Horney psychology of women. Women's psychology. Karen Horney's views on female psychology

Current page: 1 (book has 5 pages in total)

Karen Horney
Psychology of women

Preface

Increasing dissatisfaction with the classical Freudian theory eventually led to the fact that in the mid-30s a new direction began to emerge in psychoanalysis, whose representatives focused their main attention on the cultural and social conditions that determine the formation of a person’s personality, his behavior and internal conflicts. This direction was called “neo-Freudianism,” one of the most prominent figures of which, along with Erich Fromm and Harry Stack Sullivan, is undoubtedly Karen Horney, a brilliant critic of Freud and the author of her own original theory, which had a significant influence on the further development of psychoanalysis.

Karen Horney was born on September 16, 1885 in Hamburg in the family of Norwegian navy captain Berndt Danielsen, who later adopted German citizenship. He was a God-fearing, strict and stingy man, who, due to his profession, was rarely at home. Undoubtedly, Karen had a greater influence on her mother, Clotilde Ronzelen, a Dutch woman who was seventeen years younger than her husband and, on the contrary, was distinguished by free-thinking, which she managed to instill in her daughter.

Before graduating from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Berlin, Karen Horney studied at the universities of Freiburg and Göttingen. After completing her studies, she worked for several years in a psychiatric clinic. While still a student, largely under the influence of the lectures of Karl Abraham, who became, in fact, her first teacher, her interest in psychoanalysis arose, which became her life’s work.

Horney was one of the first members of the Berlin Psychoanalytic Association, and in 1920, when Max Eitingon founded the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute, one of its first employees. Horney's colleagues included such eminent analysts as Karl Abraham and Hans Sachs, from whom she received training analysis. But still, by Horney’s own admission, the formation of her views was particularly influenced by Harald Schulz-Henke and Wilhelm Reich: Schulz-Henke - with his works on intentionality and actual conflict situations, Reich - with his ideas about defensive tendencies of character. Without a doubt, Horney's theory was also influenced by the individual psychology of Alfred Adler.

In the initial period of her activity, which lasted more than fifteen years, Horney, despite criticizing a number of Freud's positions, was still an adherent of classical, orthodox psychoanalysis. The turning point in her life was the move in 1932 from Berlin to Chicago, where she was invited as the second director of the newly created Chicago Psychoanalytic Institute by Franz Alexander. This collaboration did not last long, however, and already in 1934 Horney moved to New York.

After arriving in the United States, she spent about seven years developing her own theory. Many of its formulations reflected the social and cultural trends of the 30s and 40s in the United States, and the liberal democratic spirit that reigned in the country. She categorically protested against fundamental Freudian pessimism and constantly emphasized the inherent human potential for development and growth. Freudian biological determinism was also a target of her criticism, since she saw in it an underestimation of the socially determined aspects of neuroses. Horney gained numerous supporters among social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists. Her books, written in easy language and understandable even to non-specialists, were extremely popular - perhaps also because they were perceived as an alternative to Freud's pessimistic views of man and his therapeutic skepticism.

On the other hand, it was for her views and apostasy from orthodox psychoanalysis that Horney was attacked by her American colleagues and was expelled from the American Psychoanalytic Association in 1941. After this, Horney created the alternative Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis, in which she actively worked throughout the last years of her life. Karen Horney died in New York on December 4, 1952.

Karen Horney's ideas went through several stages in their development, each of which made a significant contribution to the development of analytical theory. If her early scientific works allow us to speak of her as the founder, along with Helen Deutsch, of the science of female psychology, then in subsequent works she appears as a prominent representative of the culturalist trend in psychoanalysis and the author of one of the most developed concepts of neurotic conflict and psychological defenses.

In the 1920s and early 1930s, while still teaching orthodox theory at the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute, Horney began to disagree with Freud on a number of fundamental issues in her views on the psychology of women and tried to change psychoanalytic theory from within, criticizing Freud's idea of the psychological consequences of anatomical differences between the sexes. Already in her first articles, Horney sought to show that a woman has only her own biological constitution and developmental characteristics, which cannot be considered from a male perspective as some kind of inferiority. She tried to justify exclusively female psychological problems as a result of the subordinate position of women in a modern “masculine” society, the product of which is the purely male idea of \u200b\u200bwomen in psychoanalysis: “Psychoanalysis is the creation of a male genius, and almost everyone who developed his ideas were also men . It is quite natural and logical that it was much easier for them to study male psychology and that the development of men was more understandable to them than the development of women.” Based on this, she asks an unexpected question: why does a man strive to see a woman in exactly this light - and comes to the conclusion that due to the relatively small role of a man in procreation, he experiences unconscious envy of a woman and hence the desire to devalue a woman, and this envy , judging by the intensity of the discrediting tendency, men have much stronger female “penis envy.”

She explained such a male view of a woman by the need of the dominant party in society to create an ideology necessary to ensure its dominant position, seeing in a woman a source of threat to male pride. This fear, stemming from the boy’s awareness of his own inferiority, prompts the adult man to highlight the ideal of creativity, achieve sexual “victories,” or humiliate the object of his love as compensation. And vice versa, from childhood a woman does not need to prove her worth as a woman, and therefore she does not have such a narcissistic fear of a man.

However, Horney believed that many women are characterized by envy of men and dissatisfaction with their female role, which leads to the formation of a “masculinity complex.” At first she believed that this complex was inevitable, since it was through it that a woman was able to cope with the feelings of guilt and anxiety that arose as a result of the Oedipal situation. Later, however, Horney viewed it as a consequence of the predominant position of men in modern society and the influence of the social environment.

Horney also criticizes the psychoanalytic theory of the primordial masochistic role of women, showing that such a concept only reflects stereotypes of male culture, and reveals the social conditions leading to the formation of masochistic tendencies in women.

It should be noted, however, that although Horney devoted a significant part of her professional life to the problems of female psychology, she limited herself to only small essays and did not write any major works in this area. And only thanks in large part to Harold Kelman, who prepared and published a collection of her articles in 1967 under the general title “Psychology of Women,” we now have the opportunity to appreciate the contribution that Horney made to the theory of female psychoanalysis. In all these early works we find a curious mixture of ideas from classical Freudian psychoanalysis about the Oedipus complex, libido, penis envy, regression, etc., and our own ideas about the role of culture in the formation of human personality. And at the same time, we see how the emphasis in her works increasingly shifted towards the latter factors. A completely logical result of this development was Horney’s departure from orthodox psychoanalysis and the development of his own theory.

In 1935, she left the field of women's psychology, considering the role of culture equally important in shaping the psyche of women and men. In a lecture entitled "Woman's Fear of Action," Horney expressed the idea that the goal of psychoanalytic therapy should be to promote "the full and complete development of the personality of each individual."

In 1937, the book “The Neurotic Personality of Our Time” was published, which marked the transition to sharp opposition to Freudian theories. In New Paths in Psychoanalysis (1939), she further distanced herself from Freud, rejecting his thesis that the origin of neuroses depended on instinctual and genetic components, and criticizing Freud's theory of libido, the concepts of anxiety and narcissism. In 1942, Horney published Self-Analysis as a platform for his theoretical views. This book was the first guide to self-analysis, which was supposed to help people overcome their own problems. His last two works, “Our Internal Conflicts” (1945) and “Neurosis and personal growth"(1950) Karen Horney had already moved so far away from the basic Freudian concepts that any comparison of their theories was now out of the question.

In his works, Horney rejects the Freudian idea of biological determinism and defends the ontological position of “here and now”. If Freud was primarily concerned with the development of neurosis, then Horney was concerned with its structure. For her, the forces that determine a person’s psychological situation lie in his present being, that is, in the personal and social circumstances at a given time. The neurotic tendencies of an individual are, accordingly, not the result of innate physiological and biological conditions, but a consequence of important interpersonal events. Horney was primarily interested in the question of how these tendencies are realized here and now, what functions they serve and how they are supported. Although she also attached a certain importance to the constitutional and hereditary components, she essentially defended the idea of the dominance of acquired behavior compared to innate behavior. She was firmly convinced that a person, while he is alive, is capable of change and that education for the development of an individual is much more important than his natural predisposition. In this, her approach differed strikingly from classical psychoanalysis and could not but arouse criticism from orthodox analysts.

Another point of divergence between Horney and Freud was the idea of the inner core of personality. In The Malaise of Culture, Freud pessimistically argued that the inner core of man is a destructive force covered only by a thin layer of civilization. Horney opposes this fatalistic position, believing that all people contain within themselves a constructive core that strives for self-realization. Karen Horney's theorizing is based on the deep belief that human potential, despite suppression by family, society and culture, is capable of liberation.

This idea is reminiscent of the concept of intentionality of the existentialists or Hartmann's idea of the conflict-free sphere of J. Schulz-Henke speaks in this regard about active, as opposed to reactive, components of personality, which from early childhood seek opportunities for expression. Horney firmly believed in a healthy core of human personality, capable of withstanding a hostile and manipulative outside world, and therefore for her neurosis was a special form of self-denial and alienation. But even in this case, human potential remains intact and capable of implementation.

In his works, Horney talks about the deep helplessness of a small child who enters life completely defenseless. This existential deficiency is expressed in feelings of anxiety, abandonment and isolation, as well as an extreme need for warmth and affection. The behavior of others, primarily the family, determines how the child will develop: whether he will remain healthy or turn into a neurotic.

Essentially, Horney considers two paths of development, one of which leads to health, and the other to neurosis. In one case, parents contribute to the child’s self-realization, in another case, when the parents’ neurosis does not allow them to treat the child with warmth and love, he develops extremely painful feelings of anxiety and self-doubt. To cope with these feelings, the child is forced to arm himself with a number of strategic defenses. Neurotic defense mechanisms serve primarily to avoid any direct confrontation with basic anxiety. Because of this, the child's feelings and behavior are no longer an expression of himself, but are dictated by defense strategies that ultimately lead the person into conflict with himself and his environment, as he is unable to either address his God-given capabilities or integrate constructively. way into the world of people. According to Horney, this general process is carried out entirely unconsciously. To resolve conflict, she believes that it is not so much the reliving of these early experiences that is important, but rather the cognitive and intellectual awareness of current ways of responding and the anxiety that underlies them. Otherwise, defense mechanisms become part of what Horney calls a “vicious circle,” where the failure of a defense attitude leads to an increase in anxiety and, accordingly, an increase in defensive tendencies. Ultimately, defense mechanisms permeate the entire personality and lead to the formation of not only individual, isolated neurotic attitudes, but also a neurotic life position as a whole. In other words, this means that the neurotic attempt to alleviate fear not only fails, but also causes new hostility and new anxiety.

Trying to cope with anxiety, a person develops several opposing defensive strategies at once. In this case, we are not talking about a simple polarity of feelings, but a simultaneous need, for example, for submission, aggression and avoidance. As a result, a person finds himself at the mercy of insoluble conflicts, which are often the dynamic center of neurosis. A person caught in this network of neurotic behavior is forced to turn to standard strategies of interpersonal relationships, manifested in an orientation toward people, against people, or away from people. Horney names these strategies differently: in “Our Inner Conflicts” she introduces the concepts of acquiescence, aggression and withdrawal, while in “Neurosis and Personal Growth” she talks about humility, expansion and isolation; however, both sets of terms are interchangeable. The first type of behavior is characterized by submission and dependence, the second by the predominance of antagonistic attitudes, the third by mechanisms of avoidance and isolation. Within these three types of behavior, a neurotic person gives preference to one or another strategy, which subsequently becomes typical for his entire personality, and the choice of strategy is usually determined not so much by the person himself as by the reactions of his environment. Other tendencies do not disappear once and for all, but continue to exist in the unconscious, manifesting themselves in a veiled form.

Within the typical modes of behavior described above, according to Horney, four main forms can be distinguished: 1) the dominance of a neurotic tendency, when all other tendencies are suppressed, ignored or denied; 2) an obsessive need for emotional and spatial distance from the environment, which Horney calls separation. This attitude isolates the person both from himself and from others and ultimately leads to frustration from within; 3) externalization, which is a projective process in which rejection, frustration and other internal problems are perceived as caused from the outside, and 4) focus on an “idealized self-image.” Let's look at this last installation in more detail.

One of Karen Horney's main innovations, without a doubt, was her concept of the idealized self. In doing so, she moved away from the Freudian division into ego, superego and id and primarily concentrated her attention on the phenomenon of self-image. The idealized self corresponds in many ways to an image that rather reflects certain social ambitions, an imposed value system of the social order, alienating the individual from his internal aspirations, and impeding the process of self-realization.

The process of self-idealization is directly related to interpersonal defense strategies, which determine the set of qualities that a neurotic ascribes to himself in accordance with his ideal: altruism, generosity, compliance, nobility, compassion - in a person of a humble type; extraordinary intelligence, perseverance, realism, energy, infallibility and justice - in a person of the expansive type, and self-sufficiency, independence, freedom from passions and desires - in the isolated type. Driven by an idealized image of the Self, the neurotic sets off “in pursuit of glory”; his energy necessary for self-realization is diverted to another goal - to make the idealized Self actual. It is this goal that makes his life filled with meaning. The pursuit of fame turns into a “personal religion”, the content of which is determined by the neurotic attitudes of the individual himself and the value systems existing in society. But in this pursuit of glory, the neurotic never achieves the much-desired peace and sense of self-superiority. Moreover, constant failures to achieve this goal lead to the growth of the image of the “despicable self,” which becomes the target of self-criticism.

According to Horney, the ability to overcome such misconceptions lies in a person's ability to establish sincere and trusting relationships with others in which both parties can communicate freely. Thanks to such experience, the field of vision expands and thereby increases the chances of a more realistic self-esteem. In formulating his therapeutic goals, Horney emphasizes the development of qualities such as a sense of responsibility, spontaneity, self-confidence and sincerity. By a sense of responsibility, she understands the ability to make decisions without outside help and act based on one’s own convictions, that is, the opposite of a feeling of helplessness. Spontaneity involves more open emotional behavior. This includes the entire spectrum of feelings from deep depression to elation, from negative experiences to positive ones, from the most intimate feelings to complete trust. Only such emotional spontaneity ensures satisfying friendships and love relationships. By self-confidence we mean a certain clarity regarding one’s own value system and one’s priorities. This also includes respect for the values of other people and the ability to take others into account in everyday life. Honesty means the ability to reach your conclusions with the greatest objectivity and impartiality.

Karen Horney's system is not without its shortcomings, which have been justly criticized more than once. It is sometimes compared to an artist’s canvas, painted with broad strokes, but in which the details are not drawn. Thus, while speaking generally correctly about the role of the family as the first social environment in the formation of a healthy or neurotic personality, she leaves out such important factors in the formation of neurosis as the dynamics of family relationships, the child’s position in the family hierarchy, the type of relationship between parents, attitudes among brothers and sisters, etc.

