Dagmar Herzog, Cold War Freud
(Cambridge University Press, New York, 2016)
Dagmar Herzog teaches History at the City University of New York. Her publications deal with religion, ethics, politics, economics, law, psychiatry. However, they are linked by her interest in the history of sexuality to which she has devoted several books.
Therefore, it is not surprising if she has come to deal with the thinker who, at the beginning of the last century, brought into the open the “fantasies” and the feelings of human beings regarding sex and has deeply influenced the ways of the West to conceive and to live sexuality.
In dealing with him, she situates herself in the context of the “New Studies” on Freud which started after the opening of Freud’s Archives thanks to which not only psychoanalysts, but also historians turned themselves to the study of Freud and of the history of psychoanalysis. She maintains that this fact produced a change in the historiography on psychoanalysis and declares that her contribution to it presents two peculiarities.
First, the assumption of the events of the history of psychoanalysis following the end of the Second World War as a mirror in which the events of the social and intellectual history of that period are reflected: according to her, the study of the psychoanalytic literature of that period allows to trace «a history of the vicissitudes of human nature, culture, politics, and sexuality» (p. 17).
Second, the clarification of how, in the course of the history of psychoanalysis, «the practitioners and proponents of psychoanalysis have also, in the movement’s long and strange career, generated a set of conceptual tools that remain potentially quite useful for critical political and cultural analysis» (ibid.)
She proceeds in two complementary directions in order to give this peculiar contribution to the change mentioned above.
The first one consists in representing the positions of psychoanalysis with regard to some phenomena of the post Second World War period: the opposition to the Vietnam war and to the South American dictatorships; the movements for women’s and gay rights; the sexual revolution of the Seventies; the heredities of Holocaust and of Nazism; the revival of institutionalized religions; the controversies about the inborn nature of aggressive behavior; the globalization of the capitalist economy; post colonialism.
The second direction consists in establishing how, and how much, those phenomena and the confrontation with them have contributed to modify the Freudian concepts of desire, anxiety, aggression, guilt, trauma and so on.
Dagmar Herzog proceeds in these two directions guided by two intents. The first one consists in presenting persons and episodes which have been undervalued by psychoanalytic historiography and which are parts of cultural contexts differing from the one in which she works: the European and South American contexts. She writes that one aim of her book has been to recover those singular individuals that have either been forgotten or whose contributions have been generally misunderstood or misconstrued, in the hope that they and their reflections and perceptions might be restored to the canon – least because the ideas they put forward can still speak to us today (p. 217).
Her second intent is clearly political. It consists in showing how psychoanalysis can increment the success of the New Left. She hopes that her book will demonstrate that the relationship between psychoanalysis and the Left has gone beyond the proposition of the Freudo-marxism of the Seventies to the point that today it can revitalize the Left.
Therefore, she takes part in the change which intervened in the historiography on psychoanalysis in a way which presents many directions of research, many intents and their interconnections.
For this reason the suspicion can arise that her book risks being nothing more than a dispersive gathering of facts.
However, she avoids this risk unifying the facts in a complex and articulated structure sustained, animated and oriented by what she signifies with the word “war” which appears in the title of the book. She does not give to it the meaning, defined by the adjective “cold” which accompanies it in the title, of the period which followed the Second World War and which is the context of her research. She gives to that word also the meaning of “dialectic”, of a «dialectical and recursive interaction» (p. 14).
This meaning is the same given to that world by the philosophical tradition, for example by Heraclitus and by Hegel; but she renews and actualizes it because she inserts it in Freud’s theory: according to her, “war” means “conflict”; specifically that one, which is present in the act of foundation of psychoanalysis, between the theory of the traumatic origin of neurosis dismissed by Freud in that act, and the theory of their endo-psychic origin which he adopted. Therefore, the “war” of which she speaks is a dialectic whose main terms are the “internal world” and the “external world”, the interest for the first and the interest for the second.
