Refine
Language
Document Type
- Articles (186)
- Reviews (11)
- Books (6)
- Dissertations (2)
- Interviews (2)
- Collections (1)
- Forewords (1)
- Journals (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (210) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2014 (210) (remove)
Nach 1918 setzte sich in der deutschen Psychoanalyse ein nationalzentralistisches Organisationsprinzip durch – gegen die Option, eine zweite süddeutsche Vereinigung neben der Berliner Gruppe (ab 1926 DPG) zu schaffen. Berlin erlangte in der Freud-Schule die Zuständigkeit für ganz Deutschland. Andere Gruppen wurden der DPG als »Arbeitsgemeinschaften« zugeordnet; lokale Kandidaten mussten einen Aufnahmevortrag in Berlin halten. Die damit gestiftete Spannung trat vor allem gegenüber der Frankfurter/Südwestdeutschen Arbeitsgemeinschaft hervor, die 1926 maßgeblich von Karl Landauer gegründet wurde. Sie war mit zuletzt 4–5 fertigen Analytikern die größte Gruppe in Deutschland außerhalb Berlins. Landauer, in Wien geschult und ab 1925 Mitglied in Berlin, führte einige Lehranalysen durch, im Rahmen der Berliner Vorschriften. Aber kein Frankfurter Kandidat schaffte die Aufnahme in die DPG ohne Nachausbildung in Berlin; Erich Fromm fiel zweimal mit Probevorträgen durch. S.H. Fuchs, 1928–1930 in Wien ausgebildet, wehrte sich gegen dieses Aufnahmeverfahren. Als Landauer 1929, bedrängt von Heinrich Meng, das Frankfurter Institut schuf, betonten beide, dass sie keine Ausbildung beabsichtigten. Das war nur die kurzfristige Wahrheit. Die Ambivalenz eines Instituts, das seine Ambitionen zunächst verdunkelte, ist für die Frankfurter Psychoanalyse ebenso kennzeichnend wie ihre Nähe zur akademischen Welt, insbesondere zur Soziologie (M. Horkheimer, N. Elias). – Die vorliegende Arbeit verwertet erstmals zahlreiche Stücke aus der Korrespondenz zwischen Landauer und Max Eitingon.
Gefühls(leben). Wie sollte ich sein oder wer bin ich wirklich. Typecript, Berlin 2014, 151 pp.
(2014)
In a letter of May 31, 1931, Ferenczi sent Freud a set of >Preliminary Communications< containing the substance of a lecture that he was planning to give at the International Psychoanalytic Congress to be held later that year. Although the Congress was postponed until the following year, the ideas contained in these communications form the basis for the controversial >Confusion of Tongues< paper that Ferenczi delivered, over the protestations of Freud and his closest associates, at the Twelfth International Psychoanalytic Congress in Wiesbaden, Germany, in September 1932. With reference to primary sources, chiefly letters, original papers, and commentaries, my paper will chart the course of the intensifying dispute between Freud and Ferenczi over the conception of psychic reality contained in their respective views on the nature of trauma. Although the controversy over the >Confusion of Tongues< paper marks a crisis in the personal relations between Freud and Ferenczi – and a turning point in the history of psychoanalysis – I will attempt to show that Freud's and Ferenczi's divergent views of trauma are not irreconcilable.
Debido particularmente a las innovaciones técnicas, estamos siendo, de manera creciente, testigos de un deslinde de la realidad que se refleja en el afán interno por deshacerse de las limitaciones y confines de nuestra propia personalidad, reconstruyendo una nueva. Esta carrera por des-limitar, disolver y desdibujar las fronteras se ve como un rasgo de carácter clave del carácter social orientado por el Ego. La factura de una personalidad sin lindes, sin duda, da como resultado un debilitamiento de habilidades psíquicas tales como el hecho de experimentar al propio yo como una entidad consistente emocionalmente vinculada con uno mismo y con los otros sintiendo los propios afanes, afectos y emociones, y guiarse según las propias normas y valores internalizados. Por último discutiremos el impacto de esta formación de carácter con respecto a las implicancias clínicas y terapéuticas.