Horney's assertion that a child's neurotic development is almost entirely determined by how neurotic his parents are was also seriously criticized; it did not find empirical confirmation. Conversely, there is also no reliable evidence that the love of parents - even if they are free from neurotic problems - is a guarantee against neurosis.

Whether a child develops neurotically or not depends on many factors, and many blame Horney for avoiding this problem. In addition, she completely ignored the biological side, which, of course, every person has. Horney correctly believes that education is more important for the development and maintenance of neurosis than nature. But this does not mean that the role of nature should be denied altogether. Another shortcoming of her theory is that she did not try to identify the principle of revealing the inherent abilities of a person in appropriate favorable conditions.

In her work, Horney emphasized social and cultural factors in the development of neuroses and emphasized that aspects of adaptation play a more important role in neurotic behavior than the underlying drives. However, Horney did not make full use of sociological and anthropological data. Everything she says on this subject seems superficial and lacks an attempt to establish any general connections. At the same time, greater attention to interdisciplinary issues would significantly enrich her theories and give them a more solid basis.

And yet, despite all these shortcomings, many of Horney's views have lasting value. In many areas of psychoanalytic research, she was the first to address emotional components that had not been taken into account before her: feelings of hopelessness, helplessness and hopelessness, the contradiction between the high assessment of social success, on the one hand, and the Christian principles of love for one's neighbor and the desire of everyone for love and affection - on the other hand, it also showed how important the need for confidence and self-esteem is in a person’s life. Of course, her sharp criticism of Freudian pansexualism could not but remain without consequences.

Horney's books are replete with beautiful and vivid depictions of typical human internal conflicts, and her typology of characters is a masterfully executed description of people with whom not only clinicians and psychotherapists, but, perhaps, all of us encounter almost every day in our everyday lives.

There is one more point on which everyone, including even her most severe critics, is unanimous - this is Horney’s requirement to consider a person in the context of his real life circumstances, and not theoretical abstractions. The importance of this requirement cannot be overestimated, especially since, in the words of Franz Alexander, there is always a temptation “to replace the actual observation and understanding of a real person with much less restless theoretical calculations.”

A. M. Bokovikov

M. Reshetnikov. Bringing back forgotten names.

On the origin of the castration complex in women…………6

A departure from femininity. The masculinity complex in women through the eyes

Forbidden femininity. Psychoanalysis on the problem of frigidity

The problem of the monogamous ideal………………………..54

Premenstrual tension……………………….68

Mistrust between the sexes…………………………….76

Fear of a woman. Comparison of the specific fears of women and men

ranks in relation to the opposite sex…………..101

Vagina denial. Reflections on the problem of genital trauma

Vogue specific for women………………………115

Psychogenetic factors of functional female disorders

Maternal conflicts…………………………….142

Revaluation of love. About the widespread feminine type in our time

The problem of female masochism……………………….180

Personality changes in teenage girls…………….198

Neurotic need for love………………….209

RETURNING FORGOTTEN NAMES

Karen Horney (1885-1952) belongs to the galaxy of outstanding figures in world psychoanalysis and, along with Helen Deitch, is the generally recognized founder of the science of female psychology. For obvious reasons, the works of these authors are generally unknown to the domestic reader, including specialists - psychologists and doctors, who, like all of us, until recently lived in a genderless society of “comrades” and “comrades”, where out of the three main spheres of personal self-realization (labor, communication and sex) the second was significantly limited by ideology, and the third, as a social and scientific category, was actually prohibited, and therefore reduced to a primitive physiological act. I will allow myself to suggest that it was the absence of scientifically based views on gender-role and psychosexual differentiation of personality in early childhood, the desexualization of school and family education and, as a consequence, the creation of an entire generation of citizens of an indeterminate gender, which not least led to the moral degradation of the family and society as a whole, which we are now witnessing. It’s hard to believe, but today our Institute is the only one in the entire territory of the former USSR where a course in women’s psychology is taught. There is a psychology of personality (also asexual), crime, trade, political struggle, etc., but there is no psychology of women, although, I hope, we still have more women than, for example, criminals and political figures. And only now are we returning again to the almost completely forgotten understanding that the world does not consist of classes and estates, not of rich and poor, not of superiors and subordinates, who are always secondary, but of men and women. The credit for the scientific formulation of this problem largely belongs to Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and his follower Karen Horney (who did not entirely agree with her teacher). Karen Horney was born in Hamburg into a Protestant family. Her father, Berndt Danielsen, was a captain in the Norwegian navy and a deeply religious man. Karen's mother, Clotilde Ronzelen, of Danish origin, on the contrary, was distinguished by her free-thinking, which her daughter, of course, inherited. In her youth, Karen happened to accompany her father on long sea voyages, where she acquired a passion for travel and distant countries. Her decision to enter medicine - an unusual choice for a woman in the early twentieth century - was influenced by her mother. After graduating from the University of Berlin (1913) as the best student in the group, Horney specialized in psychiatry and psychoanalysis. At twenty-four she married Berlin lawyer Oskar Horney. Having lived with her husband for twenty-eight years and raised three daughters, in 1937, due to differences in interests, Karen divorced her husband, and from that time on she devoted herself entirely to the psychoanalytic movement. An undeniably talented physician and researcher, Horney became a doctor of medicine at age twenty-eight, and by thirty she was already one of the recognized teachers at the newly opened Berlin Institute of Psychoanalysis. Already one of her first articles, “On the origin of the castration complex in women,” brought her European fame. K. Horney underwent personal analysis from Hans Sachs, one of Z. Freud’s closest associates and the founder of the first Psychoanalytic Committee (1913), and she received the qualifications of a training analyst from Karl Abraham, whom Z. Freud considered his most capable student. Training with such faithful followers of Freud, it would seem, should have contributed to unconditional adherence to the ideas of classical psychoanalysis. However, Horney, almost from her first works, began to actively polemicize with the creator of psychoanalytic theory, and it must be admitted that in a number of cases this polemic was quite productive. The reason for this unexpected “confrontation” is most clearly revealed by Horney herself. In 1926, in her work “The Escape from Femininity,” she wrote: “Psychoanalysis is the creation of a male genius, and almost all who developed his ideas were also men. It is natural and natural that they were focused on studying the essence of male psychology and understood more about the development of men than women.” It is difficult to disagree with this reproach, as well as with the fact that only a differentiated approach to male and female psychology opens the way to the development of a philosophy of an integral personality. Holism or the “philosophy of integrity,” which unites the objective and the subjective, the material and the ideal, formed the basis of all Horney’s conceptual approaches. A significant role in the life of Karen Horney was played by Franz Alexander, who, having declared his departure from psychoanalysis and leaving Berlin because of this, in fact, talentedly implicated analytical approaches in American social psychology. In many ways, K. Horney followed a similar path to the creation of the science of female psychology. It was F. Alexander who invited Karen Horney to Chicago in 1932 as deputy director of the Chicago Psychoanalytic Institute. This was already the second psychoanalytic institute in the USA. The first one was opened in 1930 in New York. To guide it, Dr. Sandor Rado (1890-1972) was invited from Berlin, who brought with him the spirit of orthodoxy and tradition that existed at the Berlin Institute of Psychoanalysis. F. Alexander had broader views and largely contributed to overcoming the isolation of psychoanalysis and its arrival at universities and colleges in the United States. After working together for about two years, Alexander and Horney admitted that their further collaboration was impossible, as each had their own path. K. Horney leaves for New York, where in 1941 he organizes the American Institute of Psychoanalysis, and later becomes the founding editor of the American Psychoanalytic Journal. She owns dozens of studies, articles and books, among which the most famous are “The Neurotic Personality of Our Time” and “Women’s Psychology”, which will form the first two books of the “Library of Psychoanalytic Literature” series we publish. I have already spoken about the reason for such a long journey to the Russian reader, but here I consider it appropriate to note that the Russian Psychoanalytic Institute was created twenty years earlier than the American one, but by the time when these books appeared, both the Institute and the publication of Psychological and Psychoanalytic the libraries edited by the director of the Institute, Professor I.D. Ermakov, had already been liquidated, naturally, as a “stronghold of bourgeois ideology,” and many outstanding, internationally recognized academic scientists were repressed, including physically destroyed. In 1942, Professor Ivan Dmitrievich Ermakov, undoubtedly a talented clinician, scientist and organizer, whose services to Russian science and culture have not yet received due appreciation, also died in Butyrka prison. The re-opening of our Institute, the resumption of systematic training of analytical specialists, research and publishing activities became possible only in 1991. I will not follow the fairly widespread tradition and retell the contents of specific chapters in the introduction, much less evaluate them, leaving this to the reader. Although, I must admit, I do not agree with the author on everything. But I think it would be dishonest to enter into a polemic with him: the book was written too long ago, and during that time too much has changed in ourselves, in culture, and in psychoanalysis. At first I made quite a lot of footnotes, but then, realizing that it was impossible to put all the basics of psychoanalytic knowledge into notes, I abandoned unnecessary comments, focusing exclusively on trying to preserve the originality of the author’s language and searching for adequate Russian equivalents. Here, after completing work on the Russian text of the book, I would like to make just one more, but, as it seems to me, extremely important note. When starting to read the book, you must constantly remember that, just like Freud, when presenting psychopathological complexes, describing states and drives that do not yet have definite linguistic equivalents, the author quite often resorts to metaphor. I will now try to explain and illustrate this again. When you say to your interlocutor: “And then I just exploded,” it would not occur to any normal person to identify what was said with a real physical process. In the same way, psychoanalytic terms in the vast majority of cases cannot be directly correlated with the everyday meanings of the words or combinations that form them, but only generally and conventionally characterize those “somatic experiences”, the mental equivalents of which are extremely diverse. The perception of the Oedipus complex only as an incestuous desire is the lot of wild psychoanalysis and would-be analysts. And here I would like to emphasize once again that half-understood ideas of psychoanalysis are much more dangerous than complete misunderstanding. A lot of people were involved in the work on this book - artists, proofreaders, editors, typesetters and printers, each of whom deserves gratitude. But I would like to express my special gratitude to the translator - a student of our Institute, Elena Ivanovna Zamfir, who not only took upon herself the work of preparing the Russian version of the book (initially as a course work), but also really contributed to its publication, showing sincere interest and perseverance and enviable patience in contacts with scientific editors. I also hope that the publication of this book will give additional impetus not only to new approaches to the treatment of functional disorders, but will actually contribute to the formation of a new self-awareness of the modern Russian woman. This book, called by the author “Women’s Psychology,” is, of course, about men too. And I am sure that reading it will not go unnoticed by both sexes, and, therefore, will allow them to better understand each other or, rather, take at least another half step towards the unattainable ideal of mutual understanding.

Horney Karen. Books online

Karen Horney (1885 1952) is known not only as a prominent representative of neo-Freudianism (a movement that arose as a result of increasing dissatisfaction with orthodox psychoanalysis), but also as the author of her own original theory, as well as one of the key figures in the field of women's psychology.

She is the only female psychologist whose name is listed among the founders of the psychological theory of personality.

Karen Horney became the first woman in Germany to be allowed to study medicine. She ended her career by founding the American Institute of Psychoanalysis.

This book is about conflicts that are inherent to most of us to one degree or another. “From time to time, our desires, interests, and beliefs necessarily collide with the interests, desires, and beliefs of other people.

And just as such conflicts between ourselves and the environment are ubiquitous, so conflicts within ourselves are an integral part of human life,” writes Horney.

The last and most famous book of the outstanding psychoanalyst is devoted to the study of internal problems and personality conflicts. Summarizing his many years of clinical experience, the author formulates ideas about neurosis as a specific adaptation option that competes with the spiritual development of personality.

The book is accessible not only to professionals, but also to a wide range of readers who can not only recognize themselves in them and see their own problems, but also ways to overcome them.

K. Horney's works are written in a very clear and simple language and therefore are quite accessible even to an untrained reader.

The reason for rethinking Freud's theory in the part that inevitably explained the nature of neuroses by the action of only instinctive and genetic factors was, as K. Horney herself admitted, her dissatisfaction with the therapeutic results during the period of fifteen years of medical practice.

Analysis of the reasons for these failures forced us to take a fresh look at the problems of patients, first to assume, and then to become firmly established in the idea that the environment and living conditions can not only modify, but also shape character and provoke the development of neurotic conflicts.

For psychologists, psychotherapists, social workers, teachers and anyone interested in psychology and personality development.

Reader comments

Nothing can save me, but thanks to Horney, I found out what I was dying from.

Karen Horney is the guardian angel and patroness of all neurotics, her works are a guiding light for them.

It was her books that helped me understand the very vicious circles and mechanisms that triggered this process. I am forever grateful to Karen Horney. For several years after many years of torment and torment, I have been living a happy and fulfilling life. She truly is a genius!

Lecture 23. Sociocultural theory of personality by K. Horney.

Neurotic needs and orientations.

Karen Horney (1885 - 1952), an outstanding female psychoanalyst, went down in the history of psychology as the author of an original theory of personality, in which she analyzes the sociocultural factors that determine child development. Like W. Reich, Horney largely diverged from the point of view of orthodox psychoanalysis on the problems of human mental development; Like Reich, she was condemned by the psychoanalytic community for her differences (disqualified as an instructor in psychoanalysis in 1941). The disqualification did not prevent Horney from further developing his theory. She founded the American Institute of Psychoanalysis and served as its first dean until her death.

Several basic provisions can be identified that are the basis of the sociocultural theory of K. Horney. Firstly, she rejected S. Freud’s ideas regarding the psychology of women, especially his assertion that the leading factor in female psychological development is penis envy. Secondly, her communication with a number of outstanding psychologists and anthropologists (E. Fromm, M. Mead, G.S. Sullivan) led her to the idea that sociocultural conditions have a profound impact on the development and functioning of the individual. Clinical observations of patients she treated in Europe and America showed significant differences in their personality dynamics, which confirmed the influence of cultural factors on personality development. These observations led her to the conclusion that unique interpersonal styles underlie personality disorders.

Personal development. K. Horney supported Freud's basic ideas regarding the decisive role of childhood experiences in the formation of the structure and functioning of the adult personality. However, their opinions differed regarding the specifics of personality formation. Horney did not accept Freud's assertion that there are universal psychosexual stages and that a child's sexuality dictates a particular direction for further personality development. According to her beliefs, the decisive factor in personality development is the social relationship between the child and his parents.

According to Horney, a child has two basic needs: the need for satisfaction and the need for security. Satisfaction implies all biological needs: food, sleep, etc. Horney recognized that the satisfaction of this basic need plays an important role in ensuring the physical survival of the child; however, she believed that another basic need, security, plays a leading role in the formation of personality. The need for security involves the desire to be loved, desired and protected from the dangers of the outside world. In satisfying this need (as well as in satisfying the first basic need), the child is completely dependent on the parents. If parents show true love and warmth in their relationship with their child, then they satisfy his need for security. This contributes to the formation of a healthy personality. On the contrary, if the parents’ behavior does not contribute to satisfying the need for security, pathological personality development is possible.

