Die Autoren vertreten die Ansicht, dass das eigentliche Erbe Freuds in der Anwendung der Psychoanalyse auf gesamtgesellschaftliche Probleme und Fragen bestehen wird und weniger in Beiträgen zur Behandlung psychischer Erkrankungen. Sie zeichnen die Geschichte der angewandten Psychoanalyse nach, formulieren Vorschläge für eine Gemeindepsychoanalyse (»Community Psychoanalysis«) mit entsprechend spezialisierter Ausbildung und Validierung und erörtern die Unterschiede zwischen Gemeindepsychoanalyse und klinischer Psychoanalyse. Beispiele für moderne Anwendungen der Psychoanalyse auf die Kindererziehung und die Prävention emotionaler Störungen im Kindesalter, auf das Verständnis gesellschaftlicher Großgruppen, u. a. von rassischen und ethnischen Konflikten, von Gewalt in Schulen, Terrorismus, gesellschaftlichen Vorurteilen und Widersprüchen beschließen den Beitrag.

Throughout history, large-groups in conflict have in the name of self-defense carried out preemptive attacks against those who threatened their land and its people. While such attacks have often brought accolades and praise from the perpetrating group, from the mid-twentieth century on, especially following on the 1948 United Nations (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there has been a sharper-than-before ideological shift away from "Might is Right" toward responsibility for "Crimes against Humanity". While the perpetrating group's glories have brought the generations that follow much pride, increasingly the group's breach of Geneva-type Conventions and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights have brought condemnation which has wrought guilt and shame to the perpetrator's children and their children. There are renowned examples in history of such collective guilt and shame that have become part of the perpetrating large-group's identity and psyche, such as (1) the United States' importing slavery which to this day brings not only guilt and shame to many of us, but also continuous events of turmoil to our society that so ignobly treated African Americans; and, (2) several generations of Germans today continue to experience profound shame and guilt for what their Nazi Third Reich forbearers did to about 11 million "undesirables". While certainly not comparable to these abominable examples, should not Israel be consciously aware of the consequences of perpetrating on the Palestinians unduly provocative and destructive self-defense strategies that may in consequence be costly to the Jewish people's collective psyche and induce much guilt and shame in generations of Jews that will follow us?

As I recount my own experience of having essentially been a refugee twice during World War II, the first time, when to escape what Jews experienced as a serious threat to life once the German army started its attack on its Western Europe neighbors we fled Brussels, Belgium to find safety in France. The second time occurred, when after a year in safety, by my mother's intentional action, I left France with 49 other, then for all intents and purposes family-less refugees to come to America. As I narrate the ups and downs of my threat-compelled meanderings I stop from time to time to reflect and comment on some of the experiences that confronted me and many other refugees - recognizing that side-by-side with some plausible generalizations one can make of such miserable experience, that there are as many individual narratives as there are refugees.

International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic StudiesVolume 15, Issue 3 p. 143-150 INTRODUCTION EDITORIAL: SPECIAL ISSUE ON TRAUMA, FLIGHT AND MIGRATION Marianne Leuzinger-Bohleber, Corresponding Author Marianne Leuzinger-Bohleber m.leuzinger-bohleber@gmx.de Search for more papers by this authorHenri Parens, Henri ParensSearch for more papers by this author Marianne Leuzinger-Bohleber, Corresponding Author Marianne Leuzinger-Bohleber m.leuzinger-bohleber@gmx.de Search for more papers by this authorHenri Parens, Henri ParensSearch for more papers by this author First published: 14 September 2018 https://doi.org/10.1002/aps.1583Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume15, Issue3Special Issue: Our Issue on RefugeesSeptember 2018Pages 143-150 RelatedInformation

The editors to “Why War?” (S.E. XXII) note that Einstein was among those “Invited in 1931 by the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation of the Permanent Committee for Literature & the Arts of the League of Nations to exchange letters between intellectuals to serve the common interests of the League of Nations and of intellectual life” [1]. Having elected to discuss his selected question with Freud, in a letter dated 30th July 1932, Einstein asked Freud: “Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war”?

International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic StudiesVolume 13, Issue 3 p. 191-199 Introduction Editorial: Special issue on free speech Henri Parens, Henri Parens Professor of Psychiatry handrparens@verizon.net Thomas Jefferson University, Training & Supervising Analyst, Psychoanalytic Center of Philadelphia, 111 Presidential Blvd, Suite 133, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 USASearch for more papers by this authorAfaf Mahfouz, Afaf Mahfouz Retired Law professor and First chair of the IPA Committee on the United Nations afafmahfouz@gmail.com Search for more papers by this author Henri Parens, Henri Parens Professor of Psychiatry handrparens@verizon.net Thomas Jefferson University, Training & Supervising Analyst, Psychoanalytic Center of Philadelphia, 111 Presidential Blvd, Suite 133, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 USASearch for more papers by this authorAfaf Mahfouz, Afaf Mahfouz Retired Law professor and First chair of the IPA Committee on the United Nations afafmahfouz@gmail.com Search for more papers by this author First published: 22 September 2016 https://doi.org/10.1002/aps.1496 Email: handrparens@verizon.net; afafmahfouz@gmail.com Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume13, Issue3Special Issue: Freedom of SpeechSeptember 2016Pages 191-199 RelatedInformation

Free Speech, intended to permit citizens of any community to publicly express dissent in order to influence, even change governance for the good of society has also given license to some members of society to insult, attack and harm others within and outside one's own society. This key element of human rights, “the freedom of speech” can and has been subject to corruption and used to attack those with whom, our ideology is in disaccord. The Janus Dilemma has it that “free speech” yields words of guidance and human good; but also words of attack and of wounding that stir human conflict.