Gesetz und Evangelium. Antijudaistische Vorurteile und Projektionen in der (evangelischen) Theologie
(2014)
Erich Fromm's Ecological Messianism: The First Biophilia Hypothesis as Humanistic Social Theory
(2014)
Revisiting Erich Fromm’s works provides a theoretical foundation for a comprehensive and normative theory of human–nature relations that contains psychical, social, economic, and ethical components. Fromm’s system of thought was rooted in understanding humanity’s effort to establish meaningful relations with the natural world and how socioeconomic systems mediate this endeavor. His normative theory maintained that society must develop a nondestructive relationship with the environment by fostering and perfecting the human potentiality of biophilia—a thorough love of living beings. He argued that biophilia will not become the prevailing character structure until society is capable of meeting three prerequisites for human flourishing: security, justice, and freedom. Because Fromm’s social–ecological and ethical insights were partially rooted in humanism and Talmudic studies, he forces environmental scholars to rethink the Judeo-Christian and humanistic traditions, two pillars of Western thought often criticized in environmental literature.
The philosophical anthropology of Erich Fromm rests on his analysis of the existential dichotomy, which breaks man’s humanity. When man disobeys God in paradise, he begins to become human. He begins to be free. For Fromm, disobedience is a prerequisite towards freedom. However, there is in him a yearning to go back to paradise to enjoy the >roots of his own nature.< He wants to be secured and taken care by a loving God. This allegory was taken and interpreted by Fromm that man is separated from his own nature. In paradise, he is an animal. He does not possess any reason or freedom as a human being. Physiologically, he does what other creatures do. However, saying >no< to God’s commandment allowed him to become human. He has reason and freedom. He is forced to take the responsibility to build his own humanity. Now, he is torn between two existential nature i.e., his animal nature and human nature. There is no way for him to return to his paradisiacal roots. He has to move on and build his true human nature. For Fromm, this can be done through reason, faith, and love.
At the beginning of the 20th century, social sciences were institutionalized for the first time. While initially being a part of philosophical thinking, the promise of a scientific, objective interpretation of social phenomena granted social scientists a distinguished place within universities in Germany as well as in the USA. A larger focus on empirical research should guarantee that social science was indeed an independent endeavor, instead of a new form of social philosophy under another name. However, when analyzing the research of social scientists in the early 20th century, it is clear that ideological biases still prevailed and heavily influenced the interpretation of the collected empirical data. In this thesis, the problem of objectivity in social science and its relation to both theory and empirical research is addressed. As a case study, I have used the development of the social research of the members of the Frankfurt School in the period 1923-1950. Starting with a clear call for objectivity, over years it became clear that ideological bias was not easily removed from social science, especially at the background of the emergence and fall of the Weimar Republic and the establishment of the Nazi Regime. In my thesis, I argue that ideologically biased social science is not less empirically or more theoretically orientated than attempts to conduct objective social research, but have different interpretations of what it means to be empirical.
Preface
(2014)
The Ethnographic Spiral: Reflections on the Intersection of Life History and Ideal-Typical Analysis
(2014)
In light of the recent emphasis on social and cultural factors in psychoanalytic theory and practice, this article will elaborate earlier attempts to bridge psychoanalysis and the study of culture. I begin by considering the disciplinary tension between the fields of psychoanalysis and anthropology and the emergence of a >psychoanalytic anthropology,< which began in the 1920s and lasted through the 1950s. I then turn to the works of Harry Stack Sullivan and Erich Fromm, who developed an approach known as >cultural psychoanalysis.< I suggest that Sullivan and Fromm anticipate today’s sociocultural turn in psychoanalysis and that their work on culture and its role in psychological development and experience continues to be relevant. Rather than embracing a social or cultural determinism, Sullivan and Fromm focus on the interaction between culture and the person, thus creating an >integrationist< approach. Sullivan and Fromm develop a broad conception of culture that encompasses a critique of social and cultural norms and values. I suggest that this is particularly valuable because much current discussion of culture focuses chiefly on diversity and difference, thus overlooking the implicit social and cultural values at work in all human experience. I build on Sullivan and Fromm’s insights to illustrate the significance of early interpersonal psychoanalysis for the sociocultural turn in contemporary psychoanalytic theory and practice.