Failure to satisfy the need for security leads to the child developing feelings of resentment and anger towards his parents (basal hostility). This feeling comes into conflict with the child's dependence on his parents. As a result of this conflict, negative feelings are repressed. But even when repressed, basal hostility affects the child’s psyche, filling it with feelings of helplessness, fear, love and guilt. This set of feelings is called basal anxiety (a feeling of loneliness and helplessness in the face of a potentially dangerous world).

Etiology of neurosis. Unlike Freud, Horney did not believe that anxiety was a necessary mental state. She believed that anxiety results from a lack of security in interpersonal relationships. According to Horney, pronounced basal anxiety in a child leads to the formation of neurosis in an adult. To cope with feelings of insufficient security, helplessness and fear of the outside world, the child resorts to various protective strategies. Expressed in behavior, these strategies “orient” a person towards achieving, “acquiring” something, therefore Horney also used the term neurotic needs to describe them. Horney described 10 such strategies/neurotic needs.

The need for love and approval manifests itself in a constant, insatiable desire to be loved and to receive admiration from others. Associated with increased sensitivity and receptivity to criticism, which can be regarded as rejection and unfriendliness.

The need for guidance is expressed through excessive dependence on other people and fear of rejection (in close relationships) or loneliness. Associated with the overvaluation of love and the belief that love can solve all problems.

The need for restrictions is expressed in a preference for clear instructions and restrictions, and an overestimation of the role of order in life. Associated with undemandingness in relation to living conditions, contentment with little, and the desire to obey.

The need for power is expressed through dominance and the desire to control the actions of others as an end in itself; contempt for human weaknesses.

The need to exploit others is expressed in the fear of being used by others or the fear of looking stupid in their eyes. At the same time, unlike cases of the “norm,” there are no attempts to change oneself or the situation.

The need for social recognition is expressed in the desire to be the object of admiration of other people; self-esteem is overly dependent on social status.

The need for self-admiration is expressed in the desire to create an embellished image of oneself, devoid of flaws and limitations. Associated with the need for compliments and flattery from others.

The need for ambition is expressed in a strong desire to be the best, regardless of the consequences; associated with fear of failure.

The need for self-sufficiency and independence is expressed in avoiding any relationships that involve any obligations, distancing from people.

The need for perfection and irrefutability is expressed in constant attempts to be morally infallible and impeccable in all respects, the desire to maintain the impression of infallibility and perfection.

Horney believes that these strategies are present in all people. They help us cope with the inevitable sorrows and disappointments in life, feelings of hostility and rejection and helplessness. But, if a healthy person easily replaces one strategy with another in a changed situation, then a neurotic person strives to implement only one of the available strategies, and in all emerging social situations. That is, we can say that a strategy/need is neurotic in nature if a person turns its satisfaction into a way of life.

Horney divided this list of needs into three broader categories. Each of these categories represents a strategy for optimizing interpersonal relationships; each is aimed at reducing feelings of anxiety and achieving a sense of security. Each strategy corresponds to a specific orientation in relationships with people.

People-oriented (compliant type) implies dependence, indecisiveness and helplessness as a relationship style. Such a person needs to be needed, loved, protected and guided. The purpose of the relationship they enter into is to avoid feelings of loneliness and uselessness. However, under the guise of courtesy and dependence, suppressed hostility and the desire to behave aggressively may be hidden.

Orientation from people (separate type) is characterized by a lack of interest in people, detachment, and avoidance of close interpersonal relationships. Such people are characterized by a desire for privacy, independence and self-sufficiency.

Orientation against people (hostile type) is a style of behavior characterized by dominance, hostility towards other people and the desire to exploit them. Life is seen as a struggle of all against all. All behavior is aimed at increasing one’s own prestige, status or satisfying personal ambitions.

Like neurotic needs, these interpersonal orientations are used to varying degrees by each person in different life situations. However, as in the previous case, a healthy person is able to flexibly change orientations in accordance with changing circumstances and depending on his goals. A neurotic cannot make a choice that is adequate to the situation and strives to use only one of the available orientations. Moreover, both in a healthy person and in a neurotic, these orientations are in contradiction with each other. However, in healthy people this contradiction does not carry such an emotional charge as in neurotics, due to the flexible use of all three orientations. In neurotics, it becomes the basis of the basal conflict.

Basic conflict. The basic conflict of a neurotic lies in the contradictions in the relationships he has with other people. This conflict is generated by incompatible types of orientations that form the core of neurosis. Let me remind you that a neurotic’s orientations are inflexible and do not correspond to the changing situation; one of the orientations is regularly used, the others are suppressed.

A person tries to overcome this conflict using various ways. Firstly, he can suppress certain aspects of his personality, actualizing the opposite of the suppressed traits. Secondly, a person can create such a distance between himself and other people that will prevent conflict from arising. Thirdly, a person can create an idealized image of himself, which will be perceived as the real “I”. An idealized image gives real self-confidence and real pride. The next option for avoiding the basal conflict is its externalization (perception of internal processes as if they were taking place outside the person), projection of one’s own shortcomings, transfer of responsibility for relationships to other people. Other options for avoiding conflict are selective “blindness” in relation to the most obvious contradictions, fragmentation of life into separate parts, strict self-control, etc.

The consequences of unresolved basal conflicts can be fears. One of the most common is the fear of destruction of protective formations (fear of insanity, death, etc.). Other types of fears associated with the basal conflict are fear of exposure (protective ploys), fear of one’s own changes, etc. Fears form obstacles to the resolution of the basal conflict and personality integration, therefore, in the treatment of neuroses, Horney believed, working with the patient’s fears is mandatory.

Another consequence of an unresolved basal conflict is “impoverishment of the personality.” Horney meant by this term feelings of weakness, indecision, emptiness, internal tension, alienation from one’s own “I”, etc. This leads the patient to a decrease in sincerity and an increase in egocentrism.

Horney's psychology of women

New Paths in Psychoanalysis is Karen Horney's boldest and therefore probably most notorious work, costing her membership in the American Psychological Association for attempting to question the infallibility of orthodox psychoanalysis. The reason for rethinking Freud's theory in that part of it, which inevitably explained the nature of neuroses by the action of only instinctive and genetic factors, was, as K. Horney herself admitted, her dissatisfaction with the therapeutic results during the period of fifteen years of medical practice.

Analysis of the reasons for these failures forced in a new way look at the problems of patients, first assume, and then become firmly established in the idea that the environment, living conditions can not only modify, but also shape character, provoke the development of neurotic conflicts.

The book “Women's Psychology” by Karen Horney. Overall an interesting book

providing good food for the future. Psychology of the Karen woman

Karen Horney Psychology Women Fb2

Horney Karen - Women's psychology, download free book in fb2 format,

doc, rtf, html, txt:: Electronic library royallib.com.

Book: Psychology of Women. Introspection. Author: Karen Horney. Annotation,

reader reviews, illustrations. Buy a book at an attractive price.

Horney Karen. All books - Video "Women's psychology" will talk about

sex-role and psychosexual differentiation of women in early

childhood, .

She is the only female psychologist whose name is listed among the founders of the psychological theory of personality. Karen Horney became the first woman in.

She is the only female psychologist whose name appears among the founders

psychological theory of personality. Karen Horney became the first woman in .

Karen Horney. Women's psychology. CONTENT. M. Reshetnikov.

Bringing back forgotten names. On the origin of the castration complex in

Karen Horney (1885–1952) belongs to a galaxy of outstanding figures in world psychoanalysis and, along with Helen Deitch, is the generally recognized founder of the science of female psychology.

For obvious reasons, the works of these authors are generally unknown to the domestic reader, including specialists - psychologists and doctors, who, like all of us, until recently lived in a genderless society of “comrades” and “comrades”, where out of the three main spheres of personal self-realization (labor, communication and sex) the second was significantly limited by ideology, and the third, as a social and scientific category, was actually prohibited, and therefore reduced to a primitive physiological act. I will allow myself to suggest that it was the absence of scientifically based views on gender-role and psychosexual differentiation of personality in early childhood, the desexualization of school and family education and, as a consequence, the creation of an entire generation of citizens of an indeterminate gender, which not least led to the moral degradation of the family and society as a whole, which we are now witnessing.

It’s hard to believe, but today our Institute is the only one in the entire territory of the former USSR where a course in women’s psychology is taught. There is a psychology of personality (also asexual), crime, trade, political struggle, etc., but there is no psychology of women, although, I hope, we still have more women than, for example, criminals and political figures. And only now are we returning again to the almost completely forgotten understanding that the world does not consist of classes and estates, not of rich and poor, not of superiors and subordinates, who are always secondary, but of men and women. The credit for the scientific formulation of this problem largely belongs to Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) and his follower Karen Horney (who did not entirely agree with her teacher).

Karen Horney was born in Hamburg into a Protestant family. Her father, Berndt Danielsen, was a captain in the Norwegian navy and a deeply religious man. Karen's mother, Clotilde Ronzelen, of Danish origin, on the contrary, was distinguished by her free-thinking, which her daughter, of course, inherited. In her youth, Karen happened to accompany her father on long sea voyages, where she acquired a passion for travel and distant countries.

Her decision to enter medicine - an unusual choice for a woman in the early twentieth century - was influenced by her mother. After graduating from the University of Berlin (1913) as the best student in the group, Horney specialized in psychiatry and psychoanalysis.

At twenty-four she married Berlin lawyer Oskar Horney. Having lived with her husband for twenty-eight years and raised three daughters, in 1937, due to differences in interests, Karen divorced her husband, and from that time on she devoted herself entirely to the psychoanalytic movement.

An undeniably talented physician and researcher, Horney became a doctor of medicine at age twenty-eight, and by thirty she was already one of the recognized teachers at the newly opened Berlin Institute of Psychoanalysis. Already one of her first articles, “On the origin of the castration complex in women,” brought her European fame.

K. Horney underwent personal analysis from Hans Sachs, one of Z. Freud’s closest associates and the founder of the first Psychoanalytic Committee (1913), and she received the qualifications of a training analyst from Karl Abraham, whom Z. Freud considered his most capable student.

Training with such faithful followers of Freud, it would seem, should have contributed to unconditional adherence to the ideas of classical psychoanalysis. However, Horney, almost from her first works, began to actively polemicize with the creator of psychoanalytic theory, and it must be admitted that in a number of cases this polemic was quite productive. The reason for this unexpected “confrontation” is most clearly revealed by Horney herself. In 1926, in her work “The Escape from Femininity,” she wrote: “Psychoanalysis is the creation of a male genius, and almost all who developed his ideas were also men. It is natural and natural that they were focused on studying the essence of male psychology and understood more about the development of men than women.” It is difficult to disagree with this reproach, as well as with the fact that only a differentiated approach to male and female psychology opens the way to the development of a philosophy of an integral personality. Holism or the “philosophy of integrity,” which unites the objective and the subjective, the material and the ideal, formed the basis of all Horney’s conceptual approaches.

It was F. Alexander who invited Karen Horney to Chicago in 1932 as deputy director of the Chicago Psychoanalytic Institute. This was already the second psychoanalytic institute in the USA. The first one was opened in 1930 in New York. Dr. Sandor Rado (1890–1972) was invited from Berlin to lead it, who brought with him the spirit of orthodoxy and tradition that existed at the Berlin Institute of Psychoanalysis.

F. Alexander had broader views and largely contributed to overcoming the isolation of psychoanalysis and its arrival at universities and colleges in the United States.

After working together for about two years, Alexander and Horney admitted that their further collaboration was impossible, as each had their own path. K. Horney leaves for New York, where in 1941 he organizes the American Institute of Psychoanalysis, and later becomes the founding editor of the American Psychoanalytic Journal. She owns dozens of studies, articles and books, among which the most famous are “The Neurotic Personality of Our Time” and “Women’s Psychology”, which will form the first two books of the “Library of Psychoanalytic Literature” series we publish.

I have already spoken about the reason for such a long journey to the Russian reader, but here I consider it appropriate to note that the Russian Psychoanalytic Institute was created twenty years earlier than the American one, but by the time when these books appeared, both the Institute and the publication of Psychological and Psychoanalytic the libraries edited by the director of the Institute, Professor I.D. Ermakov, had already been liquidated, naturally, as a “stronghold of bourgeois ideology,” and many outstanding, internationally recognized academic scientists were repressed, including physically destroyed. In 1942, Professor Ivan Dmitrievich Ermakov, undoubtedly a talented clinician, scientist and organizer, whose services to Russian science and culture have not yet received due appreciation, also died in Butyrka prison.

The re-opening of our Institute, the resumption of systematic training of analytical specialists, research and publishing activities became possible only in 1991.

I will not follow the fairly widespread tradition and retell the contents of specific chapters in the introduction, much less evaluate them, leaving this to the reader. Although, I must admit, I do not agree with the author on everything. But I think it would be dishonest to enter into a polemic with him: the book was written too long ago, and during that time too much has changed in ourselves, in culture, and in psychoanalysis.

At first I made quite a lot of footnotes, but then, realizing that it was impossible to put all the basics of psychoanalytic knowledge into notes, I abandoned unnecessary comments, focusing exclusively on trying to preserve the originality of the author’s language and searching for adequate Russian equivalents. Here, after completing work on the Russian text of the book, I would like to make just one more, but, as it seems to me, extremely important note. When starting to read the book, you must constantly remember that, just like Freud, when presenting psychopathological complexes, describing states and drives that do not yet have definite linguistic equivalents, the author quite often resorts to metaphor. I will now try to explain and illustrate this again. When you say to your interlocutor: “And then I just exploded,” it would not occur to any normal person to identify what was said with a real physical process.

In the same way, psychoanalytic terms in the vast majority of cases cannot be directly correlated with the everyday meanings of the words or combinations that form them, but only generally and conventionally characterize those “somatic experiences”, the mental equivalents of which are extremely diverse. The perception of the Oedipus complex only as an incestuous desire is the lot of wild psychoanalysis and would-be analysts. And here I would like to emphasize once again that half-understood ideas of psychoanalysis are much more dangerous than complete misunderstanding.

A lot of people were involved in the work on this book - artists, proofreaders, editors, typesetters and printers, each of whom deserves gratitude. But I would like to express my special gratitude to the translator - a student of our Institute, Elena Ivanovna Zamfir, who not only took upon herself the work of preparing the Russian version of the book (initially as a course work), but also really contributed to its publication, showing sincere interest and perseverance and enviable patience in contacts with scientific editors.

I also hope that the publication of this book will give additional impetus not only to new approaches to the treatment of functional disorders, but will actually contribute to the formation of a new self-awareness of the modern Russian woman.

This book, called by the author “Women’s Psychology,” is, of course, about men too. And I am sure that reading it will not go unnoticed by both sexes, and, therefore, will allow them to better understand each other or, rather, take at least another half step towards the unattainable ideal of mutual understanding.