She traces the development of this dialectic on two levels in each of which those two main terms assume several forms. On the level of psychoanalytic theory and practice, they assume the forms of the endo- and the extra-psychic, of the removed and the repressed, of the inborn and the socially determined, of the fantasy and reality and so on. On the level of the relations between that theory and practice and the large galaxy of the historical events (social changes, scientific acquisitions, political decisions), they assume the forms of the neutrality of psychoanalysis and of its positions with respect to those events, of interest or indifference toward them, of neutrality and implication in them.
The two levels run in parallel, but they continually cross each other because, for example, to stress, in the psychoanalytic theory and practice, the importance of the internal world as causal factor of illness implies an attitude of neutral indifference toward historical events, and the contrary.
Therefore, two ways to read the book are possible.
The first one consists in accepting the apparent dispersion of the Author’s discourse in an exposition of facts without considering her effort to compose them in a dialectic. Those who adopt this kind of reading are largely repaid. Thanks to her skillfulness, to her extraordinary erudition witnessed by the impressive apparatus of footnotes, and to her sure dominance of the literature, the reader can enter into the intricate forest of the numerous positions which emerged in the history of psychoanalysis and in its encounters with the events of the period of the “Cold War”: the process of «desexualization» of psychoanalysis in the U.S.A, its alliance with the Churches, its «Christianization», its approach to the Holocaust, the role of that approach in the controversies about aggressivity, its participation in the formulation of the concept of post-traumatic stress disease, its effort to revise the assumption of the existence of the Oedipus complex, the way in which the psychoanalysts have related with other cultures before and after the end of colonialism and have dealt with perversions, the choice of gender, homosexuality, and so on. The reader can also meet many characters to whom the Author dedicates short monographs: well known psychoanalysts such as Horney, Klein, Mitscherlich, Eissler; not so well known ones such as the Menningers, Stoller, Rangell; insufficiently recognized ones such as Parin and Morgenthaler. The reader can also come to know of episodes which have been considered marginal such as the Countercongress which contested the Congress of the International Psychoanalytic Society held in Rome in 1969; to make unexpected encounters such as those with Monsignor Felici and with Clare Boothe Luce (the conservative American ambassador in Italy); to be curious of some aspects of the private life of the above-mentioned characters.
The second way in which it is possible to read the book consists in following the Author’s effort to compose the events that she goes through in a structure sustained and oriented by what she signifies with the word “war”.
That word is present in the title of the book in a way which can disorient the reader for two reasons: because it seems to signify a historical period instead of a dialectic; and because it suggests that the book deals with only one war while it deals with many “little wars” in the context of a “great war”, with many particular dialectics in the context of a global dialectic.
In fact, each episode treated in the book must not be considered as an independent entity, bus as one of the two terms of a couple which develops a dialectic producing a third term. For example, the Freudian theory of sexuality imported in the U.S.A. in the Fifties, constitutes, together with the religious puritan culture present in that country, a couple which develops a dialectic producing the «desexualisation» and the «Christianization» of psychoanalysis. The homophobia of the psychoanalysts active in that country, together with the liberalization of the sexual habits due to the research of Kinsey, Masters and Johnson, constitutes a couple which develops a dialectic producing a change in the psychoanalytic conception of the homosexuality. The war fought in Europe between the disposition of psychoanalysis to conceive the trauma as an endo-psychic event and the evidence of traumas impossible to be explained in that way produces changes in the psychoanalytic conception of trauma. Mitscherlich’s attempt to make the German people conscious of the tragedy of Nazism constitutes, together with Lorenz’s theory of an inborn aggressivity, a couple of terms which develops a dialectic contributing to make that people conscious of that tragedy and to reflect on the Freudian conception of a death instinct, and so on.
At this point another suspicion can arise: that the Author’s discourse gets lost in the narration of many “little wars”, of a myriad of circumscribed and sector based dialectics.
