Refine
Language
- English (64) (remove)
Document Type
- Articles (56)
- Forewords (4)
- Interviews (2)
- Dissertations (1)
- Reviews (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (64) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2010 (64) (remove)
Welcome address
(2010)
In this paper, I outline a history of critical marketing studies. The argument put forward that marketing lacks any substantive critical edge is questioned. In surveying our history and finding extensive engagement with a variety of critical perspectives, I connect these with appropriate literature from non-marketing sources to flesh out an account of our critical marketing heritage. I devote considerable attention to the period 1940 to 1990, as this is the historical range of critical marketing literature that most scholars will be unfamiliar with, linking this through citation and discussion to more recently published work. In this way, this paper provides a guide to sources of literature that may have passed marketing scholars by because they violate our disciplinary demands for >recency< (Baker, 2001). As I document, critical marketing studies examines a variety of areas that represent consumer culture theory’s (CCT) >next frontier< if we accept Arnould and Thompson’s (2005) diagnosis. In opposition to Arnould and Thompson’s assertion, CCT’s new frontier, this paper contends, is a frontier that has long been of interest to critical marketing scholars whose work might usefully be re-examined.
Following both Bion's and Aulagnier's thought, this paper seeks to examine two functions of psychotic syntax within the nonpsychotic personality. The first function is the creation of a split between voice and meaning in the mother–infant relationship, a split whose aim is to disengage contact with contents that cannot be metabolized and that are associated with the mother's denied death wish toward her infant. The second function pertains to the use of psychotic syntax as a way of denying separateness and annihilating the >speaking I.< Both functions will be exemplified by clinical case studies. In conclusion, psychotic language will be discussed as a >hybrid language< generated by an incestuous relationship between the mother's and the infant's language.
In contrast to the management of erotic boundaries, the institutional and clinical management of transactions across narcissistic boundaries can have far-reaching implications for how and in what ways power is wielded within our organizations. This is especially true in regard to analysts who are, or are perceived to be, in leadership positions within their psychoanalytic groups, organizations, and institutes. This paper illustrates some of the difficulties in the management of narcissistic boundaries by exploring Freud's narcissistic investment in defining the field of psychoanalysis and determining the directions of its development, his attitudes towards dissent – for example, Jung, Adler, Ferenczi, etc. – and his clinical behavior with certain analysands. The institutional consequences of Freud's failure to successfully negotiate narcissistic boundaries – and our reluctance to recognize this aspect of his leadership – have become intertwined with defenses against the epistemic anxiety that follows from the inevitably subjective nature of the analytic enterprise. Together, they have tended toward the creation of a culture of rigidity and control within organized psychoanalysis. This is a legacy – the sins of our fathers – with which our field continues to struggle.
Most people who recognize his name are aware that Wilhelm Reich (1897–1957) was considered to be one of Freud's most brilliant students and an important contributor to psychoanalytic theory. But it is also widely known that this innovative thinker, who is still read with interest over 50 years after his death, died in a federal penitentiary in the USA. The case against Wilhelm Reich, brought by the Food and Drug Administration, has been admirably detailed in Wilhelm Reich vs. the U.S.A. by Jerome Greenfield. Less well known are two other intertwined investigations of Reich, the first by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which led to his imprisonment for nearly a month after the USA declared war on Germany in 1941; and the second by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, in an attempt to remove his naturalized citizenship and deport him. This paper examines in detail these two assaults on Reich, placing them within the historical context of a lifetime of marginalization and denunciation by authorities, from the Communist Party in Germany to the International Psychoanalytic Association to academic biologists in Norway to right-wing Christian moralists in the USA and finally to agencies of the US government.
By 1900, Freud had formulated an original and operational method of psychoanalytic treatment and research: the technique of free association. In 1912–1915 and later writings, he recommended it as a fundamental procedure and process, called the fundamental rule, in psychoanalytic therapy. In recent years, free association as a method has been variously misrepresented, misunderstood, and denied by some schools of psychoanalysis. This paper reviews the history of free associations and argues for upholding the continuity and relevance of Freud's fundamental methodology and for a renewal of interest in reciprocal, i.e., interactive and interpersonal, free association.