My observation is to point out what I find missing, missing here and in publisher textbooks. One of my areas of teaching is development economics, particularly issues in the developing world, the Global South. I struggle to find textbooks and other resources that support curriculum on international development (economics), particularly for students who are not economic majors but who have global interests. I am eager to learn what others are doing to support this sub-theme.
I agree that many standard textbooks, e.g., for macroeconomics, neglect economically less developed countries. What do you miss in specialized ones like Development Economics by Debraj Ray?
The issue of pluralism is relevant not only at a theoretical level but also for policy action: for instance, if we wish to further personal initiative at economic and social level, a narrow conception of the “homo oeconomicus”, typical of neoclassical economics, will suggest policy measures centred only on pecuniary incentives.
Conversely, a proper acknowledgement of the significance for the person of establishing sound interpersonal relations will help devise more effective and far reaching policies, as they would be more tailored to the real needs and orientations of the person.
On the Importance of Interdisciplinarity Approach in Economics:
the Case of Psychoanalysis
In various works we have underlined that economic action involves also a legal, institutional, social, cultural and psychological dimension.
For that reason, an interdisciplinary approach reaching out these dimensions in their dynamic interaction is highly needed for a better understanding of these phenomena.
As observed by the famous sociologist Karl Mannheim, a landscape can be seen only from a determined perspective and without perspective there is no landscape. In this sense, observing a landscape (or phenomenon) from different angles (or disciplines) can help to acquire a much clearer insight into the features of the various perspectives. Therefore, an interdisciplinary perspective does not imply that each discipline would lose its distinctive features. Quite the contrary, such more comprehensive approach, by broadening the horizon of the observer, can contribute to a better appraisal also of the specific characteristics of his/her main fields of specialization.
How Can Psychoanalysis Contribute To Policy Action?
At this stage, one can wonder what could be the distinctive role of psychoanalysis in helping to achieve a policy strategy aimed at realizing a more equitable and sustainable society. In fact, as we have seen in the first part, psychoanalysis has provided important contributions to the explanation of many individual and social phenomena.
In this regard, psychoanalysis, by contributing to a better understanding of the complex motivations and orientations of the person in his individual and collective unfolding, can contribute to answer, among others, the following questions: (i) What are the profound meanings of the various aspects of economic action—in particular, work, consumption, saving, investment — considered in their psychological, social and cultural dimensions? (ii) Are, for instance, the quests for money and for a given consumption pattern direct and sole targets, or else they cover other motivations of the person? (iii) For example, the (partly unconscious) need for affection and consideration, which the person tries to pursue through a perceived socially accepted behaviour? (iv) In other words, is the quest for money a primary or secondary goal to the person? (v) And what are the psychological, social and cultural factors (including the role of mass media) leading the person to a given consumption (or work, investment and saving) pattern? (vi) In particular, what is the role of any given context in orienting, fostering or frustrating the various propensions, values, conflicts and needs of the person?
With regard to the recent economic and financial crisis, this approach can help address the following questions: what is the profound economic and psychological significance and “message” conveyed by the crisis? And what is the role played by predatory behaviour, inadequate response of many policies, and individual and social conflicts in producing these imbalances?
Providing a more complete answer to these questions is not only of theoretical interest, but directly bears on the quality and relevance of policy action. For instance, if we wish to further personal initiative at economic and social level, a narrow conception of the homo oeconomicus will suggest policy measures centred only on pecuniary incentives.
Conversely, a proper acknowledgement of the significance for the person of establishing sound interpersonal relations will help devise more effective and far reaching policies, as they would be more tailored to the real needs and orientations of the person.
Fostering this process of participation acquires relevance for policy action also because, as we have seen, that action is not limited to governmental sphere but involves all the institutions and individuals concerned in one way or another with policy measures. For this reason, the problem of policy co-ordination goes at the heart of the problem of realizing an adequate social value process: namely, an adequate “institutional” or collective co-ordination between different values, interests and orientations.
Within this perspective, psychoanalytic contributions can provide a deeper insight into these aspects and, in this way, can help to steer, at the national and supranational level, a roadmap of policy action specifically targeted at the solution of the most urgent economic and social problems.
In this way, the transition from the “mixed or concerted capitalism” of today, heavily influenced by powerful interest group, to more equitable and sustainable social systems would no longer be considered as a kind of socialistic utopia but as a feasible objective to be pursued with a new course of policy action.
**************
Hermann, A., “Institutionalism and Psychoanalysis: a Basis for Interdisciplinary Cooperation”, International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, vol.I, n.4, pp.372-387, 2010.