However, she avoids also this risk because she collects the narration of the numerous “little wars” in that of one “great war”, of the myriad of dialectics in that of a global dialectic. She can do so thanks to the second main intent by which she is guided in her participation in the studies on Freud consequent to the opening of Freud’s Archives: the political intent to show how psychoanalysis can act in favor of the New Left.
This intent is part of the tradition of a philosophy of history which conceives of history as progress. However, the Author participates in this tradition distinguishing herself from it for two reasons. First, because she does not individuate the agent of that progress in a faith, or in reason, or in the expansion of the market, or in a social class and so on; but in the request of rights, and above all the right to be recognized, by part of a plurality of subjects: the survivors of the Holocaust, the veterans of the Vietnam war, the victims of torture, the colonized peoples, the women, the trans-genders, the homosexuals. Second, because she wants to demonstrate that psychoanalysis is particularly apt to contribute to that progress and how it has come to give that contribution.
According to her, it is particularly apt to give that contribution thanks to the revolutionary potentialities of Freud’s theory. Psychoanalysis came to give that contribution because, in its confrontation with the historical events following the Second World War, a dialectic went on inside it between the interest in the internal world and the interest in the external world; and because this dialectic expressed itself in the specific form of the conflict between the tendency to confine psychoanalysis in its therapeutic role and the opposite tendency to restitute to it a political function and to develop that function.
The Author describes the beginning of the process which arrives at this restitution, its stages and its landing.
She situates its beginning in the «irridescence» (p. 15) and in the «extraordinary plasticity» (p. 220) which she attributes to Freud’s thinking.
She locates its stages in the numerous “little wars” which she narrates. However, she regards as particularly decisive some events which occurred in those stages: the exportation of psychoanalysis in the USA due to the advent of Nazism which obliged many psychoanalysts to escape from Europe and to find refuge overseas; a first «golden age» which psychoanalysis lived thanks to its assumption of an apolitical position; the fact that it was constrained to revise its conception of the exclusively instinctual nature of aggressivity by the traumas which hit the veterans of the Vietnam war and the victims of the Holocaust and of the South American dictatorships; the «explosion of the Oedipus complex» and the consequent revision of the concepts of Self and of desire consequent to the 1972 book by Deleuze and Guattari; the confrontation with the cultures of the colonized peoples in the age of post-colonization, which has rendered indubitable, thanks to the research of Morgenthaler and Parin, the incidence of the social and political condition on the interiority – an incidence which, we must note, was not unknown to psychoanalysts independently from that research as testified, for instance, by the work of Erickson to which the book doesn’t give any space.
According to the Author, the process of restitution of a political value to psychoanalysis landed in the already mentioned 1969 Countercongress (Bolko- Rotschield 2006). She maintains that this event marks the moment in which psychoanalysis, having become apolitical and thus lived a first «golden age» in the USA, returns, in the Europe where it was born, to be political and able to give to the Left a contribution which goes beyond that given to it in the Fifties by Reich and Freudo-marxism (p. 216).
Therefore, a «second golden age» begins. Those who promoted the Countercongress are its protagonists, but two Swiss psychoanalysts, Parin and Morgenthaler, are its «heroes» (p. 207). Not only because their activity in Zurich and their 1963 book The Whites talk too much have been an important point of reference for those protagonists; but also because the success of that book in the Seventies has strongly contributed to give to psychoanalysis the consciousness that «different cultures produce different kinds of selves» (p. 209) and that there is an interrelation «between political conditions and psychic interiority» (p. 214).
