosophical anthropology, in which social, religious, and ethical needs are integral dimensions to a deeper understanding of the human animal.}, language = {en} } @article{Burston, author = {Burston, Daniel}, title = {Modes of Authority and Social Character Research Paper presented at a Meeting on Social Character in Washington, May 1996, 32 p.}, number = {unpublished version / unver{\"o}ffentlichte Fassung}, language = {en} } @article{Burston, author = {Burston, Daniel}, title = {Modes of Authority and Social Character Research}, series = {ocial Thought and Research. A Continuation of the Mid-American Review of Sociology, Lawrence (The University of Kansas) Vol. 21 (No. 1 and 2) 1998, pp. 231-252.}, journal = {ocial Thought and Research. A Continuation of the Mid-American Review of Sociology, Lawrence (The University of Kansas) Vol. 21 (No. 1 and 2) 1998, pp. 231-252.}, language = {en} } @article{Burston, author = {Burston, Daniel}, title = {Mapping the White Unconscious: Critical Race Theory, Whiteness Studies, and Psychoanalysis}, series = {Critical Theory and Psychoanalysis. From the Frankfurt School to Contemporary Critique, London and New York (Routledge) 2022, pp. 264-286.}, journal = {Critical Theory and Psychoanalysis. From the Frankfurt School to Contemporary Critique, London and New York (Routledge) 2022, pp. 264-286.}, language = {en} } @article{BurstonMclaughlin, author = {Burston, Daniel and Mclaughlin, Neil}, title = {Letters to the Editor}, series = {Society, Vol. 30 (No. 2, February 1993, pp. 4-5.}, journal = {Society, Vol. 30 (No. 2, February 1993, pp. 4-5.}, language = {en} } @article{MclaughlinBurston, author = {Mclaughlin, Neil and Burston, Daniel}, title = {Letters to the Editor}, series = {Society, Vol. 30 (No. 2, February 1993, pp. 4-5.}, journal = {Society, Vol. 30 (No. 2, February 1993, pp. 4-5.}, language = {en} } @article{Burston, author = {Burston, Daniel}, title = {Irrational Authority, Irrational Doubt and Contemporary Left-Wing Authoritarianism}, series = {J. Fantauzzi, M. Levitin, T. Maley (Eds.), Erich Fromm and Left Strategy . New Paths Toward Radical Transformation, New York (Palgrave Macmillan) 2025, pp. 125-140.}, journal = {J. Fantauzzi, M. Levitin, T. Maley (Eds.), Erich Fromm and Left Strategy . New Paths Toward Radical Transformation, New York (Palgrave Macmillan) 2025, pp. 125-140.}, language = {en} } @article{Burston, author = {Burston, Daniel}, title = {Fromm's Social Psychology and His Left-Wing Critics: A Historical and Theoretical Approach. Presentation given at the 34th Winter-Meeting of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, December 9, 1990, in San Antonio/Texas in Commemoration of Erich Fromm's 9}, number = {unpublished version / unver{\"o}ffentlichte Fassung}, language = {en} } @article{Burston, author = {Burston, Daniel}, title = {Fromm's Reception Among Psychologists and Psychiatrists}, abstract = {Der Beitrag >Die Rezeption von Fromm bei Psychologen und Psychiatern< entspricht einem Kapitel der Dissertation, die der Autor unter dem Titel Fromm's Legacy: A Critical Appreciation 1989 an der York University in Toronto abschloss. Mehr als irgend ein anderes Kapitel der umfangreichen Studie ist das hier erstmals ver{\"o}ffentlichte der >kritischen Geschichtsschreibung der Psychologie< von Kurt Dan-zinger verpflichtet, der die Dissertation betreute. Am Beispiel von Erich Fromm werden die Probleme und T{\"u}cken einer lehrbuchm{\"a}ßigen Geschichtsschreibung aufgezeigt. An ausgew{\"a}hlten, repr{\"a}sentativen Beispielen wird gezeigt, wie Fromms Originalit{\"a}t in Unkenntnis seiner fr{\"u}hesten (deutschsprachigen) Schriften in der englisch-sprachigen Sekund{\"a}rliteratur unterbewertet wird und wie sehr die Wirkungen der deutschen Kultur des sp{\"a}ten 19. Jahrhunderts auf Fromms Denken und auf seine Ansichten verkannt werden. Meistens beschr{\"a}nken sich deshalb die amerikanischen Referenten und Kritiker darauf, Fromm zu etikettieren: Er sei ein >Environmentalist<, ein >Umfeldtheoretiker<, ein >sozialer Lerntheoretiker<, oder auch ein >intuitiver< oder >utopischer< Theoretiker. Tragischerweise wird dabei die besondere Freudsche Dimension im Frommschen Werk {\"u}bersehen. Werden jedoch nur Kategorien herangezogen, die im amerikanischen Kontext entstanden sind und die wenig oder {\"u}berhaupt keine Bedeutung f{\"u}r je-nen Kontext haben, der f{\"u}r europ{\"a}isches Denken typisch ist, dann beg{\"u}nstigt man nur eine Trivialisie-rung der grundlegenden Ideen Fromms und ihr grunds{\"a}tzliches Missverstehen. So muss man den meisten amerikanischen Kritikern auf Grund ihres >gesellschaftlichen Filters< bzw. wegen ihrer Vorurteile, die in ihrer eingeschr{\"a}nkten Auffassung von dem, was Psychologie ist, liegt, eine kollektive Unf{\"a}higkeit at-testieren, sich wirklich mit dem Frommschen Werk auseinander zu setzen. Die amerikanischen Etikettie-rungen erfuhren andererseits ihre Pr{\"a}gung durch die besonders in Amerika strenge Freudsche Orthodoxie bzw. durch die mehr und mehr positivistischen und behavioristischen Str{\"o}mungen in der akademi-schen Psychologie gerade in jenen Jahren, in denen Fromm sich in der breiten {\"O}ffentlichkeit einer all-gemeinen Beliebtheit erfreute. In anderen Abschnitten geht es um Fromms Verh{\"a}ltnis zur Humanisti-schen Psychologie in Amerika sowie um die weitverbreitete Verwirrung und Unkenntnis bez{\"u}glich seiner Vorstellungen zur Ethik und zur Psychotherapie, wobei Fromm zu dieser Verwirrung und Unkenntnis selbst unbeabsichtigt beigetragen hat.}, language = {en} }