@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{OlfmanBurston, author = {Olfman, Sharna and Burston, Daniel}, title = {Freud, Fromm and the Pathology of Normalcy: Clinical, Social and Historical Perspectives Typescript 1994, 24 p.}, number = {unpublished version / unver{\"o}ffentlichte Fassung}, language = {en} } @article{Burston, author = {Burston, Daniel}, title = {Cyborgs, Zombies, and Planetary Death: Alienation in the 21st Century}, series = {The Humanistic Psychologist, Vol. 42 (No. 3, 2014), pp. 283-291,}, journal = {The Humanistic Psychologist, Vol. 42 (No. 3, 2014), pp. 283-291,}, language = {en} } @article{Burston, author = {Burston, Daniel}, title = {Authority, Tradition and the Postmodern University}, series = {Eidos. A Journal for Philosophy of Culture, Vol. 3 (No. 5) 2018, pp. 90-99.}, journal = {Eidos. A Journal for Philosophy of Culture, Vol. 3 (No. 5) 2018, pp. 90-99.}, abstract = {The postmodern university is experiencing a legitimation crisis because of a deepening and corrosive mistrust of all forms of authority; even those that are intended to benefit students by enabling them to >think critically<, or to deepen and improve their knowledge and skills. Some of the problem is rooted in prevailing cultural and economic trends, but others inhere in the nature of postmodernism itself; especially the postmodern claim that truth itself is non-existent or simply unattainable or unavailable, even at the best of times. Unlike earlier generations of critical theorists, who believed that >the truth shall make you free<, postmodern theorists, following Nietzsche, claim that the very idea of truth is moot, if not entirely obsolete. But absent a commitment to a search for truth, the entire structure of the university itself begins to crumble.}, language = {en} } @article{Burston, author = {Burston, Daniel}, title = {Religion, Mass Psychology and the Philosophy of History in Freud, Fromm and the Frankfurt School 32 pp. (Typoscript).}, number = {unpublished version / unver{\"o}ffentlichte Fassung}, language = {en} } @article{Burston, author = {Burston, Daniel}, title = {Myth, Religion and Mother Right.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} } @misc{Burston, author = {Burston, Daniel}, title = {Erich Fromm: An Unvarnished Assessment, Draft for a Dissertation, New York 1987, 173 pp. (Typoscript) [Cf. BURSTON, D., 1989]}, number = {unpublished version / unver{\"o}ffentlichte Fassung}, language = {en} } @misc{Burston, author = {Burston, Daniel}, title = {Fromm's Legacy: A Critical Appreciation Dissertation in Philosophy, York University (Ontario, Canada) 1989, 411 pp. (Typoscript) [Cf. BURSTON, D., 1987.}, 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} } @book{Burston, author = {Burston, Daniel}, title = {The Wing of Madness. The Life and Work of R. D. Laing, Cambridge and London (Harvard University Press) 1996, 275 p.}, language = {en} }