No AccessPsychoanalytisch orientiertes Präventionsprogramm für Eltern: ein dringendes AnliegenErziehung zur Förderung des emotionalen WachstumsHenri ParensHenri Parenshttps://doi.org/10.13109/9783666451300.276SectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail About Previous chapter Next chapter FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Download book coverVolume 017 1ISBN: 978-3-525-45130-4 eISBN: 978-3-666-45130-0HistoryPublished online:April 2014 PDF download

The problem with Freud's answer to Einstein's question, "Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war?" is that it was wrong. In his 1932 "Why War?" Freud held that human destructiveness is inborn, is driven by death instincts, and thereby makes war inevitable. I must apologize to you for asserting that Freud's answer was wrong; I do so in order to engage your interest. The problem is that one cannot say that Freud's answer was wrong because one can neither prove nor disprove an un-provable hypothesis, at least a hypothesis unproven to this day. Even during the 1930s, concerned that psychoanalytic clinical exploration could not prove that our patients' destructiveness is driven by a death instinct, a number of Freud's preeminent colleagues expressed and wrote of their reservation about it. Freudwas himself uncertain of it. But in his 1930 Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud wrote that "despite resistance [to it] met with 'even in analytic circles'... the assumption of a death instinct had ` gained such a hold on me that I can no longer think in any other way."' Indeed, he said much the same in a letter to Marie Bonaparte, dated May 27, 1937.

In a 7-year-long study of mothers with their newborns we found a stable correlation between the quality of the child's attachment to mother and the child's aggression profile. This was further documented in 19-year, 32-year, and 37-year follow-up studies. The child's attachment may be made more secure and aggression profile more benign when parents are informed by child development optimizing parenting education. In subsequent study, we found that both attachment and aggression have a direct bearing on the development of prejudice. Two attachment factors—stranger anxiety and identification with attachment objects—predispose each of us to feel prejudice against others. But this is benign prejudice; it does not predispose to wish to harm others. Two key factors lead to the conversion of one's benign prejudice into malignant prejudice: (a) one attaches onto others one's internalized, accumulated hostility and hate; and (b) one attaches onto others one's dictated and cultivated hostility and hate compelled by the militant education to which we are subjected. Regarding the first issue, harsh and/or abusive child rearing tends to generate high levels of hostility and hate in children that may infuse their benign prejudice and convert it to malignant prejudice. Therefore, optimizing child rearing by means of formal parenting education in childhood and adolescence may optimize the future generation of children's attachment and aggression profiles which in turn may reduce in them the formation of malignant prejudice. Regarding the second factor, every society—ethnic, religious, national—has experienced chronic strains and traumas that play a large role in its forging a militant educational system that is often laden with programmed malevolent distortions about others. Can mental health professionals not contribute toward the lessening of this source of malignant prejudice?

ABSTRACTIn his masterpiece, The White Ribbon, writer and film‐maker Michael Haneke creates a tale that jars the viewer with his portrayal of life in a (German) village at the threshold of World War I. But he also gratifies this psychoanalytic viewer in two ways: (1) in the historically documented realistic portrayal of harsh child rearing and its then‐unrecognized potential highly destructive consequences; and (2) in the psychoanalytic cogency of his portrayal, given that established psychoanalytic and psychological theorizing compelled by evidence‐based findings asserts just what Haneke tells us: that abuse (and neglect) of children generate the hostile‐destructive‐laden psychodynamic that underlies the formation of delinquent and criminal characterology. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic StudiesVolume 6, Issue 3 p. 256-257 Obituary George Awad, MD – In memoriam Henri Parens MD, Henri Parens MD hparens@verizon.net The Psychoanalytic Center of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, 111 Presidential Blvd, Suite 133, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, USASearch for more papers by this author Henri Parens MD, Henri Parens MD hparens@verizon.net The Psychoanalytic Center of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, 111 Presidential Blvd, Suite 133, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 14 August 2009 https://doi.org/10.1002/aps.216AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume6, Issue3Special Issue: Psychoanalytic Perspectives on the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict: Festschrift in Honor of George A. Awad, M.D.September 2009Pages 256-257 RelatedInformation

In this essay the author draws attention to an insufficiently acknowledged consequence of genocide. With the intention to generalize these thoughts to all genocide - allowing for their variances - focusing on the Holocaust, the most studied of genocides, much is said about the horrors it has and continues to visit on victims, the traumatic consequences that follow from this genocide, the "chosen trauma" it has become for the then-victimized society. Many Holocaust studies address just that. But much less is said of the consequences of this genocide on its perpetrators, especially on their children and grandchildren. The limited number of studies of the children of perpetrators show that for those studied, the genocide perpetrated by their fathers and mothers has created for them an unyielding sense of guilt and depression and especially of everyday-pervasive shame. These studies have demonstrated that their children and grandchildren seem stamped with a " ' chosen trauma' of shame" (Volkan, Fundamentalism, violence and its consequences, 2001), a yoke of shame they have great difficulty resolving. They too, like their former victims, live with an irreducible trauma of humiliation, but their humiliation is not one perpetrated by an enemy as it was for the Jews, but by their own fathers and mothers. Might not this knowledge, learned with the price of the Holocaust, deter some, or even many, who might in the future consider the path of genocide? Should we not add this to the strategies open to us for the reduction of genocide? Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.