Premium Essay

Orney

In:

Submitted By ellyn
Words 1180
Pages 5
KAREN HORNEY Karen Horney was born in Hamburg, Germany, in 1885. She studied medicine and psychiatry in Berlin and taught at the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute from 1918 to 1932. Horney came to the United States in 1932 and served as Associate Director of the Psychoanalytic Institute in Chicago for two years. She then took a position at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute, where she remained until 1941, when she broke away from the institute and became one of the founders of the Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis and the American Institute for Psychoanalysis. Horney came to represent a radical shift from the framework of Freudian psychoanalysis in which she was trained. She is widely recognized as one of the first feminine psychologists as well as one of the first psychoanalytic thinkers who considered the role of culture in influencing individual psycho‐ dynamics . In New Ways in Psychoanalysis (1939), she challenged several concepts central to Freudian theory, such as “libido theory, the primacy of infantile sexuality, and the repetition compulsion,” while affirming what she believed was essential to psychoanalytic theory and practice. Horney’s distinction between health and neurosis was one of the central tenets of her conflict theory of neurosis, which she set forth in Our Inner Conflicts and further developed in Neurosis and Human Growth. In fact, Horney opened the latter work with the proposition that the neurotic process “is not only different in quality from healthy human growth but, to a greater extent than we have realized, antithetical to it in many ways” Horney theorized that “inherent in man are evolutionary constructive forces, which urge him to realize his given potentialities” . This means that “man, by his very nature and of his own accord, strives toward self‐ realization, and that his set of values evolves from such striving.”

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Sociology

...ADDRESS TO THE FAMILY COURT CONFERENCE 2011 Copthorne Hotel, Oriental Bay, Wellington Friday 5 August 2011 * Sian Elias Separate Property – Rose v Rose Introduction I should have know n bet t er t han t o give in t o t he Principal Judge’ s blandishment s t o agree t o speak t o you on t he subject of w hat I persist in t hinking of as “ mat rimonial propert y” . In t he f irst place, one of t he great successes of t he Family Court has been t hat appellat e court s rarely see relat ionship propert y cases. 1 The Supreme Court , in t he seven years of it s exist ence, has seen only one w here division of asset s w as direct ly in issue. 2 Perhaps t hat is just as w ell. The comment at or on my paper, Prof essor Peart , has said of Rose v Rose t hat t en judges st ruggled “ in vain” t o make sense of t he legislat ion. 3 Since half of t hose w ere judges of t he Supreme Court , it does not say much f or our ef f ort . Now Prof essor Peart is very kind and (w it h Margaret Briggs) says t hat is because t he Act is cont radict ory and lacking in coherent principle. 4 But , alt hough I have some quest ions about t he legislat ion myself , I am not quit e as severe on t he Act . So if t he Supreme Court didn’ t manage t o convince in Rose v Rose, I t hink w e should accept f ault . I am, how ever, conscious t hat I am out of my dept h in t his t opic. And I know t hat I am addressing expert s. At t he out set , I w ish t o acknow ledge t he w ork you do...

Words: 8506 - Pages: 35