Hermann, A., “Policy Responses to Economic and Financial Crises: Insights from Heterodox Economics and Psychoanalysis”, International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, vol.3, n.1, pp.8-22, 2012;
Hermann, A., Towards a Sustainable and Equitable Society: Insights from Heterodox Economics and Psychoanalysis, Roma, Aracne, Novembre 2012.
On the Importance of the Interdisciplinary Approach in Economics:
the Case of Psychoanalysis
In various works we have underlined that economic action involves also a legal, institutional, social, cultural and psychological dimension.
For that reason, an interdisciplinary approach reaching out these dimensions in their dynamic interaction is highly needed for a better understanding of these phenomena.
As observed by the famous sociologist Karl Mannheim, a landscape can be seen only from a determined perspective and without perspective there is no landscape. In this sense, observing a landscape (or phenomenon) from different angles (or disciplines) can help to acquire a much clearer insight into the features of the various perspectives. Therefore, an interdisciplinary perspective does not imply that each discipline would lose its distinctive features. Quite the contrary, such more comprehensive approach, by broadening the horizon of the observer, can contribute to a better appraisal also of the specific characteristics of his/her main fields of specialization.
How Can Psychoanalysis Contribute To Policy Action?
At this stage, one can wonder what could be the distinctive role of psychoanalysis in helping to achieve a policy strategy aimed at realizing a more equitable and sustainable society. In fact, as we have seen in the first part, psychoanalysis has provided important contributions to the explanation of many individual and social phenomena.
In this regard, psychoanalysis, by contributing to a better understanding of the complex motivations and orientations of the person in his individual and collective unfolding, can contribute to answer, among others, the following questions: (i) What are the profound meanings of the various aspects of economic action—in particular, work, consumption, saving, investment — considered in their psychological, social and cultural dimensions? (ii) Are, for instance, the quests for money and for a given consumption pattern direct and sole targets, or else they cover other motivations of the person? (iii) For example, the (partly unconscious) need for affection and consideration, which the person tries to pursue through a perceived socially accepted behaviour? (iv) In other words, is the quest for money a primary or secondary goal to the person? (v) And what are the psychological, social and cultural factors (including the role of mass media) leading the person to a given consumption (or work, investment and saving) pattern? (vi) In particular, what is the role of any given context in orienting, fostering or frustrating the various propensions, values, conflicts and needs of the person?
With regard to the recent economic and financial crisis, this approach can help address the following questions: what is the profound economic and psychological significance and “message” conveyed by the crisis? And what is the role played by predatory behaviour, inadequate response of many policies, and individual and social conflicts in producing these imbalances?
Providing a more complete answer to these questions is not only of theoretical interest, but directly bears on the quality and relevance of policy action. For instance, if we wish to further personal initiative at economic and social level, a narrow conception of the homo oeconomicus will suggest policy measures centred only on pecuniary incentives.
Conversely, a proper acknowledgement of the significance for the person of establishing sound interpersonal relations will help devise more effective and far reaching policies, as they would be more tailored to the real needs and orientations of the person.
Fostering this process of participation acquires relevance for policy action also because, as we have seen, that action is not limited to governmental sphere but involves all the institutions and individuals concerned in one way or another with policy measures. For this reason, the problem of policy co-ordination goes at the heart of the problem of realizing an adequate social value process: namely, an adequate “institutional” or collective co-ordination between different values, interests and orientations.
Within this perspective, psychoanalytic contributions can provide a deeper insight into these aspects and, in this way, can help to steer, at the national and supranational level, a roadmap of policy action specifically targeted at the solution of the most urgent economic and social problems.
In this way, the transition from the “mixed or concerted capitalism” of today, heavily influenced by powerful interest group, to more equitable and sustainable social systems would no longer be considered as a kind of socialistic utopia but as a feasible objective to be pursued with a new course of policy action.
**************
Hermann, A., “Institutionalism and Psychoanalysis: a Basis for Interdisciplinary Cooperation”, International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, vol.I, n.4, pp.372-387, 2010.
Hermann, A., “Policy Responses to Economic and Financial Crises: Insights from Heterodox Economics and Psychoanalysis”, International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, vol.3, n.1, pp.8-22, 2012;
Hermann, A., Towards a Sustainable and Equitable Society: Insights from Heterodox Economics and Psychoanalysis, Roma, Aracne, Novembre 2012.
This is a response to the comment by Ruth Anaya. I have asked Jayati Ghosh for help on this issue and she has replied to me with the following:
It is indeed hard to find good books on development from a heterodox perspective. There is a book by Amiya Kumar Bagchi, The Political Economy of Underdevelopment (Cambridge University Press 1982) but it may even be out of print. More recently there are several books edited by K.S. Jomo (The orgins of development economics with Erik Reinert and Pioneers of Development Economics, both Zed Books). I also make my students read Erik Reinert, How rich countries got rich and why poor countries stay poor. There is a lott of contemporary stuff available on the IDEAs website, http://www.networkideas.org.
