Abstract
In exploring egregious behavior on the part of psychoanalysts, this article attempts to redefine the traditionally ecclesiastical, moralistic notion of evil. Referencing the “Nazification” of the famed Berlin Institute, the vociferous “controversial discussions” at the British Psychoanalytic Society during the London Blitz, and more recent events involving psychologists condoning torture, the author considers evil as a universal potential in context, rather than a fixed social or psychiatric aberration. As such, the dynamic stance of participant observation is put forth as a safeguard against the analyst's loss of self-reflexivity.
Notes
1 The philosopher Immanuel Kant puts forth a much earlier (Citation1785) nonecclesiastical notion of evil, based on his view of humans as radically free, with a propensity towards both good and evil, faced with a choice. Brandell (Citation1979) and Makari (Citation2008) have made note of Kant's influence on Freud's model of mind.
2 According to Regine Lockot, Mueller-Braunschweig had many conflicts with Abraham, and the analysis did not go well.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Emily A. Kuriloff
Emily A. Kuriloff, Psy.D. is training and supervising psychoanalyst at the William Alanson White Institute in New York, where she is on faculty, and is also director of clinical education. Dr. Kuriloff has also taught at the Institute for Psychoanalytic Study of Subjectivity, The Institute for Contemporary Psychotherapy, and currently at the Institute for Psychoanalytic Education. The former book review editor of Contemporary Psychoanalysis, she has written numerous articles and book chapters concerning the history of psychoanalytic theory and praxis, and the nature of therapeutic action. Kuriloff is most recently the author of Contemporary Psychoanalysis and the Legacy of The Third Reich: History, Memory, Tradition (Routledge, 2014).