The Author dedicates the last part of her book especially to Morgenthaler. She entitles the penultimate section of the last chapter “The Position of the Perversions”. In it, she lingers over a 1974 paper in which Morgenthaler presents «a perversion or a preferred orientation as a Plombe, literally a “filling” (…), something closing and holding together a “terrible gap” within the self», as «a creative solution to a particular difficulty in early development» (p. 200); that is, he recognizes to the perversions, and particularly to homosexuality, the dignity of a symptom. However, she goes beyond: she confers to Morgenthaler the crown of having been the «first European analyst, of any nationality, to declare that homosexuality was not in and of itself pathological» (p. 205), therefore contributing to the overcoming of the homophobia of so many psychoanalysts and not only theirs. Furthermore, she maintains that Morgenthaler’s theory of perversions and of homosexuality has been
«immensely generative» (p. 208). In fact, she suggests that that paper, together with the others in which Morgenthaler has developed his theory, are a kind of “Manifesto” of the New Left because they bring near to the realization of the dream of a sexual liberation which is not simple research of pleasure, but a means «for the total remaking of human nature» (p. 209) according to the ideals of the New Left.
Therefore the Author concludes by coming back to her main interest, the history of sexuality, and maintaining that the actual moment of that history, in which the homophobic prejudice is over and the revolutionary function of the perversions, of the dissolution of the concept of gender and of homosexuality is recognized, implies and allows the renewal of the Left and marks a point of substantial progress in the history of humanity.
In December 2016, Dagmar Herzog held in Bologna, in the context of the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the review Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane, a well-praised relation on “The Christianization and the desexualization of psychoanalysis in the postwar USA”. She anticipated in it her narration, in the first part of her book, of the location of psychoanalysis on a position of neutrality in politics. In that occasion I had the chance to meet her and to talk a little with her enjoying her living presence, her competence and her openness to dialogue. In its course we fleetingly dealt with arguments which were of great interest to me and which seemed to me of great actuality. The idea of this review came to me in that circumstance as a way to render durable the pleasure of that conservation, even if I am afraid that, in rendering it durable, I risk to say things for which I can lose her openness altogether.
She held her talk in Bologna having behind her a giant reproduction of the image, which appears in the first pages of her book (p. 6), of that 1969 Countercongress to which she gives the meaning of what had opened the door of a «second golden age» to psychoanalysis. On that occasion, the journal Psicoterapia e scienze umane published the answers of a meaningful number of psychoanalysts to some questions regarding crucial points of the psychoanalytic theory and technique.
Those answers exhibited an extreme fragmentation of psychoanalytic positions which rendered impossible to establish what the word “psychoanalysis” means today. Listening to Dagmar Herzog speaking with that giant reproduction in the background, I was struck by the evident and strident contrast between the image proposed by her of a psychoanalysis proceeding toward a «second golden age» in which it would give a substantial contribution to the revitalization of the Left and its image resulting from those answers. In the light of this last image, her book seems to acquire the dramatic dignity of those dreams which arrive to us through the ivory door offering to us the hallucinatory satisfaction of some our expectations. A dream, by the way, which also others have had as, for example, demonstrates the credit given by the Left to S. Žižek.
The expectation is the one, paradoxical for a historian, that there is no history, that the fathers are different from what they have been and corresponsive to an ideal of their sons; or that they had already given to their sons what these are not able to find. Its seems that to the Author it is difficult to abandon the expectation that Freud had been different from what he has been. Her attempt to delineate a historical process which, passing through many “little wars”, results in bringing psychoanalysis to revitalize the Left and to inaugurate a golden age of itself and of humanity, is based on the assumption that such a result is potentially present in Freud’s theory. However, that assumption is at least problematic. It is at least problematic to speak of an «irridescence» and of an «extraordinary plasticity» of Freud’s work meaning that it includes revolutionary instances betrayed by his descendants and which must be recuperated thanks to yet another “return to Freud”. That work is effectively full of rethinking and criss-crossed by a melancholic aspiration to go beyond itself (Armando-Bolko 2017), but this doesn’t mean that it has reached this goal. It has effectively revolutionized the way of living and of conceiving sexuality in the West, but this doesn’t mean that it can serve a politics whose objective is the liberation of the subjects. It doesn’t mean either that the revolution produced by it in that way cannot be functional to a “conservative” politics; that is to a politics based on the firm belief that the condition for the survival of civilization relies on keeping the subjects in a condition of terror necessary to repress an inborn destructivity. It is impossible to pretend that The Discontent of Civilization doesn’t exist. Therefore, to attribute to that work an «iridescence» and an «extraordinary plasticity» which implies a “revolutionary” impulse, is the same as to presume to extract blood from turnips and at least problematic.