I would like to add the following from the WEA organization perspective. We are very keen to organize something of practical use for exchanges of information to support our work as teachers and economists in general. If you Ruth and other members have ideas on how to proceed please contact me iettogg@lsbu.ac.uk
Best wishes
Grazia
Issues of Interdisciplinarity: Psychoanalysis and Social Change
As is known, Freud and subsequent psychoanalysts have provided relevant insights into the conflicts of individual and collective life and the possibility of social change.
However, notwithstanding these contributions, among social scientists Freud is rarely regarded as a social reformer. Rather, social scientists — owing, perhaps, to a rather pessimistic vein arising from his theory of death instinct — tend to regard his theory as essentially “conservative”, as it would seem to imply that little can be done to abate human aggressiveness.
Certainly, as we have seen, there is such a vein in Freud’s theory. But, at the same time, his theory is more far-reaching than this interpretation would suggest, as it contains aspects which clearly point to the possibility of social change. For instance, in discussing the 1917 Russian Revolution, he is not against such transformation but underlines the importance for social reformers, in order to build a truly better society, to acquire a deeper understanding of human nature.
In this regard, individual self-understanding is not without consequences for social self-understanding, since psychoanalysis is (cf. Freud, in particular 1921) at the same time an individual and a collective psychology. Therefore, the application of psychoanalysis to the comprehension of social phenomena, although not entailing a direct ethical impact as such (cf. Freud, in particular 1926), can have important consequences in this respect. In this regard, Freud thinks that psychoanalysis, in collaboration with other social sciences, can find interesting applications in a host of social issues. As he points out, in a coloured discussion with an imaginary interlocutor,
“[Psychoanalysis]….as a ‘depth-psychology’, a theory of the mental unconscious, it can become indispensable to all the sciences which are concerned with the evolution of human civilization and its major institutions such as art, religion and the social order. It has already, in my opinion, afforded these sciences considerable help in solving their problems. But these are only small contributions compared with what might be achieved if historians of civilization, psychologists of religion, philologists, and so on would agree themselves to handle the new instrument of research which is at their service. The use of analysis for the treatment of neuroses is only one of its applications; the future will perhaps show that it is not the most important one…..Then let me advise you that psycho-analysis has yet another sphere of application….Its application, I mean, to the bringing-up of children. If a child begins to show signs of an undesirable development, if it grows moody, refractory, and inattentive, the paediatrician and even the school doctor can do nothing for it, even if the child produces clear neurotic symptoms, such as nervousness, loss of appetite, vomiting, or insomnia….Our recognition of the importance of these unconspicuous neuroses of children as laying down the disposition for serious illnesses in later life points to these child analyses as an excellent method of prophylaxis….Moreover, to return to our question of the analytic treatment of adult neurotics, even there we have not yet exhausted every line of approach. Our civilization imposes an almost intolerable pressure on us and it calls for a corrective. It is too fantastic to expect that psycho-analysis in spite of its difficulties may be destined to the task of preparing mankind for such a corrective? Perhaps once more an American may hit on the idea of spending a little money to get the ‘social workers’ of his country trained analytically and to turn them into a band of helpers for combating the neuroses of civilization.”, (Freud, The Question of Lay Analysis The Standard Edition, New York, Norton, 1989: 83, 84, 85, 86; original edition, 1926).
The Issues of Interdisciplinarity II: Historical Materialism and Psychoanalysis
In an interdisciplinary perspective, capitalistic society cannot be considered as a completely “exogenous factor” for social alienation. In fact, as this society has not arisen apart from the intended action of the actors involved, there comes up the issue of understanding the cultural and psychological foundations of capitalistic society in their relations with its material basis.
In this regard, psychoanalysis has provided relevant contributions, which are still today largely overlooked. Many psychoanalytic studies underscore that in many cases social relations are based, at various levels, on a fight for power having its focus in — at real and/or symbolic level — “possessing institutions”. But, since an institution constitutes an organized whole of collective action controlling, liberating, and expanding individual action, this implies that “possessing” an institution relates to an unconscious fantasy of omnipotent control over all the relations occurring therein.
