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.