Refine
Language
- English (83) (remove)
Document Type
- Articles (71)
- Reviews (9)
- Books (2)
- Dissertations (1)
Year of publication
- 2016 (83) (remove)
As a Freudian revisionist and neo-Marxist, Erich Fromm (1900–1980) lessened the import of sexuality in the individual psyche but stressed the role played by the sex differential in the distribution of power throughout history and in the post-patriarchal form of matriarchy he envisioned. Seeking to reinforce the male/female divide and heteronormativity, Fromm outlined a >New Science of Man< that readily ignored not only the challenges posed to binary sexuality by post-Darwinian critical sexologies, but also the same-sex complexities evinced by key figures of his own cultural pantheon. Regardless of his declared pursuits, however, Fromm at times expressed insights suitable to undermine the cogency of his most cherished sexual convictions. As a tool for uncovering >indubitable commonsensical axioms< as sources of alienation, Fromm’s conception of >ideology< challenges his own sanction of sexual binarity and heterosexuality, thus facilitating an understanding of the individual’s sexual difference as a unique modulation of male/female intermediariness.
Today, there are two ways of conceiving psychoanalysis, a classical one focused on the search for truth within the internal world of the patient, and a contemporary one perceiving the patient–therapist relationship as the axis of exploration. Rorty's criterion, which divides disciplines into either truth-based or solidarity-based, may be applied to this dichotomy. These conflicting positions come from two different historical periods: the Enlightenment and the contemporary world. They inhabit a sterile environment without theoretical discussion or comparison. The Renaissance relocated man at the centre of creation and urged him to seek encounters with others as well as with the truth concealed in nature. Possibly, these elements of truth and solidarity, initially designed as complementary, integrative, and nonconflicting, can be found in the work of some psychoanalysts, specifically in Otto Kernberg's proposals. Kernberg makes a creative integration of object relations theory, especially in its Kleinian approach, and ego psychology. In addition, Kernberg's consideration of affects as key elements of the human's internal world reflects a third psychoanalytical >way,< exposing the centrality of relational experiences from the earliest stages of life, alongside constitutional drive forces that link us to our biological make-up and determine much of our inner world and behaviour.
Madness is a crucial theme in the Beasts’ literature and life. This article distinguishes between individual and social madness and shows their influence on the Beats, using the ideas of Erich Fromm, Michel Foucault and many others and also using the Beats’ own works and ideas. The focus is of course more on Burroughs, Ginsberg, and Kerouac. The Beats did not adjust themselves to society because they believed that American society was so irrational and mad that it brutally suppressed their individuality, repressed their natural desires, and forced them to consider themselves mad just because of lack of adjustment. As opposed to those who regard lack of adjustment as the cause of individual madness, there are others who enunciate that the individual is not to blame but society which is inattentive to individuals’ potentialities and does not adjust itself to their needs and aspirations.
Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between >having< and >being< to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on >having< vs. >being< include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health.
This article is the third in a series of four articles scheduled for publication in this journal. In the first article (Kapustin, 2015a) I proposed a description of a new so-called existential criterion of normal and abnormal personality that is implicitly present in the works of Erich Fromm. According to this criterion, normal and abnormal personalities are determined, first, by special features of the content of their position regarding existential dichotomies that are natural to human beings and, second, by particular aspects of the formation of this position. Such dichotomies, entitatively existent in all human life, are inherent, two-alternative contradictions. The position of a normal personality in its content orients a person toward a contradictious predetermination of life in the form of existential dichotomies and necessitates a search for compromise in resolving these dichotomies. This position is created on a rational basis with the person’s active participation. The position of an abnormal personality in its content subjectively denies a contradictious predetermination of life in the form of existential dichotomies and orients a person toward a consistent, noncompetitive, and, as a consequence, one-sided way of life that doesn’t include self-determination. This position is imposed by other people on an irrational basis. Abnormality of personality interpreted like that is one of the most important factors influencing the development of various kinds of psychological problems and mental disorders – primarily, neurosis. In the second article (Kapustin, 2015b) I showed that this criterion is also implicitly present in the personality theories of Sigmund Freud and Alfred Adler, although in more specific cases. In the current work I prove that this criterion is also present in the personality theories of Carl Jung and Carl Rogers, where it is implicitly stated in a more specific way. In the final article I will show that this criterion is also implicitly present in the personality theory of Viktor Frankl.
To resurrect and revalorize the tradition of the early Frankfurt School, whose of Marxist-Hegelian dialectical approach to understanding the societal conditions of its emergence -- post WWI Germany, the rise of fascism, New Deal politics, the defeat of fascism and the subsequent rise of consumer society – remains relevant to studying present circumstances, stressing the cultural dimension of capitalism, the proliferation of alienation, ideology and mass media, and, finally, the nature of the society-character/subjectivity nexus.