For instance, in discussing Marx’s theory, Freud stresses the necessity of considering not only the influence of the economic organization of society on individual psychology, but also the role of psychological factors in shaping the “materialistic aspects” of society. As he notes,
“The communists believe that they have found the path to deliverance from our evils. According to them, man is wholly good and is well-disposed to his neighbour; but the institution of private property has corrupted his nature. The ownership of private wealth gives the individual power, and with it the temptation to ill-treat his neighbour; while the man who is excluded from possession is bound to rebel in hostility against his oppressor. If private property were abolished, all wealth held in common, and everyone allowed to share in the enjoyment of it, ill-will and hostility would disappear among men. Since everyone’s need would be satisfied, no one would have any reason to regard another as an enemy; all would willingly undertake the work that was necessary. I have no concern with any economic criticisms of the communist system; I cannot inquire into whether the abolition of private property is expedient or advantageous [Here, there is a footnote in which Freud stresses his solidarity, also in relation to his own experience, with the situations of economic deprivation]. But I am able to recognize that the psychological premises on which the system is based are an untenable illusion. In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression of one of its instruments, certainly a strong one, though certainly not the strongest; but we have in no way altered the differences in power and influence which are misused by aggressiveness, nor have we altered anything in its nature. Aggressiveness was not created by property. It reigned almost without limit in primitive times, when property was still very scanty.” (S.Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, The Standard Edition, New York, Norton, 1961: 70-71).
Despite these cautious remarks, when discussing the difficulty of lessening human aggressiveness, he observes that,
“At this point the ethics based on religion introduces its promises of a better after-life. But so long as virtue is not rewarded here on earth, ethics will, I fancy, preach in vain. I too think it quite certain that a real change in the relations of human beings to possessions would be of more help in this direction than any ethical commands; but the recognition of this fact among socialists has been obscured and made useless for practical purposes by a fresh idealistic misconception of human nature.”, (S.Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, The Standard Edition, New York, Norton, 1961: 109).
And then, he clearly points to a closer collaboration between Marxism and psychoanalysis,
“The strength of Marxism clearly lies, not in its view of history or the prophecies of the future that are based on it, but in its sagacious indication of the decisive influence which the economic circumstances of men have upon their intellectual, ethical and artistic attitudes. A number of connections and implications were thus uncovered, which had previously been almost totally overlooked. But it cannot be assumed that economic motives are the only ones that determine the behaviour of human beings in society. The undoubted fact that different individuals, races and nations behave differently under the same economic conditions is alone enough to show that economic motives are not the sole dominating factor. It is altogether incomprehensible how psychological factors can be overlooked where what is in question are the reactions of living human beings; for not only were these reactions concerned in establishing the economic conditions, but even under the domination of those conditions men can only bring their original impulses into play—their self-preservative instinct, their aggressiveness, their need to be loved, their drive towards obtaining pleasure and avoiding unpleasure. In an earlier enquiry I also pointed out the important claims made by the super-ego, which represents tradition and the ideals of the past and will for a time resist the incentives of a new economic situation.”, (Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, The Standard Edition, New York, Norton, 1989: 220-221, original edition 1933).
As noted by Freud (in particular, 1921) and by subsequent psychoanalysts, group cohesion tends to be based on the following processes: (i) emotional links among the members of the group; (ii) projection of individual aggressiveness into people and/or institutions lying outside the group; (iii) identification with the group leader — who symbolizes the parental instance (typically, the father) — in order to repress the conflicts related to the Oedipus complex.
These processes — which operate partly at an unconscious level and may be partly driven by neurotic conflicts — can help explain the scission that often occurs between “the good and right”, lying inside the group, and “the bad and mistaken”, lying outside.
These contributions highlight the role of groups and institutions for expressing the needs and conflicts of the person. For instance, for the person, the group may represent an idealized ego; and, in this connection, its “morals” and “code of conduct” symbolize parental figures that, through a process of “internalization”, play the role of superego.
Thus, it is worth note that the superego stems also from a normal human tendency to establish sound interpersonal relations; and accordingly, to behave with affection and solicitude towards each other and continually improve the positive aspects of personality. However, whereas in non-neurotic situations the “code of conduct” emerging from such tendencies asserts itself as a genuine behaviour, in neurotic situations leading to the formation of superego things can be quite different: here, the tendency of improving personality tends to be, under an appearance of goodness and morality, subordinated to the expression of neurotic contents at cross-purposes with such tendency.
In particular, quite often the severity of superego leads — through the so-called paranoid and narcissistic transformation of personality, extensively studied in psychoanalysis — single individuals, groups or societies to do nasty and persecutory actions towards other individuals, groups or societies into which their aggressiveness has been projected, and so to sabotage, in the meaning reviewed before, the possibility of establishing sound interpersonal relations. These psychological processes can help explain ― and history is full of such instances ― the neurotic roots of racism, xenophobia and other phenomena of exclusion and marginalization.
An interdisciplinary approach can be particularly useful for a better understanding of these phenomena and, on that basis, for devising adequate policies for their solution.