IN THIS PLACE YOU CAN INEXPENSIVELY POST LINKS TO YOUR RESOURCES

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry - The Little Prince

Fyodor Dostoevsky - Crime and Punishment

Ilya Ilf, Evgeny Petrov - Twelve chairs

Arthur Conan Doyle - The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes

Alexander Pushkin - Evgeny Onegin

Mikhail Bulgakov - Heart of a Dog

Leo Tolstoy - War and Peace

Mikhail Lermontov - Hero of our time

Oscar Wilde - The Picture of Dorian Gray

Alexandre Dumas - Count of Monte Cristo

Anton Chekhov - Stories

Margaret Mitchell - Gone with the Wind

William Shakespeare - Romeo and Juliet

Alexandre Dumas - Three Musketeers

Erich Maria Remarque - Three Comrades

Nikolai Gogol - Dead Souls

Fyodor Dostoevsky - Idiot

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - Faust

Alexander Griboyedov - Woe from Wit

Mark Twain - The Adventures of Tom Sawyer

Ilya Ilf, Evgeny Petrov - Golden Calf

Gabriel Garcia Marquez - One Hundred Years of Solitude

Daniel Defoe - Robinson Crusoe

Nikolai Gogol - Evenings on a farm near Dikanka

Jane Austen - Pride and Prejudice

William Shakespeare - Hamlet

Nikolay Nosov - The Adventures of Dunno and His Friends

John Tolkien - The Lord of the Rings

Leo Tolstoy - Anna Karenina

Fyodor Dostoevsky - The Brothers Karamazov

Charlotte Brontë - Jane Eyre

Hans Christian Andersen - Fairy Tales

Alexander Volkov - Wizard of the Emerald City

Alexander Green - Scarlet Sails

Alexander Pushkin - The Captain's Daughter

Mikhail Sholokhov - Quiet Don

Victor Hugo - Notre Dame Cathedral

Jack London - White Fang

Ken Kesey - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Ernest Hemingway - The Old Man and the Sea

Ivan Turgenev - Fathers and Sons

Ivan Goncharov - Oblomov

JK Rowling - Harry Potter Series

Jerome D. Salinger - The Catcher in the Rye

Lewis Carroll - Alice in Wonderland

Veniamin Kaverin - Two captains

Alan Alexander Milne - Winnie the Pooh

Mark Twain - The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

Robert Louis Stevenson - Treasure Island

Patrick Suskind - Perfumer. The story of a killer

Erich Maria Remarque - Arc de Triomphe

Jules Verne - Children of Captain Grant

Ray Bradbury - Fahrenheit 451

Astrid Lindgren - Baby and Carlson, who lives on the roof

Boris Vasiliev - And the dawns here are quiet

Nikolai Gogol - Taras Bulba

Arthur Conan Doyle - The Hound of the Baskervilles

Nikolai Gogol - Inspector

Arkady and Boris Strugatsky - Picnic on the roadside

Erich Maria Remarque - All Quiet on the Western Front

Jules Verne - The Mysterious Island

Colin McCullough - The Thorn Birds

Jack London - Martin Eden

Leonid Filatov - About Fedot the Sagittarius, a daring fellow

Boris Akunin - The Adventures of Erast Fandorin

George Orwell - 1984

Arkady and Boris Strugatsky - It's hard to be a god

Boris Pasternak - Doctor Zhivago

Vladimir Vysotsky - Nerve

Jerome K. Jerome - Three in a Boat and a Dog

Stendhal - Red and black

Emily Brontë - Wuthering Heights

Hermann Hesse - The Glass Bead Game

Hermann Hesse - Steppenwolf

Alexander Pushkin - Belkin's Stories

Mikhail Bulgakov - White Guard

Miguel Cervantes - Don Quixote

Alexander Pushkin - The Tale of the Fisherman and the Fish

Ivan Bunin - Dark Alleys

Arkady and Boris Strugatsky - Monday begins on Saturday

Mark Twain - The Prince and the Pauper

Alexander Belyaev - Amphibian Man

Richard Bach - Jonathan Livingston Seagull

Vladimir Nabokov - Lolita

Edgar Allan Poe - Stories

Erich Maria Remarque - Life on Borrow

Theodore Dreiser - An American Tragedy

Evgeniy Schwartz - An Ordinary Miracle

Daniel Keyes - Flowers for Algernon

Gabriel Troepolsky - White Bim Black Ear

Jaroslav Hasek - The adventures of the good soldier Schweik during the World War

Alexei Tolstoy - Peter I

Stanislaw Lem - Solaris

William Shakespeare - King Lear

Anton Chekhov - Ward No. 6

Jules Verne - The Fifteen-Year-Old Captain

Sergei Yesenin - Anna Snegina

Victor Dragunsky - Deniska's stories

— The quality of a book requires certain qualities from the reader (Leonid Leonidov)

— The phrase “books have their own destiny” means that books taken for reading are not returned (Don Aminado)

— The best books are those that give the most food for thought (Anatole France)

— A bestseller is a book that sells well because it is already selling well (Daniel Boorstin)

— It is in me, and not in Montaigne’s writings, that what I read in them is contained (Blaise Pascal)

- All good books are similar in one thing - when you finish reading to the end, it seems to you that all this happened to you, and so it will remain with you forever (Ernest Hemingway)

- The main thing that reading books teaches us is that only a very few books are worth reading (Henry Louis Mencken)

- Cheap books are lack of culture, books should be expensive, this is not vodka (Vasily Rozanov)

- Bad books can spoil us just as much as bad comrades (Henry Fielding)

- If a book becomes a worldwide bestseller, it only proves that the Earth is not round, but flat (Aldous Huxley)

— Every book is a theft from its own life. The more you read, the less you know how and want to live on your own (Marina Tsvetaeva)

— Books are funny, portable bits of thought (Susan Sontag)

- Books truly have the power of immortality - they are the most durable fruits of human activity (Samuel Smiles)

— Book publishing is an auction of the human mind (Emily Dickinson)

— When books are burned at the stake, their meaning becomes clear even to the illiterate (Daniil Rudy)

— The best service a book can do is not only to tell you the truth, but to make you think about it (Elbert G. Hubbard)

- We, in essence, learn from those books about which we are not able to judge. The author of a book that we can judge should have learned from us. (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

- An undoubted sign of any good book is that if you like it the more you get older (Georg Christoph Lichtenberg)

- Just think, learning living feelings, living thoughts from dead matter - from rags and printing ink! (George Bernard Shaw)

— Buying books just because they were published by a famous author is like buying a suit that doesn’t fit at all just because it was made by a famous tailor (Alexander Pop)

- Those who compile collections of poetry or witticisms are like people who help themselves to cherries or oysters: first they choose the best, then they gobble up everything (Nicola Sebastian Chamfort)

- Someday everything will have its end - a distant day that I will no longer see - then my books will be opened and I will have readers. I have to write for them, for them I have to finish my main ideas. Now I can’t fight - I don’t even have opponents. (Friedrich Nietzsche)

One of Karen Horney's main achievements is the analysis of female psychology and attempts to introduce such a phenomenon as self-analysis into psychoanalysis. This book addresses both topics. However, I would put the topic of female psychology in first place, because... Karen Horney is one of the few female psychoanalysts who can approach this topic more objectively. Yes, and we must not forget that Freud himself at one time said that he was never able to accurately understand female psychology, despite the fact that the overwhelming number of patients (or the first patients) were women. Based on this, the opinion of a female psychoanalyst on female psychology is of particular value.

The book consists of articles written by the author at different times, and in some cases, these are reports from various psychological conferences.

At the very beginning of the book, Horney refers to a philosophical essay by Georg Simmel, the meaning of which is that all the social institutions that surround us were created by men and mainly for men, and from this it follows that it is especially difficult for women to adapt to these institutions due to the fact that that they were not created for her. This important idea will become the main idea of Horney's entire book. And indeed, if you look closely, you will notice that a lot has been created by the hands of men and with the idea that it is the man who will use it (politics, army, art, laws, morality, religion, science, etc.).

As if moving away from this idea, but not far, Horney turns to Freud and psychoanalysis, which is also a predominantly male field of activity created by a man. Horney refers to a conclusion made by Freud in relation to women, namely, that women have what is called penis envy. Horney gives the following table.

The naive assumption that girls, like boys, have a penis

Both sexes attach importance only to male genitalia

Awareness of the absence of a penis in girls

The sad discovery of the absence of a penis

The idea that a girl is a mutilated castrated boy

Castration is seen as an act of punishment

Confidence that the girl was subjected to punishment, which threatens him too

A girl is seen as an inferior being

The girl treats herself as a lower being. Penis envy

The boy cannot imagine that the girl will ever be able to survive her loss and overcome envy.

The girl cannot overcome the feeling of her own inferiority and inferiority, and she has to constantly fight the desire to be a man

The boy is afraid of her envy

A girl wants to take revenge on a man all her life because he has what she is deprived of.

As is known, most neuroses arise from childhood events, so the discovery in early childhood of the fact that girls do not have what boys have causes enormous damage to the psyche, which is a springboard for the development of certain neuroses in adulthood. In this table, Horney shows the stages through which every child goes: awareness, search for reasons, reaction, conclusions (as I understand it).

Based on the above, Freud believed that “the desire to have a child grows only from envy of the penis and disappointment due to its absence, and that tender attachment to the father arises only in this roundabout way - through the desire to have a penis and the desire to have a child.” And “in cases of favorable development of a woman, this narcissistic envy of the penis almost completely dissolves in the object-libidinal desire of a man and a child.”

Horney believes that due to these two factors - “masculine civilization” and the absence of a woman’s penis - perhaps another reaction occurs: flight from the female role, from femininity, or as Horney writes, “the girl seeks refuge in the imaginary role of a man.”

Explaining this attitude, Horney quotes Simmel: “the enormous social importance attributed to man is probably due to his superior strength.” As Horney writes, roughly speaking, we have a relationship between slave and master, because... “one of the privileges of a master is that he does not need to constantly remember that he is a master, while a slave can never forget about his fate.” This is said in the context of women constantly addressing the issue of gender, injustice towards women, discrimination and possible or not possible equality. And as is clear from the above quote, men never think about whether they have the right to engage in this or that business (even such professions as a gynecologist). And, continuing this semantic thread, we can, together with Karen Horney, come to the conclusion that it is much easier for men to achieve sublimation in this world than for women, including because “all ordinary professions were designed for men.” Awareness of this state of affairs leads a woman to abandon her role, and this very often, according to Horney, takes the form of frigidity. However, many may have the feeling that a woman who is dissatisfied with her role and considers herself defective cannot be completely normal sexually. However, as Horney writes: “In reality, at a deeper level, what we find is not a rejection of sex in general, but rather a rejection of a specific female role,” which can often be seen in today's reality. This is why frigidity is often disguised so well that neither others nor the partner notice it. And only indirect signs can indicate the presence of a “female masculinity complex.”

How does this attitude manifest itself? Horney gives the following description of such women: “At the same time we see how the same woman who disparages all men, nevertheless recognizes their superiority. She does not believe that women are capable of achieving anything real, and is rather inclined to share the man's disrespect for them. If she is not a man, then at least she will support their judgment about women. Often this attitude is combined with clearly expressed discrediting tendencies towards men, which involuntarily resembles the famous fable about the fox and the grapes.” Indeed, one can often observe women who resemble half-men, or more precisely, a caricature of men, because they try their best to act and think like men, but in reality it has either a comical or tragic appearance and is somewhat reminiscent of self-torture. Not a single normal man will make any comments about his gender, much less defend purely feminine attitudes (opinions, labels) in relation to men.

However, frigidity can also stem from another source. As is known from Freud's psychoanalysis, at the very beginning of his life, a child develops Oedipal attitudes towards his parents, which after a certain period of life are directed to a non-family object. However, in cases of unfavorable mental development of the child, such a change of object may not occur and then, as Horney writes, what may happen is that “The super-ego is in danger of reviving the old incest prohibition - this time in relation to the marriage partner; and the more fully unconscious desires are realized, the stronger this danger" and leads to the fact that "direct sexual goals give way to relationships of attachment that impose a ban on sexual goals." As I understand it, this means that it is necessary to distinguish between two frigidities: the first comes from the refusal of the female role, the second due to fixation on one of the parents, which results in the replacement of the role of the spouse with the role of the father.

Very often you can find women with the so-called “maternal installation”, which is a modified version of the second installation discussed above. The point is that women of this type play the role of mother, they seem to say, as Horney writes: “In my relationship with my husband, I should not play the role of wife and mistress, but exclusively the role of mother, with all the loving care and responsibility that implies.” This type of woman was beautifully portrayed by Nobel Prize winner in literature John Steinbeck in the novel The Lost Bus, in which such a wife-mother arrived at a gas station-hotel with her husband and daughter. In the novel, she completely neutralized all her husband’s sexual stimuli, ultimately reducing them to zero, turning family relationships into a quiet hell, the way out of which was found at the end of the novel by the husband himself in the form of actual rape of his wife. True, in such cases, can we say that this gave rise to the transformation of a wife-mother into a wife-mistress? Whatever the answer is given, in any case it is clear that in both situations, family life turns into forced exile, into prison, and the only way out of this situation is divorce.

The chapter-article “Distrust between the sexes” deserves special interest. In particular, Horney writes the following: “A man’s fear of a woman is deeply rooted in sexuality, as evidenced by the simple fact that a man fears only sexually attractive women, whom, no matter how passionately he desires, he tries to keep in submission. Older women, on the other hand, are accorded the greatest respect, even in cultures where younger women are feared and therefore suppressed.” Indirect examples can be found in the Bible, when a woman seduces a man and thereby makes him eat an apple. You can also find this in the aphorism “Have you heard that a woman would ever go crazy from a man’s feet” and in almost all literary works in which, most often, a man loses his head, i.e. does not act according to his own reason, in relation to beautiful woman. So, this conclusion of Horney is confirmed by all areas of the arts.

Horney goes on to give examples where this fear is particularly noticeable: “during menstruation, a woman is surrounded by the strictest taboo - a man who touches her will die (I think there is a kind of transference fear here, i.e. a woman during menstruation is perceived as a castrated man , or Freud's explanation of taboo, where a person who touches a taboo himself becomes a taboo); The Arabs of Mecca do not allow women to participate in religious festivities in order to prevent intimate relations between them and their overlords; In Bengal, women are forbidden to eat tiger meat, lest they become too strong.”

In any case, then and now, both in developed and not very developed civilizations, women are treated “if not with undisguised hatred, then with ostentatious friendliness.” The attitude was the same as that of the fascists in relation to Jews, who could be good people, but as the fascist philosopher Lessing said: “a Jew must burn.” Therefore, it is not surprising that “a devout Jew thanks God that he did not create him as a woman” or, as Asians frankly say, “she is a second-rate creature.” Horney's list of "other" attitudes toward women is quite long, although smaller than Freud's.

