Refine
Language
- German (46)
- English (75)
- Hungarian (1)
- Indonesian (2)
- Japanese (1)
- Korean (8)
- Lithuanian (1)
- Turkish (2)
- Polish (8)
- Portuguese (2)
- Spanish (6)
- Chinese (52)
Document Type
- Articles (204) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2018 (204) (remove)
En el presente escrito buscaremos reconstruir algunas de las diferencias conceptuales que mostraron los autores más representativos de la primera Teoría Crítica de Frankfurt. Estas diferencias remiten tanto al análisis de los procesos socio-históricos, como al del problema del poder y la dominación. Para su adecuada reconstrucción nos serviremos de los aportes realizados por Axel Honneth – actual director del Institut für Sozialforschung – en su artículo >Teoría Crítica<. Su principal tesis es que, a finales de la década del treinta, se produjo una escisión en el seno de la primera Teoría Crítica; escisión que suscitó un círculo >interno<-integrado, entre otros, por Max Horkheimer y Theodor Adorno- y uno >externo< – al que pertenecieron Franz Neumann, Erich Fromm y Walter Benjamin –. Honneth defiende a los autores pertenecientes al círculo >externo<, pero no desarrolla de manera extensiva sus argumentos. Nuestra intención aquí es, precisamente, desglosar esta defensa a partir de la relectura del libro de Erich Fromm >El miedo a la Libertad<. En dicha obra puede encontrarse una exposición >compleja< del proceso socio-histórico y, sobre todo, un modelo de poder / dominación >alternative< respecto del que prevaleció en el círculo >interno< de la Teoría Crítica. Entendemos, por último, que el diálogo que se pueda establecer entre Honneth y Fromm señala caminos prometedores para renovar y dotar de actualidad al pensamiento social crítico.
Frankfurt School Critical Theory and the Persistence of Authoritarian
Populism in the United States
(2018)
Treatment for drug-induced depression usually consists of cessation or reduction of the causative agent and psychopharmacologic management. In addition, psychotherapy can be useful as an adjunctive treatment. The author presents case material related to a young woman with an inborn physical illness, who became depressed during the course of interferon treatment for a medical complication, hepatitis virus infection. In addition to the cessation of interferon and pharmacologic management, supportive psychotherapy of a psychodynamic orientation was started in order to address the patient’s low self-esteem and anxiety about her future. During the course of psychotherapy, it was understood that the premature cessation of interferon was, to her, a narcissistic injury. It was also important to explore the meanings of her inborn illness and her guilty feelings. After reviewing various formulations of depression, the author discusses the case material from an integrative perspective, which describes vicious cycles of depression.
The paper attempts to explore the patient–analyst contribution to the analytic process – focusing mainly on the contribution of the analysand – and how their mutual influence might affect the outcome, sometimes beyond the analyst’s capabilities. This is approached through exploration of the co-creation of an intersubjective analytic field by the analytic dyad, in which the analytic phenomena occur, somehow in both participants, but in an asymmetrical way. Their co-creation of the analytic third in this space includes conflictual as well as healthy elements of themselves. The analyst’s professional self and the analysand’s healthy ego parts form an unconscious alliance directed towards a common cause, the progress of analysis, which unavoidably affects both. Clinical material and vignettes from three cases are presented. In these, becomes apparent that the patient can temporarily take over the analytic situation, permitting continuation of the analytic progress. It is argued that, through the above process, a patient can often help and support the analytic process, surpassing the weaknesses and defects that their analyst might have. Influences on patients’ developing mentalization.
Some have attempted to address the popular acceptance of irrational ideas like fascism or capitalism through various combinations of the work of Marx and different forms of psychoanalysis. Some of the better - known attempts in this regard are Erich Fromm’s humanistic psychoanalysis, Wilhelm Reich’s discussion of the role of repressed sexuality as a control mechanism, and today, the philosopher Slavoj Žižek’s explanation via Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism and Lacan’s psychoanalysis.
God’s Love [神之爱]
(2018)