My observation is to point out what I find missing, missing here and in publisher textbooks. One of my areas of teaching is development economics, particularly issues in the developing world, the Global South. I struggle to find textbooks and other resources that support curriculum on international development (economics), particularly for students who are not economic majors but who have global interests. I am eager to learn what others are doing to support this sub-theme.
I agree that many standard textbooks, e.g., for macroeconomics, neglect economically less developed countries. What do you miss in specialized ones like Development Economics by Debraj Ray?
The issue of pluralism is relevant not only at a theoretical level but also for policy action: for instance, if we wish to further personal initiative at economic and social level, a narrow conception of the “homo oeconomicus”, typical of neoclassical economics, will suggest policy measures centred only on pecuniary incentives.
Conversely, a proper acknowledgement of the significance for the person of establishing sound interpersonal relations will help devise more effective and far reaching policies, as they would be more tailored to the real needs and orientations of the person.
On the Importance of Interdisciplinarity Approach in Economics:
the Case of Psychoanalysis
In various works we have underlined that economic action involves also a legal, institutional, social, cultural and psychological dimension.
For that reason, an interdisciplinary approach reaching out these dimensions in their dynamic interaction is highly needed for a better understanding of these phenomena.
As observed by the famous sociologist Karl Mannheim, a landscape can be seen only from a determined perspective and without perspective there is no landscape. In this sense, observing a landscape (or phenomenon) from different angles (or disciplines) can help to acquire a much clearer insight into the features of the various perspectives. Therefore, an interdisciplinary perspective does not imply that each discipline would lose its distinctive features. Quite the contrary, such more comprehensive approach, by broadening the horizon of the observer, can contribute to a better appraisal also of the specific characteristics of his/her main fields of specialization.
How Can Psychoanalysis Contribute To Policy Action?
At this stage, one can wonder what could be the distinctive role of psychoanalysis in helping to achieve a policy strategy aimed at realizing a more equitable and sustainable society. In fact, as we have seen in the first part, psychoanalysis has provided important contributions to the explanation of many individual and social phenomena.
In this regard, psychoanalysis, by contributing to a better understanding of the complex motivations and orientations of the person in his individual and collective unfolding, can contribute to answer, among others, the following questions: (i) What are the profound meanings of the various aspects of economic action—in particular, work, consumption, saving, investment — considered in their psychological, social and cultural dimensions? (ii) Are, for instance, the quests for money and for a given consumption pattern direct and sole targets, or else they cover other motivations of the person? (iii) For example, the (partly unconscious) need for affection and consideration, which the person tries to pursue through a perceived socially accepted behaviour? (iv) In other words, is the quest for money a primary or secondary goal to the person? (v) And what are the psychological, social and cultural factors (including the role of mass media) leading the person to a given consumption (or work, investment and saving) pattern? (vi) In particular, what is the role of any given context in orienting, fostering or frustrating the various propensions, values, conflicts and needs of the person?
With regard to the recent economic and financial crisis, this approach can help address the following questions: what is the profound economic and psychological significance and “message” conveyed by the crisis? And what is the role played by predatory behaviour, inadequate response of many policies, and individual and social conflicts in producing these imbalances?
Providing a more complete answer to these questions is not only of theoretical interest, but directly bears on the quality and relevance of policy action. For instance, if we wish to further personal initiative at economic and social level, a narrow conception of the homo oeconomicus will suggest policy measures centred only on pecuniary incentives.
Conversely, a proper acknowledgement of the significance for the person of establishing sound interpersonal relations will help devise more effective and far reaching policies, as they would be more tailored to the real needs and orientations of the person.
Fostering this process of participation acquires relevance for policy action also because, as we have seen, that action is not limited to governmental sphere but involves all the institutions and individuals concerned in one way or another with policy measures. For this reason, the problem of policy co-ordination goes at the heart of the problem of realizing an adequate social value process: namely, an adequate “institutional” or collective co-ordination between different values, interests and orientations.
Within this perspective, psychoanalytic contributions can provide a deeper insight into these aspects and, in this way, can help to steer, at the national and supranational level, a roadmap of policy action specifically targeted at the solution of the most urgent economic and social problems.
In this way, the transition from the “mixed or concerted capitalism” of today, heavily influenced by powerful interest group, to more equitable and sustainable social systems would no longer be considered as a kind of socialistic utopia but as a feasible objective to be pursued with a new course of policy action.
**************
Hermann, A., “Institutionalism and Psychoanalysis: a Basis for Interdisciplinary Cooperation”, International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, vol.I, n.4, pp.372-387, 2010.