Foreword
(2014)
Escapes from Freedom: Political Extremism, Conspiracy Theories, and the Sociology of Emotions
(2014)
Wissenschaft und Identitätsfindung. Der junge Erich Fromm. Alfred Weber, Karl Marx und Sigmund Freud
(2014)
Freiheit in der determinierten Weltanschauung. Möglichkeit der Freiheit in der stoischen Philosophie
(2014)
Funktion und Bedeutung von Vorurteilen und Projektionen für das Leben und Zusammenleben der Menschen
(2014)
Laudatio auf Gesine Schwan
(2014)
Die politische Funktion der Gedenkkerzen. Über die Rolle der Juden im Zeitalter des Neoliberalismus
(2014)
Šīs kolektīvās monogrāfijas aizsākumi ir rodami 2013. gadā, kad Rīgā notika starptautiska konference >Brīvība un brīvības: iespējas un draudi<. Tā notika sadarbībā ar starptautisko Ēriha Fromma biedrību, tajā piedalījās psihoanalītiķi, filosofi, psihoterapeiti un psihologi no Vācijas, Meksikas un Latvijas. Neatsveramu ieguldījumu šajā konferencē sniedza Rainers Funks, kādreizējais Fromma zinātniskais sekretārs un tagadējais viņa autortiesību pārvaldītājs. Savukārt konferences patronese bija Latvijas eksprezidente Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, kura dalījās savos pieredzējumos saistībā ar Frommu. Tā arī nobrieda ideja par kolektīvo monogrāfiju. Uzreiz visu nav iespējams aptvert, tāpēc šajā darbā uzmanības centrā ir Fromms, kurš skatīts psihoanalīzes, fenomenoloģijas (var arī teikt: filosofijas) kontekstā.
The authors attempt to outline the historical course of the Hellenic Society of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy (HSPP). They put forward several hypotheses concerning the dynamics of its foundation and evolution. The HSPP was founded in 1977 by five Greek psychoanalysts and psychoanalytic psychotherapists trained abroad, after three decades of fruitless attempts at establishing psychoanalysis in Greece. The authors sustain that the foundation of the HSPP addressed the complex problems of Greek society in the 1970s. The request for the founding of an institution for psychoanalytic therapy and training can be linked to a search for new orientations in thought that would enhance the working-through of traumas that had marked Greek society in the previous decades; these traumas played a role in the insurmountable problems in establishing psychoanalysis in Greece and in the difficulties met by the emancipation of Greek psychiatry from asylum-centered practice. The HSPP remained the only psychoanalytic institution in Greece until the foundation of the Hellenic Psychoanalytic Society in 1984. One of the main traits of its historical course has been the effort to shape a psychoanalytic organization directed towards the clinical reality of Greek society.
Ievads jeb Fromms un Latvija
(2014)
Fromm: Liebe als Kunst
(2014)
Just as there are many roads to Rome, the trial period may be considered one of many opening moves in psychotherapy or psychoanalysis. The responsive – and responsible – therapist must be many things to many patients, some of whom know nothing about the psychotherapeutic/analytic process. Freud advocated the trial period to help him take a >sounding< when he knew little about the patient and when the patient knew little about psychoanalysis. R.I.P.? This brief communication laments the apparent demise of this promising procedure and makes an effort at resurrection by describing the hitherto unmapped latent structure of the trial period. Even if there are fewer patients in psychoanalysis today, there may be a number of reasons to recommend a trial period, no matter what we name this period of optimistic uncertainty at the beginning of every treatment. Even if >consultation< is the term de jour, the psychoanalytic psychotherapist cannot escape certain role responsibilities at the beginning of every treatment, which has been made clear in the ethical principles of the American Psychoanalytic Association. What we will learn about the trial period should serve our understanding of what must also occur in the beginning of every psychotherapy or psychoanalysis. Conceptually, I propose that a trial analysis (1) will serve as a discriminative stimulus, signaling, to the patient, the unique nature of the analytic conversation; (2) will permit an in vivo assessment of the patient's suitability for psychoanalysis, and, more importantly, the fit between analyst and patient; (3) will provide anticipatory socialization for the unfamiliar and difficult roles of patient and therapist within the analytic process; (4) will offer true informed consent about the task facing therapist and patient; and (5) will facilitate an opportunity for therapeutic assessment, all of which will help the naive patient acquire the skills and lived experience to become an analytic patient. The trial period is the perfect host for all that must happen – and what we can do– to help naive patients become analytic patients.
War is a uniquely human scourge with complex biological, psychological, social, and political determinants. In this paper, repetition-compulsions both in making war and in the diagnosis and treatment of war trauma are documented. The diagnosis and treatment of war trauma are reviewed from the Napoleonic wars until the present, and parallel tracks in the development of military history, neurology, and psychoanalysis are traced. A personal history of the author and a clinical case history are included to demonstrate the effect of war on both family members and soldiers. Prevention of war through political negotiation is emphasized.