As has already been said, all this applies to young or better said sexy women, and does not apply to older ones. In addition to the elderly, Horney adds - and this is quite understandable from the point of view of Freud and the Oedipus complex - "motherhood as an expression of certain spiritual qualities of a woman: a selfless mother-nurse, for this is the ideal embodiment of a woman who could fulfill all the expectations and desires of a man." . This attitude can also be explained by the fact that (in addition to the fact that a pregnant wife is associated with a man’s mother) that a woman with a child is no longer perceived as a dangerous woman who can deceive a man and run away to another, but on the contrary, she begins to depend on the man as a result that the offspring needs the protection of a man. As Freud wrote: “as for the woman, she, not wanting to part with her defenseless cubs, had to, in their interests, remain with a stronger man.”

Continuing to refer to Freud, it should be noted that Horney refers to the analysis of savage tribes. Thus, defining a man’s fear of a woman as “fear directed against her as a sexual object,” Horney cites an interesting observation of the Arunta tribe, according to which “they believe that a woman is able to magically influence the male genitals (i.e., this is the same fear of castration) . Actually, this is very similar to what I suggested only in relation to women during menstruation and men's fear in relation to this.

Another interesting fact is that a woman is very often associated with death: “in African fairy tales, it is the woman who brings death into the world. The great mother goddess also brought death and destruction.” And as Horney so aptly puts it: “We seem to have this idea that he who gives life can also take it away.” True, there is a problem with a sexy woman. After all, the mother goddess is not always portrayed as a young, attractive, desirable girl, and as Karen Horney noted above, there is a man’s fear of sexual attractive woman. Therefore, Karen Horney goes on to ask the following question: “Is it because men have a vital interest in keeping women dependent that a man is more sexually dependent on her than she is on him?” I think the answer is yes. I don’t know what biologists say, but most likely this is the case, and this is exactly what the analysis of wild tribes says.

In the next article-chapter, Horney examines the topic of “Marriage Problems.” As mentioned above, frigidity can and certainly does create the preconditions for unsuccessful marriages, divorces and “family hell.” Explaining this problem, Horney compares marriage to an official who “has his position guaranteed for life,” as a result of which he stops working hard, honing his skills, etc. No wonder. How often you can observe men and women who were completely different (both in the spiritual and physical sense) before marriage and how they changed dramatically, not for the better, after marriage. And what’s important is that this has nothing to do with age or health, because... the same men and women who are not married, regardless of age, etc., maintain “a healthy spirit in a healthy (slender) body.” Let us complement this picture with what Horney writes about the renunciation of certain freedoms due to marriage: “Today there is only one known way to build a bridge across the gap between law and happiness. It involves a change in our personal attitude towards an internal renunciation of demands rather than desires.” Whatever the feeling that the author denies the necessity of marriage, I must note that all of the above concerns not the institution of marriage as a whole, but an unsuccessful marriage. This means that these problems are not necessarily present in a happy marriage.

Why do failed marriages happen? Here, I think, it will not be a secret to anyone that marriages are often made based on the situation (partner’s pregnancy) or mental problems (the need for a new parent). However, there are other reasons. Here is what K. Horney writes about this: “Thus, the essential mistake of such a choice is that it is made for the sake of fulfilling any particular condition. One single impulse, one single desire forcefully breaks through to the foreground, obscuring everything else. A man, for example, may have an irresistible desire to call his girlfriend, whom many other admirers are wooing.”

Another factor that can create problems in a marriage is “fear of a non-criminal woman.” This is explained by the fact that “caring for the child is entrusted to the mother; it is from her that we receive not only warmth, care, tenderness, but also our earliest prohibitions.”

As we see from the previous example and from all other examples, there is clearly a need to asexualize a woman, so that, on the one hand, not to fear some kind of trick on her part, and on the other, to realize the need for a new mother who will take care of this as in childhood husband-child. On the one hand, women themselves can strive for this role, because... They believe that if a man is treated like a child, i.e. satisfy and solve all his everyday and other problems and needs, this will keep him from leaving the family or having a mistress. However, this is not so, because if such a wife was able to neutralize all his sexual stimuli, then he will look for one who will directly satisfy him sexually (mistress or prostitutes).

In this context, Karen Horney's next idea is interesting: "In extreme cases, it leads to the belief that a decent, respectable woman is asexual and that to desire her sexually is to humiliate her." In literature (or cinema), this is best expressed by the hero of the mafia clan, who explains his attitude towards sexual relations with his wife and the presence of a prostitute with the following phrase: “And then, with these lips, will she kiss our children?” I want to say right away that neither I nor psychoanalysis evaluate any particular sexual techniques or methods of satisfaction, because according to Freud, any method of satisfaction that does not directly lead to procreation is a perversion, and as Freud himself writes, “kissing” is the same perversion as any other sex (a method of sexual satisfaction) that does not lead to the birth of a child. Therefore, we cannot talk about any assessments, but we can and should talk about the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of one of the partners and the marriage as a whole.

Another feature of the emergence of fear or attitude in marriage is that the man is an active object, while the woman is predominantly a passive object, which means that there is “a man’s fear of being unable to satisfy a woman. He is afraid of her demands in general and her sexual demands in particular.”

Quite often, the beginnings of this fear can be observed in childhood when “the little boy already felt like a man, but was afraid that his masculinity would be ridiculed and thereby damage his self-confidence when his boyish advances were ridiculed and rejected.” Which, in turn, can affect the appearance of problems in marriage when the husband feels that he is not able to satisfy his wife, and this in turn leads to “an instinctive desire to humiliate his wife and undermine her self-confidence.” Let’s add to this phrase by Karen Horney the ideas expressed by another psychoanalyst E. Fromm, who in the book “The Human Soul” writes about the types of aggression, among others there is the following type: “compensatory violence” - manifests itself as a result of impotence in a certain important area for a person. Then weakness results in a thirst for destruction. As Fromm writes, “he takes revenge on life for depriving him.”

So when a husband leaves for another woman or takes a mistress, this a clear sign the fact that not everything in the wife or husband is as the husband/wife would like. I don’t know how true this is, but it is possible that having a mistress in some cases can be perceived from a positive point of view. In any case, having a mistress or lover "often brings more relief, satisfaction and happiness."

· BOOKS

Karen Horney(September 16, 1885, Hamburg - December 4, 1952, New York) - psychoanalyst, co-founder of neo-Freudianism, belongs to the galaxy of outstanding figures in world psychoanalysis and, along with Helen Deitch, is the generally recognized founder of the science of female psychology. Karen Horney is the only female psychologist whose name is listed among the founders of the psychological theory of personality

She was born into a Norwegian-Danish Protestant family. Her mother, Clotilde Ronzelen, a Danish woman, was free-thinking, which her daughter undoubtedly inherited.

Karen made the decision to go into medicine, quite unusual for women of that time, under the influence of her mother. She received her education at the University of Berlin. There she met Berlin lawyer Oskar Horney and married him in 1909. At the university, Karen studied psychiatry and psychoanalysis and in 1913 she graduated as the best student in the group. Also in 1913, Karen Horney received her doctorate in medicine and by the age of thirty had become one of the most recognized teachers at the Berlin Institute of Psychoanalysis.

Karen Horney underwent personal analysis from Hans Sachs, one of Sigmund Freud's closest associates and the founder of the first Psychoanalytic Committee (1913), and she received her training analyst qualification from Karl Abraham, whom Sigmund Freud considered his most capable student.

She took the theories of Sigmund Freud as the basis for her views, although she looked at them critically. Karen Horney begins developing her own theories with the assertion that universal mental norms simply do not exist: behavior regarded as neurotic in one culture may be completely normal in another, and vice versa. According to Karen Horney, we can only judge what is normal and what is not by considering the individual in the context of the specific cultural conditions in which he finds himself. Already in her first works, Horney entered into polemics with Freud. Orthodox psychoanalysis (psychoanalysis of the Freudian type), according to Horney, bears the imprint of the masculinity of modern society, in which the function of women is strictly defined. Horney, almost from her first works, began to actively polemicize with the creator of psychoanalytic theory, and it must be admitted that in a number of cases this polemic was quite productive.

A significant role in the life of Karen Horney was played by Franz Alexander, who, having declared his departure from psychoanalysis and leaving Berlin because of this, in fact, talentedly implicated analytical approaches in American social psychology. Karen Horney followed a largely similar path to the creation of the science of female psychology. It was Franz Alexander who invited Karen Horney to Chicago in 1932 as deputy director of the Chicago Psychoanalytic Institute. After working together for about two years, Alexander and Horney admitted that their further collaboration was impossible, as each had their own path. Karen Horney moved to New York, where in 1941 she founded the American Institute of Psychoanalysis and later became the founding editor of the American Psychoanalytic Journal. She lived in New York until her death, teaching at the institute, conducting a private psychoanalytic practice and developing her theory of neuroses.

Karen Horney's idea that the nature of neurosis depends primarily on social factors, on cultural values, turned out to be very productive. As a result, significant changes occurred within Freudianism. Thus, the theory of sublimation and the doctrine of libido were rejected. Neo-Freudians essentially “sociologized” psychology.

According to Horney, neurosis is formed by the influence of the surrounding social environment and the destruction of human relationships. Orthodox psychoanalysis focuses on genetic and instinctive causes. As a result, the meaning of therapy changes. The goal of orthodox psychoanalysis is to help you cope with your instincts. According to Horney, the goal of therapy is to restore relationships with people and oneself, to find a foothold in oneself, to get rid of neurotic defense mechanisms that only partially help a person cope with life’s difficulties, but on a deeper look, block the possibility of a normal life.

The basis of any neurosis is usually seen as an internal conflict (a struggle between something and something in the human psyche). Neurotic conflict according to Freud is a struggle between repressed (instincts) and repressing forces (culture). Neurotic conflict according to Horney is a struggle of incompatible combinations between several neurotic inclinations. By neurotic tendencies (the term was introduced by Horney), Horney understood compulsive (obsessive) desires (also understood as the basis of neurosis). Horney considered one of the main neurotic tendencies to be a compulsive need for love and a compulsive desire for power. The neurotic desire for love and neurotic rivalry may be in conflict with each other - it is impossible to go over people's heads and take care of them (expecting to receive love in return). In principle, even for a healthy person, competition will mean a deficit in showing love and receiving love (love in the broad sense of the word). Neurotic tendencies usually have a function (hidden benefit). Ultimately, it comes down to removing or mitigating the anxiety of a particular individual.

Horney did not think it justified to focus exclusively on childhood, resorting to a kind of one-sided fascination with the beginning of human life. Neuroses, she believed, are generated not only by individual experiences of a person, but also by the specific conditions in which we live. She developed various strategies for interpersonal relationships, focusing on the painful, neurotic states of people.

Karen Horney is the author of many popular books (Basic Conflict, Women's Psychology, Neurosis and Personal Growth, The Neurotic Personality of Our Time, Gender Relations, Neurotic Conflict Resolution, Self-Analysis, Anxiety). Karen Horney's works are written in good, easy language. They are always logical and consistent.