Problematic are also the third and the fourth chapters where the Author illustrates the complex vicissitudes through which the «irridescence» of Freud’s theory found expression, thanks to Mitscherlich’s use of its concept of aggressivity and of the destructivity of the death instinct, in contributing to bring to consciousness the tragedy of the Holocaust and to explain how it was possible. In fact, it is difficult to maintain that those two concepts can offer that explanation. The title of a paragraph of the fourth chapter says that the aggressivity and the destructivity of that instinct activate «cruelty» (p. 138). However, cruelty is a human feeling since it implies a view of the other; therefore it can’t be employed to explain something which is possible for that absence of any human feeling named by Hanna Arendt «the banality of evil». This «banality» presupposes an invisible violence finding expression in the indifference which is mother to opportunism and precedes aggressivity and destructivity rendering them possible. We detect this indifference also in the book since its Author surprises us by mentioning the tragedy of the survivors of the Holocaust, of the veterans of the Vietnam war and of the victims of torture in Chile and in Argentine, but doesn’t devote a word to tragedies closer to her: those of the genocide of the Australian aborigines and in particular of the American Indians, notwithstanding the pages which she devotes to the Menningers whose work of diffusion of psychoanalysis in the USA has been largely conditioned by the need to remove that tragedy (Roudinesco 1998).
The fifth chapter of the book deals entirely with The Anti-Oedipus and with its two authors, G. Deleuze and F. Guattari, particularly with the last one. It is the only chapter almost entirely devoted to one Author. This exceptionality is due to the fact that Dagmar Herzog confers to Guattari a central role in the actualization of the potentiality to revitalize the Left, which, according to her, is implicit in the
«irridescence» and in the «extraordinary plasticity» of Freud’s work. She maintains that the «explosion of the Oedipus» produced by Guattari, his fragmentation of a Self built on the passing of the Oedipus complex (Freud 1924) and his break of the cage of the destiny in which the desire was imprisoned, are a fundamental theoretical contribution to that actualization.
However, in my opinion, the Anti-Oedipus is a stale work whose thesis have been disavowed by history. Therefore, its exhumation can confer to Cold War Freud a trait of originality and reveal its Author’s courage in putting herself against the current; but it seems that, in order to confer to the book this trait and to give proof of her courage, she has been disposed to sell her soul to the devil. It is really difficult to understand how it is possible to speak of a politics directed to the liberation of the subjects on the basis of a theory which effaces the concept of subject. The «explosion» which Guattari claims to have produced with his book doesn’t regard the Oedipus complex, but the concepts of Self and of desire. The object of desire, if it can be everything, gets drowned in a confusion which renders it not only unrecognizable, but also unthinkable. If, as has been maintained (Volli 2002), that object can be both a woman and a steak, the attempt to think it vanishes in the confusion of absurd equivalencies, in the loss of every value and in the proliferation of rights, not only human, which brings to dissolution the concept of State. Dagmar Herzog doesn’t seem to be aware that her exhumation of Guattari’s work re-actualizes the Myth of Pandora’s box whose opening is augured by those who are motivated by the ideal to preserve civilization founding it on terror (Strauss 1978; Drury 2005). She, a historian, seems to ignore that history teaches that anarchy always opens the door to dictatorship. She exhumes the work of Guattari in spite of this evidence because she finds in it the necessary theoretical and historical premise to the valorization of Morgenthaler’s thought and of his «position of perversions» which gives him the status of the hero of a «second golden age» in which psychoanalysis, having found anew its political vocation, will revitalize the Left.
Apart from the contradiction implicit in the notion of a Left which needs heroes, the thesis according to which that «position» will produce this substantial result must be discussed.
