Who was Heinz Hartmann, and what were his contributions to the field of psychology?
Heinz Hartman is a Viennese psychiatrist and psychoanalyst from the Freudian school. He was born in 1894, and, as a Freudian, he based all or most of his theses on the foundations proposed by Sigmund Freud in terms of analysis of the inner psyche of all individuals.
Coming from a well-to-do family of aesthetics and scholars, Hartman had no problem finding the perfect pairings when it came to conducting his psychoanalysis studies. He was a student of Sandor Rado as well as an intern of Sigmund Freud himself.
The most significant influence that Heinz Hartman has bestowed upon the psychoanalytical field are his studies on what he later would become known as the father of: Ego Psychology. The psychology of the ego, became a school of psychoanalysis based on the model of the Ego-Id-Superego proposed by Freud.
At the time Hartman proposed his theory, the accepted notion in psychoanalysis was that the work was that a strong ego can supersede any issues going on with the id, super-ego, etc. In other words, that the job of the therapist was so make egos strong. They assumed that the stronger the ego is, the least possible it is to become afflicted with mental conditions.
Can you explain “acting out” in Freudian psychoanalytic terms? What would cause a patient to act out?
Under Freudian/psychoanalytic terms “acting out” is seen as a dichotomy between the conscious and the unconscious wanting to both send out a repressed message.
In psychoanalysis, the term “acting out” has misconceptions related to it. People have given the term the broader meaning of someone throwing a tantrum, or verbally expressing pent up emotion. In reality, Freudian psychoanalysis specifies that acting out is much more subtle than that: the client who acts out clearly unconsciously expresses a repressed, unremembered something with actions rather than with inaccessible words, and such actions are intrinsically woven within the psychoanalytical situation. In psychoanalysis, acting out has a lot of communicative potential because it sends signs that will indicate to a therapist the client’s repressed, unrecallable memories.
Freud first used the term in 1914 in “Remembering, Repeating, and Working-Through”. As Freud defines it, acting out is when patients cannot access repressed memories that motivate unconscious behaviors that “symbolically dramatize the past in order not to remember it”. Acting out during therapy, as described by Freud, includes such things as behaving toward the therapist as they behaved toward parents, having disturbing dreams and associations, complaining of lack of success because of a childhood “deadlock” in the Oedipal stage, etc. Therapists might also, perhaps simplistically and erroneously, suggest acting out pertains to all the changes in affect and gesture that the patient goes through as he or she talks about themselves. These include:
- intonation changes
- facial expressions
- eye movement
- change in tone of voice (volume)
- imitation (remembering a mother’s shrieking voice and repeating it)
- body language-use of hands and excited speech, or withdrawn
Acting out is different from “acting in,” which occurs outside the bounds of therapy sessions, for example in work or love decisions. Acting out it consists of unconscious messages expressed through behavior in the therapy transference relationship, which is why the therapist must be an observant psychotherapist.
In part IV of A Rose for Emily, what did the author want to imply when he said “We were glad because the two female cousins were even more Grierson than Miss Emily had ever been.” What did being more Grierson represent?
In part IV of A Rose for Emily by William Faulkner we learn that the portents of Homer marrying Emily were very scarce. Nevertheless, he would drive her around town in a way that was beginning to cause unrest among the people, feeling first sorry for Emily, but then declaring that this open courtship that is going nowhere was setting a bad example for young people.
As a result, the minister’s wife calls in Emily’s cousins. The townsfolk believe that the purpose of the cousins being there is to assure a marriage. Indeed, after they leave, Homer is seen entering Emily’s house for what would be the last time ever; this seals the idea that he had left previously to prepare for the wedding and wait until the cousins leave. In fact, the townsfolk narrator even sides with Emily saying “enough with the cousins”, so that Emily can have her day at the altar.
Two days later we learned that she had bought a complete outfit of men’s clothing, including a nightshirt, and we said, “They are married.” We were really glad. We were glad because the two female cousins were even more Grierson than Miss Emily had ever been.