Hermann, A., “Policy Responses to Economic and Financial Crises: Insights from Heterodox Economics and Psychoanalysis”, International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, vol.3, n.1, pp.8-22, 2012;
Hermann, A., Towards a Sustainable and Equitable Society: Insights from Heterodox Economics and Psychoanalysis, Roma, Aracne, Novembre 2012.
On the Importance of the Interdisciplinary Approach in Economics:
the Case of Psychoanalysis
In various works we have underlined that economic action involves also a legal, institutional, social, cultural and psychological dimension.
For that reason, an interdisciplinary approach reaching out these dimensions in their dynamic interaction is highly needed for a better understanding of these phenomena.
As observed by the famous sociologist Karl Mannheim, a landscape can be seen only from a determined perspective and without perspective there is no landscape. In this sense, observing a landscape (or phenomenon) from different angles (or disciplines) can help to acquire a much clearer insight into the features of the various perspectives. Therefore, an interdisciplinary perspective does not imply that each discipline would lose its distinctive features. Quite the contrary, such more comprehensive approach, by broadening the horizon of the observer, can contribute to a better appraisal also of the specific characteristics of his/her main fields of specialization.
How Can Psychoanalysis Contribute To Policy Action?
At this stage, one can wonder what could be the distinctive role of psychoanalysis in helping to achieve a policy strategy aimed at realizing a more equitable and sustainable society. In fact, as we have seen in the first part, psychoanalysis has provided important contributions to the explanation of many individual and social phenomena.
In this regard, psychoanalysis, by contributing to a better understanding of the complex motivations and orientations of the person in his individual and collective unfolding, can contribute to answer, among others, the following questions: (i) What are the profound meanings of the various aspects of economic action—in particular, work, consumption, saving, investment — considered in their psychological, social and cultural dimensions? (ii) Are, for instance, the quests for money and for a given consumption pattern direct and sole targets, or else they cover other motivations of the person? (iii) For example, the (partly unconscious) need for affection and consideration, which the person tries to pursue through a perceived socially accepted behaviour? (iv) In other words, is the quest for money a primary or secondary goal to the person? (v) And what are the psychological, social and cultural factors (including the role of mass media) leading the person to a given consumption (or work, investment and saving) pattern? (vi) In particular, what is the role of any given context in orienting, fostering or frustrating the various propensions, values, conflicts and needs of the person?
With regard to the recent economic and financial crisis, this approach can help address the following questions: what is the profound economic and psychological significance and “message” conveyed by the crisis? And what is the role played by predatory behaviour, inadequate response of many policies, and individual and social conflicts in producing these imbalances?
Providing a more complete answer to these questions is not only of theoretical interest, but directly bears on the quality and relevance of policy action. For instance, if we wish to further personal initiative at economic and social level, a narrow conception of the homo oeconomicus will suggest policy measures centred only on pecuniary incentives.
Conversely, a proper acknowledgement of the significance for the person of establishing sound interpersonal relations will help devise more effective and far reaching policies, as they would be more tailored to the real needs and orientations of the person.
Fostering this process of participation acquires relevance for policy action also because, as we have seen, that action is not limited to governmental sphere but involves all the institutions and individuals concerned in one way or another with policy measures. For this reason, the problem of policy co-ordination goes at the heart of the problem of realizing an adequate social value process: namely, an adequate “institutional” or collective co-ordination between different values, interests and orientations.
Within this perspective, psychoanalytic contributions can provide a deeper insight into these aspects and, in this way, can help to steer, at the national and supranational level, a roadmap of policy action specifically targeted at the solution of the most urgent economic and social problems.
In this way, the transition from the “mixed or concerted capitalism” of today, heavily influenced by powerful interest group, to more equitable and sustainable social systems would no longer be considered as a kind of socialistic utopia but as a feasible objective to be pursued with a new course of policy action.
**************
Hermann, A., “Institutionalism and Psychoanalysis: a Basis for Interdisciplinary Cooperation”, International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, vol.I, n.4, pp.372-387, 2010.
Hermann, A., “Policy Responses to Economic and Financial Crises: Insights from Heterodox Economics and Psychoanalysis”, International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, vol.3, n.1, pp.8-22, 2012;
Hermann, A., Towards a Sustainable and Equitable Society: Insights from Heterodox Economics and Psychoanalysis, Roma, Aracne, Novembre 2012.
This is a response to the comment by Ruth Anaya. I have asked Jayati Ghosh for help on this issue and she has replied to me with the following:
It is indeed hard to find good books on development from a heterodox perspective. There is a book by Amiya Kumar Bagchi, The Political Economy of Underdevelopment (Cambridge University Press 1982) but it may even be out of print. More recently there are several books edited by K.S. Jomo (The orgins of development economics with Erik Reinert and Pioneers of Development Economics, both Zed Books). I also make my students read Erik Reinert, How rich countries got rich and why poor countries stay poor. There is a lott of contemporary stuff available on the IDEAs website, http://www.networkideas.org.
