Changes

A priori, there seems to be [[nothing ]] that would provide common ground between a [[theory ]] of [[unconscious ]] [[psychic ]] [[processes]], such as [[psychoanalysis]], and a [[social ]] theory such as [[Marxism]]. Nothing, that is, but that which derives as much from [[social processes ]] as from psychic processes: the [[intellectual ]] [[activity ]] and beliefs of [[human ]] beings. In <i>New Introductory Lectures on [[Psycho]]-[[Analysis]]</i> (1933), Sigmund [[Freud ]] explicitly referred to Marxism. He did not dispute the fundamental validity of the theory, he merely considered it incomplete. If there are social [[conditions ]] for the production of the intellectual, [[moral]], and artistic activities of human beings, there are also [[psychological ]] conditions that are independent of the former.In the second generation of [[psychoanalysts]], some authors, positioning themselves on the [[Left ]] (within the social-democrat or [[communist ]] movements), sought to constitute a social [[psychology ]] by bringing [[Freudian ]] analysis of psychic processes into articulation with [[Marxist ]] analysis of social processes. This line of [[thinking ]] has been called "Freudian Marxism," despite its [[heterogeneity]]. Particularly productive during the 1920s and 1930s, this approach was notably illustrated by Wilhelm [[Reich]], Siegfried [[Bernfeld]], Erich [[Fromm]], and [[Paul ]] Federn.In <i>The Dogma of [[Christ ]] and [[Other ]] Essays on [[Religion]], Psychology, and [[Culture]]</i> (1930), Fromm sought to establish the factors that shaped the [[development ]] of [[ideas ]] [[about ]] the [[relationship ]] between God the [[Father ]] and [[Jesus ]] Christ up until the Nicene Council. The basis for the articulation is as follows: Marxist [[class ]] theory provides the tools for analyzing the [[life ]] conditions of the different social groups; on the basis of these conditions and the [[science ]] of the unconscious, which sheds light on the frustrations and expectations of the believers, it becomes possible to describe the "psychic surface" of the persons involved in various events.In "[[Dialectical ]] [[Materialism ]] and Psychoanalysis" (1929), Reich argued that if the [[instincts ]] are [[biologically ]] conditioned, they are also susceptible to [[change ]] under the influence of [[environment ]] and social [[reality]]. Social psychology studies the psychological characteristics shared by members of a group and the group's [[instinctual ]] [[structure ]] as a function of its "destiny"—that is, its [[economic ]] and social [[situation]]. Reich wrote

<i>The Mass Psychology of [[Fascism]]</i> (1933/1946) in this same spirit. He again argued that the [[sexual ]] poverty of human beings is mainly the result of their [[alienation ]] by economic and social modes of production. <i>The Sexual [[Revolution]], toward a [[Self]]-Governing [[Character ]] Structure</i> (1936/1962) denounced the [[role ]] of the [[family ]] as "<i>a factory for authoritarian [[ideologies]]</i> and [[conservative ]] [[structures]]" (p. 72), and in this [[work ]] Reich denounced, as Fromm had done, the "patriarchal" [[system ]] that prevails in our societies.Work of this type was poorly received on the side of both psychoanalysis and Marxism. Nevertheless, Freudian Marxist research continued after [[World ]] War II in [[Germany]], with Alexander Mitscherlich ([[author ]] of <i>The Inability to Mourn</i> and <i>[[Society ]] without the Father: A Contribution to Social Psychology</i>) and the journal <i>[[Psyche]]</i>. During the same period, the Marxist-oriented [[philosophers ]] of the Frankfurt Institute of Social Research became interested in psychoanalysis and tried their hand at bringing the two theories together with [[regard ]] to ideology. Works such as <i>The Authoritarian [[Personality]]</i> (1950) by Theodor [[Adorno ]] and collaborators marked this convergence.In the [[United States]], Herbert [[Marcuse]], a former member of the Frankfurt [[School]], published <i>[[Eros ]] and [[Civilization]]: A [[Philosophical ]] Inquiry into Freud</i> (1955). In this work he openly posed the question of [[happiness]]. He rejected Freud's theory that civilization requires that the [[individual]]'s [[libido ]] be sacrificed. Must happiness and the values of culture be antithetical? No, argued Marcuse. He attempted to show that [[libidinal ]] [[repression ]] does not take the same [[form ]] in all cultures. He forged the [[concept ]] of <i>[[surplus ]] repression</i> to refer to that part of repression which is specific to a given culture and is not indispensable for group life.During the 1970s there was renewed interest in the [[idea ]] of bringing together Marxism and psychoanalysis, but on different bases. Jacques [[Lacan]]'s rereading of Freud, on the one hand, and Louis [[Althusser]]'s rereading of [[Marx]], on the other, were relevant to this trend, not necessarily through direct influence, but by calling into question old stereotypes. Much of the work is [[being ]] done in the early twenty-first century on [[belief ]] systems, social representations, the [[ideal]], or the <i>habitus</i> originated in this [[cultural ]] ferment and bears its imprint, although it is more accurate to [[speak ]] in [[terms ]] of multireferentiality rather than of "[[synthesis]]."