First, it is true that the Author attributes that result to the valorization of a single perversion: homosexuality. However, she disposes too easily of the suspect, of which she is aware, that she attributes that result also to other perversions to which it would be difficult to attribute that result since she herself declares that they are «murderous» (p. 208).
Furthermore, something sounds wrong in what she says with regard to the overcoming of homophobia. That overcoming is surely an important civil acquisition. What must be discussed is the utilization of homophobia to close the research about homosexuality. There is today a “commoditification” of homophobia analogous to that of the Holocaust. For “commoditification” of the Holocaust I mean that it has become the money which permits to brand as a fruit of anti-Semitism the dismay which can be felt seeing a community, which has been shut in a ghetto for centuries, to shut now in a ghetto another community; or which, having been for centuries object of violence, to be now violent toward another. Analogously, “commoditification” of homophobia in the sense that it has become the money which permits to brand as homophobic any hesitation to build a wall on the phenomenon of homosexuality, to stop the research on it sanctifying it, or conceiving it as the expression of an untouchable diversity when not, as in this book, a revolutionary factor.
C. Wright Mills’ 1960 Letter to the New Left is a sort of “Manifesto” of that New Left which Dagmar Herzog wants to invigorate. According to him, what a Left, orphan of Marx, needed to survive and progress was the identification of the agent of history in a moment in which that agent could still not be identified in a social class. To face this really difficult task maintaining that that agent has been at last identified with homosexuality, can be in fashion and politically correct, but sounds really inadequate and, moreover, very risky. It is true that homophobia must not be admitted; but it is also true that it is insipid to make of homosexuality a free zone, to remove the research on it and to demonize those psychoanalysts who have advanced, and continue to advance, questions on it without being for this reason homophobic. Furthermore and above all, it is true that there have been and can continue to be homosexuals who have given much to humanity; but it is impossible to ignore the role which homosexuality, often masked as male chauvinism, has had in Nazism (for instance in Röhm and in the ideology of the SA), in Fascism and in American Neo-conservatism (for instance in Allan Bloom).
Finally, the most problematic aspect of the book is its assumption, which assures to it meaning and unity, of the existence of a «war», that is of a dialectic, whose two main poles would be the entrenchment of psychoanalysis on political neutrality and its political vocation consonant with the ideals of the Left. Such a war, such a dialectic, doesn’t exist because, as the pages of the book dedicated to the reflections of Rangell on the 1969 Countercongress (pp. 212-214) show, that entrenchment expresses a conservative ideology and it is functional to a politics coherent with it; but also because the theory of the author of Civilization and Its Discontent, free of the «irridescence» and of the «extraordinary plasticity» generously attributed to it by Dagmar Herzog, participates in that politics and orients it. The war, the dialectic, which constitutes the logical framework of the book, pertains to the «imagination of the thing», not to «its reality» and is nothing more than a false antinomy.
In a 2012 paper, published in “Mondo operaio” and significantly entitled The march toward nothingness, A. Benzoni and L. Capogrossi have reminded how, after the First World War, the Italian Left was able to stand the impact of the form assumed in those years by the conservative ideology bringing the fight against it onto the field of cultural action. Thanks to Gramsci, that Left produced a capillary critique of that ideology and operated to render the subjects of the working class conscious of Marxist principles and sharing in them in order to liberate their minds from the crippling incrustations of that ideology.
After the Second World War, the Italian Left has been defeated by another form of conservative ideology and by the apparition of subjects who brought exigencies differing from those of the subjects of the working class. In this context, that Left should have followed the same path followed by the Italian Left after the First World War. However, at this purpose it was no longer sufficient to make reference to the theory of Marx. That Left should have produced an anthropology, lacking in Marx, opposite to that which sustained the conservative ideology and which was founded on the assumption that only terror can assure civil coexistence. However, that Left dismissed this task.