I would like to add the following from the WEA organization perspective. We are very keen to organize something of practical use for exchanges of information to support our work as teachers and economists in general. If you Ruth and other members have ideas on how to proceed please contact me iettogg@lsbu.ac.uk
Best wishes
Grazia
Issues of Interdisciplinarity: Psychoanalysis and Social Change
As is known, Freud and subsequent psychoanalysts have provided relevant insights into the conflicts of individual and collective life and the possibility of social change.
However, notwithstanding these contributions, among social scientists Freud is rarely regarded as a social reformer. Rather, social scientists — owing, perhaps, to a rather pessimistic vein arising from his theory of death instinct — tend to regard his theory as essentially “conservative”, as it would seem to imply that little can be done to abate human aggressiveness.
Certainly, as we have seen, there is such a vein in Freud’s theory. But, at the same time, his theory is more far-reaching than this interpretation would suggest, as it contains aspects which clearly point to the possibility of social change. For instance, in discussing the 1917 Russian Revolution, he is not against such transformation but underlines the importance for social reformers, in order to build a truly better society, to acquire a deeper understanding of human nature.
In this regard, individual self-understanding is not without consequences for social self-understanding, since psychoanalysis is (cf. Freud, in particular 1921) at the same time an individual and a collective psychology. Therefore, the application of psychoanalysis to the comprehension of social phenomena, although not entailing a direct ethical impact as such (cf. Freud, in particular 1926), can have important consequences in this respect. In this regard, Freud thinks that psychoanalysis, in collaboration with other social sciences, can find interesting applications in a host of social issues. As he points out, in a coloured discussion with an imaginary interlocutor,
“[Psychoanalysis]….as a ‘depth-psychology’, a theory of the mental unconscious, it can become indispensable to all the sciences which are concerned with the evolution of human civilization and its major institutions such as art, religion and the social order. It has already, in my opinion, afforded these sciences considerable help in solving their problems. But these are only small contributions compared with what might be achieved if historians of civilization, psychologists of religion, philologists, and so on would agree themselves to handle the new instrument of research which is at their service. The use of analysis for the treatment of neuroses is only one of its applications; the future will perhaps show that it is not the most important one…..Then let me advise you that psycho-analysis has yet another sphere of application….Its application, I mean, to the bringing-up of children. If a child begins to show signs of an undesirable development, if it grows moody, refractory, and inattentive, the paediatrician and even the school doctor can do nothing for it, even if the child produces clear neurotic symptoms, such as nervousness, loss of appetite, vomiting, or insomnia….Our recognition of the importance of these unconspicuous neuroses of children as laying down the disposition for serious illnesses in later life points to these child analyses as an excellent method of prophylaxis….Moreover, to return to our question of the analytic treatment of adult neurotics, even there we have not yet exhausted every line of approach. Our civilization imposes an almost intolerable pressure on us and it calls for a corrective. It is too fantastic to expect that psycho-analysis in spite of its difficulties may be destined to the task of preparing mankind for such a corrective? Perhaps once more an American may hit on the idea of spending a little money to get the ‘social workers’ of his country trained analytically and to turn them into a band of helpers for combating the neuroses of civilization.”, (Freud, The Question of Lay Analysis The Standard Edition, New York, Norton, 1989: 83, 84, 85, 86; original edition, 1926).
The Issues of Interdisciplinarity II: Historical Materialism and Psychoanalysis
In an interdisciplinary perspective, capitalistic society cannot be considered as a completely “exogenous factor” for social alienation. In fact, as this society has not arisen apart from the intended action of the actors involved, there comes up the issue of understanding the cultural and psychological foundations of capitalistic society in their relations with its material basis.
In this regard, psychoanalysis has provided relevant contributions, which are still today largely overlooked. Many psychoanalytic studies underscore that in many cases social relations are based, at various levels, on a fight for power having its focus in — at real and/or symbolic level — “possessing institutions”. But, since an institution constitutes an organized whole of collective action controlling, liberating, and expanding individual action, this implies that “possessing” an institution relates to an unconscious fantasy of omnipotent control over all the relations occurring therein.