BOOKS

Women's psychology. Karen Horney

Karen Horney

Women's psychology

Preface

Karen Horney (1885-1952) belongs to the galaxy of outstanding figures in world psychoanalysis and, along with Helen Deitch, is the generally recognized founder of the science of female psychology. For obvious reasons, the works of these authors are generally unknown to the domestic reader, including specialists - psychologists and doctors, who, like all of us, until recently lived in a genderless society of “comrades” and “comrades”, where out of the three main spheres of personal self-realization (labor, communication and sex) the second was significantly limited by ideology, and the third, as a social and scientific category, was actually prohibited, and therefore reduced to a primitive physiological act. I will allow myself to suggest that it was the absence of scientifically based views on gender-role and psychosexual differentiation of personality in early childhood, the desexualization of school and family education and, as a consequence, the creation of an entire generation of citizens of an indeterminate gender, which not least led to the moral degradation of the family and society as a whole, which we are now witnessing. It’s hard to believe, but today our Institute is the only one in the entire territory of the former USSR where a course in women’s psychology is taught. There is a psychology of personality (also asexual), crime, trade, political struggle, etc., but there is no psychology of women, although, I hope, we still have more women than, for example, criminals and political figures. And only now are we returning again to the almost completely forgotten understanding that the world does not consist of classes and estates, not of rich and poor, not of superiors and subordinates, who are always secondary, but of men and women. The credit for the scientific formulation of this problem largely belongs to Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and his follower Karen Horney (who did not entirely agree with her teacher). Karen Horney was born in Hamburg into a Protestant family. Her father, Berndt Danielsen, was a captain in the Norwegian navy and a deeply religious man. Karen's mother, Clotilde Ronzelen, of Danish origin, on the contrary, was distinguished by her free-thinking, which her daughter, of course, inherited. In her youth, Karen happened to accompany her father on long sea voyages, where she acquired a passion for travel and distant countries. Her decision to enter medicine - an unusual choice for a woman in the early twentieth century - was influenced by her mother. After graduating from the University of Berlin (1913) as the best student in the group, Horney specialized in psychiatry and psychoanalysis. At twenty-four she married Berlin lawyer Oskar Horney. Having lived with her husband for twenty-eight years and raised three daughters, in 1937, due to differences in interests, Karen divorced her husband, and from that time on she devoted herself entirely to the psychoanalytic movement. An undeniably talented physician and researcher, Horney became a doctor of medicine at age twenty-eight, and by thirty she was already one of the recognized teachers at the newly opened Berlin Institute of Psychoanalysis. Already one of her first articles, “On the origin of the castration complex in women,” brought her European fame. K. Horney underwent personal analysis from Hans Sachs, one of Z. Freud’s closest associates and the founder of the first Psychoanalytic Committee (1913), and she received the qualifications of a training analyst from Karl Abraham, whom Z. Freud considered his most capable student. Training with such faithful followers of Freud, it would seem, should have contributed to unconditional adherence to the ideas of classical psychoanalysis. However, Horney, almost from her first works, began to actively polemicize with the creator of psychoanalytic theory, and it must be admitted that in a number of cases this polemic was quite productive. The reason for this unexpected “confrontation” is most clearly revealed by Horney herself. In 1926, in her work “The Escape from Femininity,” she wrote: “Psychoanalysis is the creation of a male genius, and almost all who developed his ideas were also men. It is natural and natural that they were focused on studying the essence of male psychology and understood more about the development of men than women.” It is difficult to disagree with this reproach, as well as with the fact that only a differentiated approach to male and female psychology opens the way to the development of a philosophy of an integral personality. Holism or the “philosophy of integrity,” which unites the objective and the subjective, the material and the ideal, formed the basis of all Horney’s conceptual approaches. A significant role in the life of Karen Horney was played by Franz Alexander, who, having declared his departure from psychoanalysis and leaving Berlin because of this, in fact, talentedly implicated analytical approaches in American social psychology. In many ways, K. Horney followed a similar path to the creation of the science of female psychology. It was F. Alexander who invited Karen Horney to Chicago in 1932 as deputy director of the Chicago Psychoanalytic Institute. This was already the second psychoanalytic institute in the USA. The first one was opened in 1930 in New York. To guide it, Dr. Sandor Rado (1890-1972) was invited from Berlin, who brought with him the spirit of orthodoxy and tradition that existed at the Berlin Institute of Psychoanalysis. F. Alexander had broader views and largely contributed to overcoming the isolation of psychoanalysis and its arrival at universities and colleges in the United States. After working together for about two years, Alexander and Horney admitted that their further collaboration was impossible, as each had their own path. K. Horney leaves for New York, where in 1941 he organizes the American Institute of Psychoanalysis, and later becomes the founding editor of the American Psychoanalytic Journal. She owns dozens of studies, articles and books, among which the most famous are “The Neurotic Personality of Our Time” and “Women’s Psychology”, which will form the first two books of the “Library of Psychoanalytic Literature” series we publish. I have already spoken about the reason for such a long journey to the Russian reader, but here I consider it appropriate to note that the Russian Psychoanalytic Institute was created twenty years earlier than the American one, but by the time when these books appeared, both the Institute and the publication of Psychological and Psychoanalytic the libraries edited by the director of the Institute, Professor I.D. Ermakov, had already been liquidated, naturally, as a “stronghold of bourgeois ideology,” and many outstanding, internationally recognized scientific analysts were repressed, including physically destroyed. In 1942, Professor Ivan Dmitrievich Ermakov, undoubtedly a talented clinician, scientist and organizer, whose services to Russian science and culture have not yet received due appreciation, also died in Butyrka prison. The re-opening of our Institute, the resumption of systematic training of analytical specialists, research and publishing activities became possible only in 1991. I will not follow the fairly widespread tradition and retell the contents of specific chapters in the introduction, much less evaluate them, leaving this to the reader. Although, I must admit, I do not agree with the author on everything. But I think it would be dishonest to enter into a polemic with him: the book was written too long ago, and during that time too much has changed in ourselves, in culture, and in psychoanalysis. At first I made quite a lot of footnotes, but then, realizing that it was impossible to put all the basics of psychoanalytic knowledge into notes, I abandoned unnecessary comments, focusing exclusively on trying to preserve the originality of the author’s language and searching for adequate Russian equivalents. Here, after completing work on the Russian text of the book, I would like to make just one more, but, as it seems to me, extremely important note. When starting to read the book, you must constantly remember that, just like Freud, when presenting psychopathological complexes, describing states and drives that do not yet have definite linguistic equivalents, the author quite often resorts to metaphor. I will now try to explain and illustrate this again. When you say to your interlocutor: “And then I just exploded,” it would not occur to any normal person to identify what was said with a real physical process. In the same way, psychoanalytic terms in the vast majority of cases cannot be directly correlated with the everyday meanings of the words or combinations that form them, but only generally and conventionally characterize those “somatic experiences”, the mental equivalents of which are extremely diverse. The perception of the Oedipus complex only as an incestuous desire is the lot of wild psychoanalysis and grief-analysts. And here I would like to emphasize once again that half-understood ideas of psychoanalysis are much more dangerous than complete misunderstanding. A lot of people were involved in the work on this book - artists, proofreaders, editors, typesetters and printers, each of whom deserves gratitude. But I would like to express my special gratitude to the translator - a student of our Institute, Elena Ivanovna Zamfir, who not only took upon herself the work of preparing the Russian version of the book (initially as a course work), but also really contributed to its publication, showing sincere interest and perseverance and enviable patience in contacts with scientific editors. I also hope that the publication of this book will give additional impetus not only to new approaches to the treatment of functional disorders, but will actually contribute to the formation of a new self-awareness of the modern Russian woman. This book, called by the author “Women’s Psychology,” is, of course, about men too. And I am sure that reading it will not go unnoticed by both sexes, and, therefore, will allow them to better understand each other or, rather, take at least another half step towards the unattainable ideal of mutual understanding. Professor M. Reshetnikov

K. Horney's views on the psychology of women

Introduction

Karen Horney (1885-1952) is known not only as a prominent representative of neo-Freudianism (a movement that arose as a result of increasing dissatisfaction with orthodox psychoanalysis), but also as the author of her own original theory, as well as one of the key figures in the field of women's psychology.

She is the only female psychologist whose name is listed among the founders of the psychological theory of personality.

Karen Horney began her career by becoming the first woman in Germany to receive permission to study medicine. She ended up founding the American Institute of Psychoanalysis.

Psychologist and psychoanalyst Karen Horney, like Adler, Jung, Erikson and Fromm, followed the fundamental principles of Sigmund Freud's theory of psychoanalysis, but later chose her own path in depth psychology.

The most important issue on which she differed with Freud was the decisive role of physical anatomy in determining the psychological differences between women and men.

Horney believed that Freud's statements about the psychology of women, especially his statements that women were driven by unconscious "penis envy", were illogical and tied to the culture of 19th century Vienna. Horney also objected to his theory of instincts and neurosis and believed that psychoanalysis and psychotherapy should adhere to a broader sociocultural orientation.

In her works, Horney emphasized the importance of cultural and social influences on personality. The impetus for the formation of a sociocultural view of personality was Horney’s three main considerations.

First, as a female psychologist, she rejected Freud's statements about women and especially his assertion that their biological nature predetermines penis envy and a tendency to stress, neurosis and depression. This was the starting point in her divergence from the orthodox Freudian position.

Secondly, during her stay in Chicago and New York, she exchanged views with such outstanding scientists as Erich Fromm, Margaret Mead and Harry StackSullivan. They strengthened her conviction that sociocultural conditions have a profound influence on the development and functioning of the individual.

Third, her clinical observations of mental health patients she treated as a psychotherapist in Europe and the United States showed striking differences in their personality dynamics, providing evidence for the influence of cultural factors. These observations led her to the conclusion that unique interpersonal styles underlie personality disorders.

Also noteworthy are her reflections, which convey an optimistic view of humanity, based on the belief that every person has the capacity for positive personal growth.

The relevance of the study lies in the fact that Horney’s theoretical and clinical ideas have a huge response, and not only among counseling psychologists, psychotherapists and psychoanalysts. She wrote a lot specifically for people without professional training in this field, and her books are very popular today.

Horney's approach to personality is thus of more than just historical interest.

The object of study is the psychological teaching of Karen Horney.

The subject of the study is Karen Horney's scientific views on the psychology of women.

The objectives of the study are to analyze Karen Horney's views on the psychology of women.

Research objectives:

.Describe the life path of Karen Horney.

.Reveal the essence of K. Horney's theory of personality.

.Conduct an analysis of the main components of the psychology of women K. Horney.

Research methods - analysis of literary sources.

1. Prerequisites for the formation of Karen Horney as a psychoanalyst

1.1 Biography of Karen Horney

Future celebrity - psychologist, experienced psychotherapist and famous psychoanalyst - Karen Horney, née Danielson, was born in Germany, near Hamburg in 1885. Her father was a sea captain, a deeply religious man, convinced of the superiority of men over women. Her mother, Clotilde Ronzelen, a Danish, attractive and free-thinking woman, was 18 years younger than her husband and was distinguished by her free-thinking, which her daughter certainly inherited.

In her youth, Karen happened to accompany her father on long sea voyages, where she acquired a passion for travel and distant countries. Therefore, the understanding that she would not be able to become a sea captain like her father (“she would not be able to be with her father”) was a painful experience for young Karen; she encountered these experiences more than once in her patients.

But her decision to take up medicine - already at the age of 14, Horney decided to become a doctor - an unusual choice for a woman in the early twentieth century - was made under the influence of her mother.

The goal was achieved in 1906, when she entered the University of Freiburg and became the first woman in Germany to be allowed to study medicine.

Most Horney's childhood and adolescence were tormented by doubts about his merits, aggravated by a feeling of external unattractiveness, depression and neurosis. She compensated for her feelings of unworthiness by becoming an excellent student. She later admitted: “Since I couldn’t become a beauty, I decided to become smart.”

At university she met Oscar Horney, a political science student who became a famous lawyer, and married him in 1910.

After graduating from the University of Berlin (1913) as the best student in the group, Horney specialized in psychiatry and psychoanalysis. Horney received her medical degree from the University of Berlin in 1915.

Over the next five years, she studied psychoanalysis (which its founder Sigmund Freud was actively developing at the time) and psychotherapy at the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute. Almost all this time, Horney suffered from stress and severe bouts of depression and one day, as her biographers report, she was saved by her husband while attempting suicide.

By 1926, Horney's marriage began to crumble as her personal problems mounted. The sudden death of her brother, the divorce of her parents and their death within one year, growing doubts about the value of psychoanalysis - all this led her to a completely depressed state (close to neurosis, when she herself needed the help of a psychologist).

Having lived with her husband for twenty-eight years and raised three daughters, in 1937, due to differences in interests, Karen eventually divorced her husband, and from that time on she devoted herself entirely to the psychoanalytic movement.

However, even before divorcing her husband in 1927, she began to have a successful career in psychotherapy (as a psychiatrist). She worked at the Berlin Psychiatric Institute and was very passionate about teaching, writing scientific papers and traveling.

Undoubtedly a talented physician and researcher, Horney became a doctor of medicine at the age of twenty-eight, and by thirty she was already one of the recognized teachers of the newly opened Berlin Institute of Psychoanalysis.

Already one of her first articles, “On the origin of the castration complex in women,” brought her European fame.

Psychoanalytic training and personal analysis from such faithful followers of Freud, it would seem, should have contributed to unconditional adherence to the ideas of classical psychoanalysis.

However, Horney, almost from her first works, began to actively polemicize with the creator of psychoanalytic theory, and it must be admitted that in a number of cases this polemic was quite productive.

The reason for this unexpected “confrontation” is most clearly revealed by Horney herself. In 1926, in her work “The Escape from Femininity,” she wrote: “Psychoanalysis is the creation of a male genius, and almost all who developed his ideas were also men. It is natural and natural that they were focused on studying the essence of male psychology and understood more about the development of men than women.” It is difficult to disagree with this reproach, as well as with the fact that only a differentiated approach to male and female psychology opens the way to the development of a philosophy of an integral personality.

Holism or the “philosophy of integrity,” which unites the objective and the subjective, the material and the ideal, formed the basis of all Horney’s conceptual approaches.

In many ways, K. Horney followed a similar path to the creation of the science of female psychology. It was F. Alexander who invited Karen Horney to Chicago in 1932 as deputy director of the Chicago Psychoanalytic Institute.

This was already the second psychoanalytic institute in the USA. The first one was opened in 1930 in New York. To guide it, Dr. Sandor Rado (1890-1972) was invited from Berlin, who brought with him the spirit of orthodoxy and tradition that existed at the Berlin Institute of Psychoanalysis.

F. Alexander had broader views and largely contributed to overcoming the isolation of psychoanalysis and its arrival at universities and colleges in the United States.

After working together for about two years, Alexander and Horney admitted that their further collaboration was impossible, as each had their own path.

K. Horney leaves for New York, where in 1941 he organizes the American Institute of Psychoanalysis, and later becomes the founding editor of the American Psychoanalytic Journal. She owns dozens of studies, articles and books, among which the most famous are “The Neurotic Personality of Our Time” and “Women’s Psychology.”

In 1932, during the Great Depression, Horney moved to the United States. She was hired as assistant director at the Chicago Psychoanalytic Institute. Two years later, she moved to New York, where she lectured at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute and provided psychological assistance to patients as a psychotherapist and psychoanalyst. Her increasing divergence from Freudian doctrine led the institute to disqualify her as an instructor in psychoanalysis in 1941. Shortly thereafter, she founded the American Institute of Psychoanalysis. Horney served as dean of the institute until her death from cancer in 1952.

1.2 Sociocultural theory: basic conceptual principles

The formation of a sociocultural view of personality psychology was influenced by three main considerations by Karen Horney.

First, she did not accept, and ultimately rejected, the statements of the founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, regarding women, especially his assertion that their biological nature predetermines unconscious penis envy. This was the starting point in her divergences from orthodox psychoanalysis.

Secondly, thanks to close contacts with scientists such as Erich Fromm, Margaret Mead and Harry StackSullivan, her conviction grew stronger that sociocultural conditions have a more profound influence on the development and functioning of the individual, on the formation of neurosis and depression, than was postulated in classical psychoanalysis.

Third, her clinical practice demonstrated striking differences in the personality dynamics of her patients, providing evidence for the influence of cultural factors. These observations led her to the conclusion that unique interpersonal styles underlie personality disorders.

Horney recognized S. Freud’s statement about the importance of childhood experiences for the formation of the structure and functioning of personality in an adult: “S. Freud’s greatest achievement is the postulate according to which there is no fundamental difference between pathological and “normal” phenomena, that pathology is only more distinct, as if under a magnifying glass shows the processes occurring in all people.”

But, despite the commonality of this and some other basic positions, both scientists disagreed on the issue of the specifics of personality formation.

Horney did not accept Freud's assertions about the existence of universal psychosexual stages and that the sexual anatomy of the child unconsciously dictates a certain direction of further personality development. According to her beliefs, the decisive factor in personality development is the social relationship between the child and parents.

According to Horney, childhood is characterized by two needs: the need for satisfaction and the need for security. Satisfaction covers all basic biological needs: food, sleep, etc., but they do not play the main role in the formation of personality. The main thing in a child’s development is the need for safety. In this case, the fundamental motive is to be loved, desired and protected from a dangerous and hostile world.

The child is completely dependent on his parents to satisfy this security need.

If parents show true love towards their child, then their need for security is satisfied, forming a healthy personality.

Conversely, if parental behavior interferes with the satisfaction of the need for security, pathological personality development is very likely.

Moments in the behavior of parents that frustrate the child’s need for security: unstable, extravagant behavior, ridicule, failure to fulfill promises, excessive care, as well as showing clear preference for his siblings.

But the main negative, personally destructive result of such mistreatment by parents is the development in the child of an attitude of basal hostility (according to Horney - “basal distrust”). In this case, the child finds himself in an ambivalent situation: he depends on his parents and at the same time feels resentment and indignation towards them.

This conflict “triggers” such a defense mechanism as repression.

As a result, the behavior of a child who does not feel protected in the parental family is determined by a sense of his own powerlessness, feelings of fear, love, hatred of parents and guilt for this hatred, which acts as a psychological defense, the purpose of which is to suppress hostile feelings towards parents in order to survive. This often leads the child to depression.

According to the psychoanalytic understanding of the phenomenon of transference, repressed feelings of resentment and hostility, the origin of which are the parents, are manifested in all relationships of the child with other people, both in the present and in the future. In such a case, they say that the child’s psychology is characterized by basal anxiety, “a feeling of loneliness and helplessness in the face of a potentially dangerous world.”

