The life and works of Georg Groddeck are reviewed and placed in historical context as a physician and a pioneer of psychoanalysis, psychosomatic medicine, and an epistolary style of writing. His >Das Es< concept stimulated Freud to construct his tripartite model of the mind. Groddeck, however, used Das Es to facilitate receptivity to unconscious communication with his patients. His >maternal turn< transformed his treatment approach from an authoritarian position to a dialectical process. Groddeck was a generative influence on the development of Frieda Fromm-Reichmann, Erich Fromm, and Karen Horney. He was also the mid-wife of the late-life burst of creativity of his friend and patient Sándor Ferenczi. Together, Groddeck and Ferenczi provided the impetus for a paradigm shift in psychoanalysis that emphasized the maternal transference, child-like creativity, and a dialogue of the unconscious that foreshadowed contemporary interest in intersubjectivity and field theory. They were progenitors of the relational turn and tradition in psychoanalysis. Growing interest in interpsychic communication and field theory is bringing about a convergence of theorizing among pluralistic psychoanalytic schools that date back to 1923 when Freud appropriated Groddeck’s >Das Es< and radically altered its meaning and use.
Статья посвящена анализу альтернативных моделей правовой социализации человека в современном российском обществе. Автор исходит из того, что в процессе формирования законопослушного поведения ведущим фактором выступает характер социально-правовых отношений (авторитарный или гуманистический) между личностью, обществом и государством. Основной чертой гуманистической персоноцентрической модели является признание доминирования внутренних духовных сил и качеств человека в процессе его становления полноценным субъектом общественно-правых отношений. Ее альтернативой выступает авторитарная социоцентрическая модель, в качестве основных детерминант здесь признаются внешние общественные условия и факторы, определяющие вектор социально-правового развития индивида. В процессе исследования перспективной теоретической модели правовой социализации личности в российском социуме были использованы идеи персонализма Н. А. Бердяева, Э. Мунье и С. Л. Франка, концепции социального действия М. Вебера, Т. Парсонса и Ю. Хабермаса, социально-психологические идеи Э. Фромма. В работе сделан вывод о том, что традиционной, исторически обусловленной национальной моделью правовой социализации в российском социуме выступает авторитарная модель. Однако общественный прогресс требует развития гуманистической персоноцентрической модели правовой социализации, способствующей формированию субъект-субъектных отношений в правовой жизни. Приоритетом модели выступают естественные права и свободы человека, составляющие одну из экзистенциальных основ персональной идентичности.
The present paper uses the conceptual framework first introduced by Erich Fromm in Escape from Freedom (1941) to draw parallels between how Germans came to embrace authoritarianism and totalitarianism in the 20th Century and how Americans have come to entertain authoritarian remedies in the 21st Century. Erich Fromm’s (1941) seminal conceptualization of negative and positive freedom are relevant today to understand the expansion of the internet and calls for privacy protections and privacy rights. A vicious cycle of negative freedom chasing has emerged in post-Great Recession and post-war America. Alternatively, valuing positive freedom can offer a real and long term solution to external threats to both individual freedom and social order (Fromm, 1941). A global social movement revolving around “privacy rights” has emerged in the 21st Century. It is rapidly becoming a lightning rod for past social movements in the 20th Century.
In this article we argue that freedom of speech should be understood as a social freedom. In the public discussion after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, it has often been understood as an absolute right to say anything – to offend, to make a fool of others and of oneself, and to express any opinion regardless of the consequences. We challenge this view and propose that advocating freedom of speech without understanding its social foundations is misleading and counterproductive. Based on the critical social theories of Erich Fromm, Charles Taylor and Axel Honneth, we show that there is an alternative tradition in which freedom is fundamentally rooted in social relations and therefore requires respect for others. We argue that interpreting freedom of speech as a social freedom avoids some of the problems apparent in current discussions. In addition, our position has significant practical consequences on how humour and insults should be understood.
The teaching of psychoanalysis encompasses a wide array of educational stages, from undergraduate students to psychoanalytic candidates and lifelong training for professionals. Papers published in psychoanalytic journals play a fundamental role in teaching tasks. The historical separation of psychoanalytic practice from the research community and the university probably relates to the relative lack of empirical investigation and the contested status of research in general within the psychoanalytic community. In addition, there is not enough debate among different schools and orientations, making it very unlikely that creative solutions to theoretical and practical discussions will be found. Related to this, there seems to be a worrying deficit of recent references in psychoanalytic papers compared with general psychiatric journals or medical publications. This reflects a dangerous attitude of not paying attention to contemporary writers within our own field. Reasons behind this might be fear of confrontation with other colleagues, loyalty to our own dogmas and clinical practices, a system of training that promotes continuity, and even organizational structures that sustain this state of things. A renewed attention to research in psychoanalysis (conceptual, empirical, clinical-observational, etc.) and establishing ties to academic environments in the fields of natural and human sciences might improve this situation and offer a path towards collective theoretical and clinical development.