The two Authors mention many reasons of this dismissal, in particular the choice of the Italian Left «to converge in indistinct coalitions» (p. 15) and to reserve to itself a space in the new historical and political situation raising the «moral issue» and therefore transforming the party of the working class into the «party of the honest» entrenched in the gratuitous presumption of their superiority.
The reading of Cold War Freud can suggest to add another reason to those mentioned by them. We can think of a “laziness” of the intellectuals of the Italian Left. They believed they found that anthropology ready-made where it was not, that is in the psychoanalysis of Freud, maybe filtered through Freudo-Marxism; and it is difficult to count how many of them lay down on the couch of the psychoanalyst to appropriate that anthropology. Therefore, for the same fact to exist, that psychoanalysis, offering itself to satisfy that laziness, has constituted one of the main obstacles to renew the project of Gramsci, which returned with C. Wright Mills, to formulate a critique of the conservative ideology without avoiding the task of opposing to it an anthropology different from that which sustained it.
Gramsci made reference to Machiavelli’s thought to sustain his project to fight against that ideology on the field of cultural action. This reference suggests that what happened to those intellectuals was what Machiavelli prophesized would have happened to the princes who committed the defense of their States to «improper weapons», to mercenary armies: that is, to unconsciously commit their own survival to something which would ruin them; or, using the expression of the title of the paper quoted above, to proceed in their march toward nothingness.
Dagmar Herzog’s book can be of interest to psychoanalysts. However, it is not only a book on psychoanalysis. It is also, and above all, a book on politics. As such, it is undoubtedly interesting in so much as it shows that the tragedy of that «march» and the phenomenon of that “laziness”, which are particularly evident in the case of the Italian Left, also regards the Left in the entire West. In particular, we must recognize the courage that she has had in participating with all herself to that tragedy and in representing it to us: in doing so she has, if unwillingly, contributed to open to the Left the path toward a critical reflection on itself and to strive for a difficult and non probable new beginning.
Arendt H. (1963) Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Viking Press.
Armando L.A. & Bolko M. (2017) L’insoddisfazione di Freud per L’interpretazione dei sogni, in
Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane 51 (3): 375-382).
Benzoni A. & Capogrossi L. (2012) La marcia verso il nulla, in Mondoperaio, 9: 12-18 (www.mondoperaio.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/mondoperaio-09-2012.pdf).
Bloom A. (1897) The Closing of American Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Bolko M. & Rothschild B. (2006) A “flea in one’s ear”. An account of the Counter-Congress of the International Psychoanalytic Association of 1969 in Rome, in Trauma and Memory, 2015, 3, 1: 13-26. (Internet: www.eupsycho.com/index.php/TM/article/view/38).
Deleuze G. & Guattari F. (1972) L’Anti-Oedipe. Capitalisme et schizophrénie. Paris: Minuit.
Drury S. (2005) The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss. Updated Edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Freud S. (1924) Der Untergang des Ödipuscomplexes. G. W., 13. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer.
Freud S. (1929 ) Das Unbehagen in der Kultur. G. W., 14. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer.
Parin P., Morgenthaler F. & Parin-Matthèy G. (1963) Die Weissen denken zuviel. Psychoanalytische Untersuchungen bei den Dogon in Westafrika . Zürich: Atlantis Verlag.
Redazione di Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane (2016) “Cosa resta della psicoanalisi”, in
Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane, L, 3.
Roudinesco E. (1998). La psicoterapia di un indiano delle pianure. George Devereux, in Beneduce R., Pulman B. & Roudinesco E. Etnopsicoanalisi. Temi e protagonisti di un dialogo incompleto. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri, 2005.
Strauss L. (1978) Thoughts on Machiavelli. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Volli U. (2002) Figure del desiderio. Milano: Feltrinelli.
Wright Mills C. (1960) Letter to the New Left , in The New Left Review, 5: 18-23 (www.marxists.org/subject/humanism/mills-c-wright/letter-new-left.htm).
20 November, 2017