Basic anxiety - an intense and pervasive feeling of insecurity - is one of Horney's fundamental concepts.

Unlike Freud, Horney did not believe that anxiety was a necessary component in the human psyche. Instead, she argued that anxiety results from a lack of security in interpersonal relationships. Anything that destroys a child’s sense of security in relationships with parents leads to basic anxiety. Accordingly, the etiology of neurotic behavior should be sought in the disturbed relationship between the child and the parent.

If a child feels loved and accepted, he will feel safe and will likely experience healthy development.

To cope with the feelings of insecurity, helplessness and hostility inherent in basal anxiety, the child is forced to resort to various defensive strategies. Horney described ten such strategies, called neurotic needs, or neurotic tendencies.

These are the needs:

in love and approval, manifested in an insatiable desire to be loved, to be an object of admiration from others; in increased sensitivity and susceptibility to criticism, rejection or unfriendliness towards people who are critical (or perceived as such).

in the managing partner. At the same time, there is an excessive dependence on others and a fear of being rejected or being left alone; overvaluation of love, because there is a belief that love can solve everything.

in clear restrictions, i.e., a preference for a lifestyle in which restrictions and established order are of paramount importance; undemandingness, contentment with little and subordination to others.

in power, i.e., dominance and control over others as an end in itself; contempt for weakness, which is taken to be softness, compliance, loyalty, tolerance and other human qualities.

in exploiting others. This is caused by the fear of being used by others or the fear of looking “stupid” in their eyes, but the unwillingness (inability, impossibility) to do anything to outsmart them.

in public recognition - a strong desire to be an object of admiration from others, when the idea of oneself is formed depending on social status.

in admiration of himself. The desire to create an embellished image of oneself, devoid of flaws and limitations; the need for compliments and flattery from others.

in ambition. A strong desire to be the best, regardless of the consequences; fear of failure.

in self-sufficiency and independence. Avoidance of any relationship that involves taking on any obligations; distancing from everyone and everything.

in impeccability and own infallibility. Trying to be morally infallible and blameless in every way; maintaining an impression of perfection and virtue.

Horney argued that these needs are present to varying degrees in all people. Their satisfaction helps to cope with the feelings of rejection, hostility and helplessness that are inevitable in life.

However, a neurotic person, reacting to various situations, is not able to obtain satisfaction from each of them. It is capable of satisfying only one of all possible needs. This is what neurotic “sharpness” consists of.

A healthy person freely replaces one need with another, if changing circumstances require it, satisfies one need after another, and if one cannot be satisfied, then satisfying another brings the same effect, preventing one from feeling frustrated and unhappy.

Thus, a neurotic, unlike a healthy person, chooses one need, the satisfaction of which only allows him to feel comfortable in all social interactions, which ultimately leads him to stress: “If he needs love, he must receive it from friend and foe, from employer and shoe shiner." The need of a neurotic definitely has a neurotic character if a person tirelessly tries to turn its satisfaction into a way of life.

Horney later identified three main categories of needs, each of which represents a strategy for optimizing interpersonal relationships in order to achieve a sense of security in the outside world. In other words, their action should lead to a decrease in the level of anxiety and the achievement of a more or less satisfying life. Each strategy is accompanied by a certain orientation in relationships with other people.

People-oriented (compliant type) involves a style of interaction characterized by dependence, indecisiveness and helplessness. The person Horney classifies as the compliant type is driven by the irrational unconscious belief: “If I give in, I won’t be touched.”

The compliant type needs to be needed, loved, protected and led. Such people enter into relationships with the sole purpose of avoiding feelings of loneliness, helplessness, or uselessness. However, their politeness may mask a repressed need to behave aggressively. Although such a person seems to be embarrassed in the presence of others and keeps a low profile, this behavior often hides hostility, anger, and rage.

The compliant type described in literature is Molchalin from “Woe from Wit” by A. Griboyedov.

Orientation from people (a separate type) as a strategy for optimizing interpersonal relationships is found in those individuals who adhere to the defensive attitude: “I don’t care.” People Horney classifies as aloof are driven by the mistaken belief, “If I withdraw, I'll be fine.”

The isolated type is characterized by the attitude of not allowing oneself to be carried away in any way, whether it is a love affair, work or leisure. As a result, they lose true interest in people, get used to superficial pleasures - they simply go through life dispassionately. This strategy is characterized by a desire for privacy, independence and self-sufficiency.

This type includes a large number of modern people - from marginalized people (homeless people) and informal people (goths, emo) to fanatics of computer games and social networks, who have little ability to communicate off-line.

Orientation against people (hostile type) is a style of behavior characterized by dominance, hostility and exploitation. A person belonging to the hostile type acts based on the illusory belief: “I have power, no one will touch me.”

The hostile type holds the view that all other people are aggressive and that life is a struggle against everyone. With this he justifies his own hostility: “I’m not attacking, but defending myself. They were the first to start!” He considers any situation or relationship from the position: “What will I get from this?”, regardless of what we are talking about - money, prestige, contacts or ideas. Horney noted that the hostile type is capable of acting tactfully and friendly, but his behavior is ultimately always aimed at gaining control and power over others. Everything is aimed at increasing one’s own prestige, status or satisfying personal ambitions. Thus, this strategy expresses the need to exploit others and gain social recognition and admiration.

From Horney's point of view, these are fundamental strategies in interpersonal relationships that each of us uses at some time. Moreover, these strategies are in a state of constant conflict with each other, both in a healthy and in a neurotic person.

However, in healthy people this conflict does not carry such a strong emotional charge as in patients with neuroses. A healthy person is characterized by great flexibility, he is able to change strategies according to circumstances. And the neurotic is unable to make the right choice between these three strategies when he solves problems that confront him or builds relationships with others. He uses only one of three coping strategies, whether it is suitable in this case or not. Thus, a neurotic person, compared to a healthy person, behaves less effectively when solving life problems.

2. Karen Horney's views on female psychology

Karen Horney did not agree with many of the statements of the founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, regarding women.

She completely rejected his view that women unconsciously envy the male penis and reproach their mothers for being deprived of this organ.

She also considered the opinion of Freud, who argued that a woman unconsciously strives to give birth to a son and thus symbolically gain a penis, to be erroneous.

Horney explained the fallacy of such statements by the fact that psychoanalysis was created by “a male genius, and almost everyone who developed the ideas of psychoanalysis was men.”

The result of disagreement with the official theory is Horney's disqualification as a personal psychoanalyst and exclusion from the ranks of psychoanalysis.

However, Horney achieved more than just criticism of Freud. She created her theory of the psychology of women, containing a new perspective on the differences between men and women in the context of sociocultural influences.

Horney, drawing on her clinical practice, argued that women often feel inferior to men because their lives are based on economic, political and psychosocial dependence on men.

In the “man’s world” in which we live, women were (often still are) treated as second-class creatures, not recognizing the equality of their rights with the rights of men and being raised to accept male “superiority”.

Social systems, with their male dominance, constantly make women feel dependent and inadequate.

Horney argued that many women strive to become more masculine, but not out of penis envy. She viewed women's "overestimation" of masculinity as a manifestation of a desire for power and privilege: "The desire to be a man can be an expression of the desire to possess all those qualities or privileges that our culture considers masculine - such as strength, courage, independence, success, sexual freedom , the right to choose a partner.”

2.1 Attitude to the castration complex

Karen Horney's views on the psychology of women have undergone significant changes in the process of her work, ranging from full support for the theory of psychoanalysis of S. Freud and ending with its deep rethinking and reworking.

Thus, in the Report at the VII International Psychoanalytic Congress in Berlin in September 1922, “On the Origin of the Castration Complex in Women,” Horney demonstrates his full commitment to the views of orthodox psychoanalysis on the problem of castration: “... our understanding of the nature of this phenomenon has not changed significantly. Many women, both in childhood and adulthood, periodically or even constantly experience suffering associated with their gender. Specific manifestations of the mentality of women, arising from a protest against the fate of being a woman, originate from their childhood passionate desire to possess their own penis. The unacceptable idea of one's own original deprivation in this respect gives rise to passive fantasies of castration, while active fantasies are generated by a vindictive attitude towards a man in a privileged position.

But already in this report there is a theme of doubt, even some kind of disagreement with the official point of view on the problem: “... the fact that women feel defective precisely because of their genitals is accepted as an axiom. Perhaps, from the point of view of male narcissism, everything seems too obvious here... However, the overly bold assertion that half of humanity is dissatisfied with their gender and can overcome this dissatisfaction only under especially favorable conditions seems completely unsatisfactory, and not only from the point of view of women narcissism, but also biological science.”

Horney asks a question, the search for an answer to which throughout her life led her to create a psychology of women different from the psychology of men: is the castration complex found in women, which can lead not only to the development of neurosis, but also poses a threat to the healthy formation of character? or even the entire future fate of women (completely normal, capable of any practical activity), are based solely on the unsatisfied desire to have a penis? Or is this just a pretext behind which other forces are hidden, the dynamic beginning of which is familiar from the mechanism of the formation of neuroses?

Horney does not simply ask this question, although the very posing of such a question is dangerous for orthodox psychoanalysis. Horney proposes to answer this question, and offers several methodological approaches, one of which (ontological), in her opinion, is clinical practice.

Thus, examining the frequent desire of his patients to urinate like a man, Horney sees the reason for such a desire not in the castration complex, but in the feeling of injustice that is born from sexual inequality in society: “... it is especially difficult for girls to overcome the desire to masturbate, since they feel that, because of differences in body structure, they are unfairly prohibited from doing things that boys are allowed to do... difference in body structure can easily lead to a bitter sense of injustice, and thus the argument later used to justify the rejection of femininity (namely, that men enjoy greater sexual freedom) appears to be due to genuine experiences in early childhood.”

Thus, Horney says that in a society where some features of an individual (anatomical structure, defects in anatomy or physiology, specific behavior, etc.) can become the basis for socio-cultural prohibitions, these very features can serve as the basis for the formation personality structures. With the removal of these prohibitions, the personality structure can be formed differently.

To paraphrase the words of Karen Horney herself (about “American Indian girls and little Trobriand girls”), one might wonder whether the desire to urinate like a man is present in little girls, for example, Mongolian girls, whose cultural customs and clothing features allowed them (in Karen’s time Horney, in any case) to fulfill their natural needs as openly (and as directly) as men?

Thus, already at the beginning of his psychoanalytic career, Horney begins to doubt the correctness of the applicability of psychoanalytic maxims to women without taking into account the peculiarities of female psychology.

In the future, her conviction that it is impossible to approach the assessment of the characteristics of a woman’s psychology from the point of view of male psychological teaching.

Already a mature psychologist, Horney formulates the main prerequisites for the further development of the psychology of women by her followers (by the way, not only female psychologists, but also men):

.The situation of the “Oedipus complex” does exist, but as a special case. Relationships between the sexes are a field of many general, special and individual problems that cannot be reduced to any one formula.

In times of matriarchy, law and custom centered around the mother, and “matricide” was then (as Sophocles and other ancient authors testify) a more serious crime than parricide. During the era of the invention of writing, men began to play a leading role in politics, economics, legislation and sexual morality. There were many reasons for this. One of them is probably that a man is more rational, more capable of depersonalizing himself, “socializing his psyche.” But this is also its weakness, its inconsistency with modernity, which again emphasizes the importance of a holistic, individualized personality. Women re-enter the fight for equality.

.A man honors a woman as a Mother who feeds, cares, and sacrifices herself. The life-giving power of a woman fills men with admiration. But “it is disgusting for a human being to feel admiration and not hold a grudge against someone whose abilities one does not possess.” A man envies a woman and seeks to compensate for his inability to bear children by creating a state, religion, and art. Therefore, the entire culture bears the imprint of masculinity.

Opposing gender equality "masculine culture" different ways infringes on a woman. Maternity is poorly protected by law. Pregnancy and child-rearing, which require enormous physical and mental expenditure from a woman and are the main reason for a woman’s “cultural lag,” are almost not compensated for. There is an indulgence in the sexual irresponsibility of men and the reduction of women to the role of a sexual object.

.Another reason for mistrust and even hostility between the sexes is that a man is afraid of a woman as a sexual being. In many African tribes, men believe that women have magical power over their genitals. A man is also inclined to think that a woman takes away his power during sexual intercourse, takes away his life-giving seed. The attitude towards a woman is associated with the fear of death: whoever gives life has the right to take it away.

Confirmation of this mystical fear was the unprecedented destruction of women under the banner of the fight against witches (“Hammer of the Witches”), the whole fault of which was that the men themselves lusted for women and could not resist this lust (“Notre Dame Cathedral” by V. Hugo ).

.A man is more dependent on a woman than she is on him. He is afraid of not satisfying a woman, of being impotent, of humiliating himself in front of her. A woman's sexuality frightens him more than it attracts him. He would rather the woman simply be a sex object. For a long time, any sexual activity on the part of a woman was considered a deviation, and frigidity was considered the norm. In order to unimpededly satisfy his sexual desires, a man must keep a woman in a state of obedience, or, more simply, in slavery, which is what takes place in everyday life and the public economy.

In mythological fantasy, a man would like to see a woman “immaculate”, devoid of sexual desires, only in this case she is completely safe for him. The cult of the Virgin Mary is apparently connected with this. The denigration of the feminine principle is also evident in the story of Adam and Eve. For some reason, Eve was made from Adam's rib, rather than Adam emerging from Eve's body. A woman in the Old Testament is interpreted as a temptress and seducer.

.Distrust and hostility towards men also exist in the female psyche, but they are usually associated with childhood experience. The “paradise of childhood,” which forgetful adults often talk about, is nothing more than an illusion. A girl is disadvantaged more than a boy in childhood. She is more forbidden, less is allowed. As a child, she develops a feeling of guilt and fear of physical strength. This is eloquently evidenced by the dreams of girls, in which a woman’s fear arises when meeting snakes, wild animals, monsters that can defeat her, take possession of her, or break into her body. The girl intuitively feels that her future depends not on her, but on someone else, on a mysterious event that she is waiting for and which she is afraid of. Trying to avoid these experiences, the girl goes into the “male role.” This is especially noticeable between the ages of four and ten years. During puberty, noisy boyish behavior disappears, giving way to girlish behavior - humiliated and corresponding to a social role that is often seen as dangerous and undesirable.

Thus, Horney convincingly argues that the price of accepting the female role is a greater tendency towards neuroticism than in men. Sometimes - ambition, desire for power, desire to “take the whole man.” Sometimes - emphasized modesty, passivity - as if they thought that she wanted something from the man. Finally, frigidity is common among women.

2.2 Female masochism

One of the most controversial views of Karen Horney can be considered her views on the problem of female masochism.