For instance, in discussing Marx’s theory, Freud stresses the necessity of considering not only the influence of the economic organization of society on individual psychology, but also the role of psychological factors in shaping the “materialistic aspects” of society. As he notes,
“The communists believe that they have found the path to deliverance from our evils. According to them, man is wholly good and is well-disposed to his neighbour; but the institution of private property has corrupted his nature. The ownership of private wealth gives the individual power, and with it the temptation to ill-treat his neighbour; while the man who is excluded from possession is bound to rebel in hostility against his oppressor. If private property were abolished, all wealth held in common, and everyone allowed to share in the enjoyment of it, ill-will and hostility would disappear among men. Since everyone’s need would be satisfied, no one would have any reason to regard another as an enemy; all would willingly undertake the work that was necessary. I have no concern with any economic criticisms of the communist system; I cannot inquire into whether the abolition of private property is expedient or advantageous [Here, there is a footnote in which Freud stresses his solidarity, also in relation to his own experience, with the situations of economic deprivation]. But I am able to recognize that the psychological premises on which the system is based are an untenable illusion. In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression of one of its instruments, certainly a strong one, though certainly not the strongest; but we have in no way altered the differences in power and influence which are misused by aggressiveness, nor have we altered anything in its nature. Aggressiveness was not created by property. It reigned almost without limit in primitive times, when property was still very scanty.” (S.Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, The Standard Edition, New York, Norton, 1961: 70-71).
Despite these cautious remarks, when discussing the difficulty of lessening human aggressiveness, he observes that,
“At this point the ethics based on religion introduces its promises of a better after-life. But so long as virtue is not rewarded here on earth, ethics will, I fancy, preach in vain. I too think it quite certain that a real change in the relations of human beings to possessions would be of more help in this direction than any ethical commands; but the recognition of this fact among socialists has been obscured and made useless for practical purposes by a fresh idealistic misconception of human nature.”, (S.Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, The Standard Edition, New York, Norton, 1961: 109).
And then, he clearly points to a closer collaboration between Marxism and psychoanalysis,
“The strength of Marxism clearly lies, not in its view of history or the prophecies of the future that are based on it, but in its sagacious indication of the decisive influence which the economic circumstances of men have upon their intellectual, ethical and artistic attitudes. A number of connections and implications were thus uncovered, which had previously been almost totally overlooked. But it cannot be assumed that economic motives are the only ones that determine the behaviour of human beings in society. The undoubted fact that different individuals, races and nations behave differently under the same economic conditions is alone enough to show that economic motives are not the sole dominating factor. It is altogether incomprehensible how psychological factors can be overlooked where what is in question are the reactions of living human beings; for not only were these reactions concerned in establishing the economic conditions, but even under the domination of those conditions men can only bring their original impulses into play—their self-preservative instinct, their aggressiveness, their need to be loved, their drive towards obtaining pleasure and avoiding unpleasure. In an earlier enquiry I also pointed out the important claims made by the super-ego, which represents tradition and the ideals of the past and will for a time resist the incentives of a new economic situation.”, (Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, The Standard Edition, New York, Norton, 1989: 220-221, original edition 1933).
As noted by Freud (in particular, 1921) and by subsequent psychoanalysts, group cohesion tends to be based on the following processes: (i) emotional links among the members of the group; (ii) projection of individual aggressiveness into people and/or institutions lying outside the group; (iii) identification with the group leader — who symbolizes the parental instance (typically, the father) — in order to repress the conflicts related to the Oedipus complex.
These processes — which operate partly at an unconscious level and may be partly driven by neurotic conflicts — can help explain the scission that often occurs between “the good and right”, lying inside the group, and “the bad and mistaken”, lying outside.
These contributions highlight the role of groups and institutions for expressing the needs and conflicts of the person. For instance, for the person, the group may represent an idealized ego; and, in this connection, its “morals” and “code of conduct” symbolize parental figures that, through a process of “internalization”, play the role of superego.
Thus, it is worth note that the superego stems also from a normal human tendency to establish sound interpersonal relations; and accordingly, to behave with affection and solicitude towards each other and continually improve the positive aspects of personality. However, whereas in non-neurotic situations the “code of conduct” emerging from such tendencies asserts itself as a genuine behaviour, in neurotic situations leading to the formation of superego things can be quite different: here, the tendency of improving personality tends to be, under an appearance of goodness and morality, subordinated to the expression of neurotic contents at cross-purposes with such tendency.
In particular, quite often the severity of superego leads — through the so-called paranoid and narcissistic transformation of personality, extensively studied in psychoanalysis — single individuals, groups or societies to do nasty and persecutory actions towards other individuals, groups or societies into which their aggressiveness has been projected, and so to sabotage, in the meaning reviewed before, the possibility of establishing sound interpersonal relations. These psychological processes can help explain ― and history is full of such instances ― the neurotic roots of racism, xenophobia and other phenomena of exclusion and marginalization.
An interdisciplinary approach can be particularly useful for a better understanding of these phenomena and, on that basis, for devising adequate policies for their solution.