Summary: <br> Panel 8: Psychoanalysis and Politics<br> <br> <br> <br> Sincerity and Freedom in Psychoanalysis: a studio conference inspired by Sándor Ferenczi's Clinical Diary<br> 18-20 October 2013<br> <br> <br> <br> Ferenc Erős - Freedom and Authority in the Clinical Diary<br> Jonathan Sklar - Psychoanalysis, Analytic Societies and the European Unconscious<br> <br> <br> Facilitator: Lene Auestad<br> <br> <br> <br> Ferenc Erős - Freedom and Authority in the Clinical Diary<br> In my paper I will examine the challenges of some twentieth century political theories and ideologies (like Marxism, socialism, feminism, postmodern thinking) for psychoanalysis. I will raise the question: after the experiences of historical traumata, totalitarianism and dictatorships, what psychoanalysis today can say about the non-traumatic, democratic social processes and about the threats they have to face with. To attempt to outline a possible answer, I will go back to Ferenczi’s early writings that explicitly deal with social and political issues, especially to his manuscript “Psychoanalysis and liberal socialism”. I will also discuss the ethical and political-philosophical implications of Ferenczi’s Clinical Diary, especially for the concept of freedom and authority.<br> <br> <br> Jonathan Sklar - Psychoanalysis, Analytic Societies and the European Unconscious<br> <br> In this paper I address the impact of transgenerational conflict on European analysis and Societies.<br> How can one think about trauma in the individual without thinking of it in generational terms? In a similar way the cultural heritage that formed the backdrop to the development of psychoanalysis from within the Austro-Hungarian Empire and its aftermath has its own value transmitting unconscious imprints on analytic societies. What are the interfaces between personal and historical trauma, and in particular the interface with unconscious processes? Totalitarian regimes in the 20th century have, of course, had a massive impact on Europe including analytic societies, which I will argue is ongoing. How can the mind take a measure of history, when history will submit neither to the reason of the world nor to the mind that confronts it?<br> <br> <br>