December 1933 In Washington, Horney makes a report at a meeting of the American Psychoanalytic Association, in which, by her own admission, she brings up for discussion a problem that “affects the very foundations of determining a woman’s place in culture.” This problem is masochism.

Horney cites facts that indicate that in European culture the masochistic phenomenon is more common in women than in men.

There are two approaches to explain this observation. The first is an attempt to find out whether masochistic tendencies are inherent in female nature itself. The second is to assess the role of social conditions in the origin of differences in the frequency of masochistic tendencies that exist between the sexes.

Before Horney, in psychoanalytic literature the problem was considered only from the point of view of female masochism as a mental consequence of the anatomical difference between the sexes. Psychoanalysis thus provided its scientific apparatus to support the theory of the primordial relationship between masochism and the female body. The possibility of social conditioning had not been considered from a psychoanalytic point of view before Horney.

Horney sets himself and the psychoanalytic community the task of trying to uncover the relationship between biological and cultural factors in this problem, as well as considering the validity of the psychoanalytic data available on this subject and asking whether the psychoanalytic method can be used to study the possible social conditioning of this phenomenon.

Orthodox psychoanalytic views are:

the specific satisfaction that a woman seeks and finds in sexual life and motherhood is masochistic in nature;

menstruation has a hidden meaning of experiencing a masochistic experience;

in sexual intercourse, a woman secretly strives for violence and cruelty, or - on the mental plane - for humiliation;

the process of childbearing gives her unconscious masochistic satisfaction, as well as maternal responsibilities towards the child;

if a man is characterized by masochistic fantasies or actions, this is an expression of his subconscious desire to play the role of a woman.

As a result, an unsightly and disappointing situation arises for the woman: either accept her female role and receive dubious masochistic satisfaction, or try to escape her female role, achieving masculinity, but as a result lose herself as a woman without the confidence that she will be accepted in the ersatz role. men by men.

Helen Deitch suggested the existence of a genetic factor of a biological nature, which inevitably leads to a masochistic concept of the female role.

Sandor Rado pointed out the inevitable circumstance that directs sexual development along masochistic channels.

The difference of opinion was manifested in only one thing: whether special female forms of masochism represent a deviation in the development of women, or are they a “normal” female attitude.

According to psychoanalytic theory, masochistic tendencies are much more common in women than in men. Consequently, if the majority of women or all of them are masochistic in their attitude towards sex life and reproduction, then in non-sexual areas masochistic tendencies will inevitably manifest themselves much more often in them than in men.

Horney does not argue that women can seek and find masochistic satisfaction in masturbation, menstruation, sexual intercourse and childbearing. The question is how often does this happen and why does this happen, i.e., the prevalence of the phenomenon.

According to Freud, a turning point in female development occurs when a girl realizes that she does not have a penis. The shock of this discovery is expected to affect her for a long time. For this assumption, Freud had two sources of data: the desire to possess a penis, or fantasies that they once had one, revealed in the analysis of neurotic women; and observing little girls expressing a desire to have a penis too when they discover that boys have one.

These observations were enough for the author of psychoanalysis to construct a working hypothesis that masculine desires of one origin or another play a role in female sexual life, and such a hypothesis was used to explain some neurotic phenomena in women.

Horney diplomatically hints that this is a hypothesis, not a fact, and that even as a hypothesis it is not indisputable. Moreover, there is no evidence to support the claim that the desire for masculinity is a dynamic factor of primary importance not only in neurotic women, but in any woman, regardless of her personality and place in culture.

Due to limited historical and ethnological information, almost nothing is known about mentally healthy women and about women living in different cultural environments.

Thus, in the absence of data on the frequency, conditionality and proportion of the observed reaction of girls to the opening of the penis, the very assumption that this is a turning point in female development is suggestive, but not proof.

Horney asks the question: “Why should a girl turn into a masochist when she discovers that she does not have a penis?”

According to H. Deutsch: “the active sadistic libido, hitherto attached to the clitoris, is reflected from the barrier of the subject’s internal awareness of her lack of a penis... and is reflected most often in a regressive direction, towards masochism. This leap towards masochism is "part of a woman's anatomical destiny."

The only confirmation of this assumption is the sadistic fantasies of young children. This fact is directly observed in the psychoanalysis of neurotic children (as pointed out by M. Klein) and is reconstructed in the psychoanalysis of neurotic adults.

But the fact is that there is no evidence in favor of the universality of these early sadistic fantasies. Horney quips that it is not known whether they are present in Amerindian girls and little Trobriand girls.

That these sadistic fantasies are generated by the actively sadistic cathexis of the clitoral libido.

That the girl refuses masturbation on the clitoris due to narcissistic injury, having discovered the absence of a penis.

That the libido, active and sadistic up to this point, automatically turns inward and becomes masochistic.

All three suggestions seem highly speculative to Horney. It is known that a person can be frightened by his own hostility and as a result he will prefer a passive role, but how the cathexis of the libido of an organ can be sadistic and then turn inward is a mystery to Horney.

Helen Deitch studied the genesis of femininity, by which she understood “the feminine, passive-masochistic character of the mentality of women.” Her conclusions: masochism is the main component of the female mentality.

Horney has no doubt that this is often the case with neurotic women, but the hypothesis that this is psycho-biologically inevitable for all women is unconvincing.

Further analysis of psychoanalytic views on female masochism, carried out by Horney, convincingly shows: observations made on neurotic women cannot be recklessly extended to all women, since observations in themselves mean nothing - the main thing is in their interpretation: what is acceptable “... to explain some neurotic reactions are unlikely to be useful when working with normal children or adults.”

Since masochism is the ability to derive pleasure from things that cause pain, humiliation, fear, etc., Horney discusses the principle of pleasure: “The principle of pleasure implies that a person strives to derive pleasure from any situation, even when there is not only maximum opportunity for this , even when the possibilities are scanty. Two factors are responsible for the normal course of such a reaction:

) high adaptability and flexibility of our desire for pleasure, noted by Freud as a characteristic of a healthy person in contrast to a neurotic and

) an automatically implemented process of comparing our unbridled desires with reality, as a result of which we realize or unconsciously accept what is available to us and what is not.

The process of checking with reality is slower in children compared to adults, but a girl who loves her rag doll, although she may ardently desire the magnificently dressed princess from the window, will nevertheless have fun playing with hers if she sees that she cannot get that beauty .

A man who leads a normal sex life and suddenly finds himself in prison under such cruel surveillance that all means of sexual gratification are closed will become a masochist only if he had masochistic tendencies before.

A woman abandoned by her husband, deprived of a source of immediate sexual satisfaction and not expecting anything in the future, may react masochistically, but the more healthy balance she has, the easier she will endure temporary deprivation and find pleasure in friends, children, work or other joys of life. A woman will react masochistically to such a situation only if she has previously shown a tendency towards masochistic behavior.

Horney ironically says that if you follow the line of reasoning of an orthodox psychoanalyst, you should only be surprised that boys do not turn into masochists. Almost every little boy gets the opportunity to notice that his penis is smaller than the penis of an adult man. He perceives this as the fact that an adult - father or someone else - can get more pleasure than he himself. The idea of someone having more pleasure available to them should poison their enjoyment of masturbation. He should quit this activity. He must suffer severely mentally, and this will excite him sexually, he will accept this pain as a surrogate pleasure and from then on will be a masochist. The absurdity of this happening to boys everywhere is obvious. Why does this have to happen to girls, and even without fail?

Finally, even if we assume that the opening of the penis causes severe suffering to the girl; that the idea of the possibility of greater pleasure spoils the impression of what is available; that mental pain excites her sexually and she finds surrogate sexual pleasure in it, one should ask: what prompts her to constantly seek satisfaction in suffering?

Horney sees this as a discrepancy between cause and effect. A stone that falls to the ground will remain there until it is moved. A living organism, traumatized in some situation, will adapt to new conditions. The long-term nature of the efforts to protect themselves is not questioned, considering that the forces motivating this once-arising desire to protect themselves remain unchanged.

Freud vigorously emphasized the strength of childhood impressions; but, however, psychoanalytic experience also shows that emotional reactions that took place in childhood are maintained throughout life only if they continue to be supported by various dynamically important circumstances.

Why are male psychoanalysts so sure that a woman must almost always be a masochist?

Horney wittily answers this question: the reason is the fear of men themselves of a woman and her biological capabilities: “This is ... a mistake that psychiatrists and gynecologists made: Kraft Ebing, observing that masochistic men often play the role of suffering women, speaks of masochism as about the type of excessive enhancement of feminine qualities; Freud, starting from the same observation, suggests the existence of a close connection between masochism and femininity; Russian gynecologist Nemilov, impressed by the suffering of a woman during defloration, menstruation and childbirth, speaks of the bloody tragedy of women; German gynecologist Lipmann, impressed by how often women get sick, have accidents, and experience pain, suggests that vulnerability, irritability and sensitivity are the main triad of female qualities.” Unable to understand (read: feel) how a woman can endure this and not suffer forever afterwards, men attribute their own suffering to women.

According to Freud, there is no fundamental difference between pathological and “normal” phenomena, that pathology only shows more clearly, as under a magnifying glass, the processes occurring in all people.

This principle expands our mental horizon, but it also has limits of applicability.

In the study of female masochism, the same principle was used. Manifestations of masochism in women are discovered through observation even where they might otherwise go unnoticed: in the social encounters of women (completely outside the scope of psychoanalytic practice); in the depiction of female characters in literature; when studying women who adhere to some customs alien to us, for example, Russian peasant women who, according to a national proverb, do not feel that their husband loves them unless he beats them. In the face of such evidence, the psychoanalyst comes to the conclusion that he is confronted with a universal phenomenon operating on a psychoanalytic basis with the constancy of natural law.

One-sidedness or a positive error in the results often occurs due to neglect of cultural and social conditions, in particular due to the exclusion from the general phenomenology of women living in a different civilization with different traditions.

The Russian patriarchal peasant woman under the tsarist regime is constantly referred to in disputes to prove how deeply masochism has grown into female nature. However, this peasant woman has turned into an assertive woman these days. Soviet woman, who will undoubtedly be surprised if the beatings are talked about as a declaration of love. The changes took place in the culture, not in the personalities of women.

Generally speaking, wherever the question of the frequency of a phenomenon arises, it implies the sociological aspects of the problem. The refusal of psychoanalysts to deal with them does not exclude their existence. The lack of a sociological approach can lead to an incorrect assessment of the significance of anatomical differences and their transformation into the cause of a phenomenon that in fact is partly or even completely socially determined.

According to Horney, only a synthesis of both conditions will provide a complete understanding of the nature of the phenomenon. The problem of female masochism cannot be attributed only to the peculiarities of the anatomical, psychological and mental characteristics of a woman, but should be considered as largely determined by the culture or social environment in which a particular masochistic woman developed.

Conclusion

horney psychoanalyst complex female

Karen Horney is an amazing woman. She writes about such details that occur in the soul of a neurotic person, which many simply are not aware of. Her books are unique in their accurate descriptions of conflicts.

Horney disagreed with almost every statement made by the founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, about women. She completely rejected his view that women unconsciously envy the male penis and reproach their mothers for being deprived of this organ.

She also considered the opinion of Freud, who argued that a woman unconsciously strives to give birth to a son and thus symbolically gain a penis, to be erroneous. Horney protested against this demeaning view of women in her discussion of men's womb envy, which expresses men's unconscious jealousy of women's ability to bear and feed children.

Finally, Horney concluded that psychoanalysis was created by "male genius, and almost all who developed the ideas of psychoanalysis were men."

Horney's opposition to Freud's views led to her expulsion from the ranks of psychoanalysts. However, as the first major feminist, she did more than simply criticize Freud. She put forward her theory of the psychology of women, containing a new perspective on the differences between men and women in the context of sociocultural influences.

Horney, drawing on the practice of psychological counseling (providing psychological assistance and psychotherapy), insistently argued that women often feel inferior compared to men (experiencing stress, neurosis and depression) because their lives are based on economic, political and psychosocial dependence on men. Historically, women have been treated as second-class creatures, denied equal rights to men, and raised to accept male “superiority.” Social systems, with their male dominance, constantly force women to feel dependent and incompetent, in need of emotional support, including the help of a psychologist or consultation with a psychoanalyst. Horney argued that many women strive to become more masculine, but not out of penis envy. She viewed women's "overestimation" of masculinity as a manifestation of a desire for power and privilege.

“The desire to be a man can be an expression of the desire to possess all those qualities or privileges that our culture considers masculine - such as strength, courage, independence, success, sexual freedom, the right to choose a partner.”

Horney also drew attention to the role contrasts that many women suffer from in relationships with men (even to the point of developing depression or neurosis), particularly highlighting the contrast between the traditional female role of wife and mother and more liberal roles such as choosing a career or pursuing other goals . She believed that this role contrast explains the neurotic needs that we can see in women in love relationships with men.

Horney's ideas, emphasizing the importance of culture and gender roles, fit well with today's feminist worldview. Horney welcomed the rapid changes in role behavior and gender relations observed in modern society. Her numerous articles on the psychology of women are often cited by modern researchers, consulting psychologists, and psychotherapists.

Bibliography

1.Burmenskaya G.V. Karen Horney: the beginning of creativity // Journal of Psychology and Psychoanalysis. - 2008. - No. 6.

2.Voshchinchuk A.N. Ideas of sublimation in the works of K. Horney // Bulletin of the Institute of Contemporary Knowledge named after A.M. Shirokova. - 2010.

.Deitch H. Some aspects of female psychology // Journal of psychology and psychoanalysis. - 2008. - No. 6.

.Kalina N.F. Basics of psychoanalysis. - M.: Olimp, 1999.

.Leibin V. Psychoanalysis and modern Western philosophy. - M.: 1990.

.Panfilova T.V. Karen Horney and women's psychology // Journal of Psychology and Psychoanalysis. - 2008. - No. 6.

.Reshetnikov M. Returning forgotten names. In the book. Horney K. Women's psychology. - St. Petersburg: East European Institute of Psychoanalysis, 1993.

8.Modern Western philosophy: dictionary / comp. Malakhov V.S., Filatov V.P. - M.: 1991.

9.Freud Z. Interpretation of dreams. - Minsk: Harvest, 1997.

.Freud Z. Three essays on childhood sexuality. - M.: Olimp, 1998.

.Fromm E. Flight from freedom. - M.: 1990.

.Fromm E. To have or to be? - Kyiv: 1986.

.Horney K. Women's psychology. - Translation from English by E.I. Zamfir. - St. Petersburg: East European Institute of Psychoanalysis, 1993.

.Horney K. Neurosis and personal growth. - Translation from English by E.I. Zamfir. - St. Petersburg: East European Institute of Psychoanalysis, 2003.

.Horney K. Self-analysis. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2005.

.Horney K. Our internal conflicts. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2005.

.Horney K. Neurotic personality of our time. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2007.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.