This comment about “being Grierson” evokes the original father of the clan, and Emily’s father. The man, who kept Emily overprotected for so many years, made a recluse of his daughter for his idea that nobody was ever good enough for her. As he imposed his will upon his daughter, he took away her own. This is why the townsfolk sided with Emily: they saw her as a victim of her father’s strong will.
Yet, when the townsfolk believed that the cousins came to force Homer to marry Emily, the town realized that the very strength of character that Mr. Grierson had sucked away from his daughter was still imminent in the other members of the family. As a result, the town erroneously concluded that the cousins used the “Grierson way” to make Homer do what Emily could not make him do: to do the right and honorable thing and marry Emily. In that sense, they were “more Grierson than Miss Emily had ever been”.
Would it be a fair argument to critique Rawl’s Maximin Principle by adding an element that the person in the worst position in each scenario but be deemed to attempting some effort to advance their position society to the best of their abilities? It just seems unjust to pick the best worst situation if the person in the worst situation will receive benefits regardless of putting in effort. If this is wrong, what are fair criticisms of Rawl’s Maximin Principle?
According to Rawls (1973), society and social systems should exist in order to aid and support those “at the bottom of the totem pole” so that they too can surface and succeed. In his own words,
“The basic structure is just throughout when the advantages of the more fortunate promote the well-being of the least fortunate, that is, when a decrease in their advantages would make the least fortunate even worse off than they are. The basic structure is perfectly just when the prospects of the least fortunate are as great as they can be.” (Rawls 328).
Now the scenario that you propose in your question is excellent for debate: what if the individual who is at that social bottom, regardless of the help, opportunities, and support systems offered to him, PREFERS to REMAIN at the bottom and not put any effort, considering that all the needs he may have are met. If this is the case, we have to pull in Ethics, regardless of whether we agree or not. After all, Democracy was founded within the same paradigms of Rawl’s Principle: and both are founded on sand, rather than rock.
Let’s trace the meaning of “democracy”. Cleisthenes, the man who introduced the term, was from the Alcmaeonids family in 508 BC, after 2 years of civil war. This powerful family (Cleisthenes was an aristocrat)used the help of none other than the now-modernly famous Spartans to remain in power. Years passed and the word changed. To the ancient Greeks, the word demokratia stood for “power to the people” or “power of the people”. Nobody, however, really pointed out which “people” were to hold such power, making the term somewhat ambiguous. In fact, there is a suggestion that it was the elite who invented the term to specify that, should their votes be undermined, as “people” they have the right to reject the votes of others! In not so many words, democracy is completely connected to Rawl’s Maximin Principle, in that both are meant to empower the people..yet both terminologies are open to interpretation.
Therefore, the next step is to bring another term invented by the Greeks which permeates our justice and social system: Ethics. Ethics is a philosophical branch that weighs right from wrong in terms of what is appropriate or morally good behavior versus what is not. Ethics would kill the argument against the Maximin Principle by conceding the fact that the responsibility of a democratic and ethical model of government is to provide its people with what they need to strive and become better citizens. The argument of whether the people deserve it remains within each individual’s personal constructs. Some may say that those who refuse to earn their keep may as well not receive it…but is that ethical? Would that make a government better, or worse? Regardless, it is definitely the responsibility of the government to EDUCATE its citizens. What would the best course of action be for that unwilling individual? Certainly, it would be to aim to become a better citizen. Hence, let’s empower them through education, exposure, and social experiences that motivate them to become better citizens. That CAN happen. It HAS happened, and it is more viable to become a reality.
Although we have tons of people on welfare and abusing the system (and we KNOW that they are out there), the natural tendency of human behavior is to move to a proximal zone, that is, to become, to obtain, or to experience something “better”. People with no education or social exposure would try to do this the feral, easy way: stealing, doping, and committing crimes. Those with a little more exposure to social rules, even with a tiny amount of additional education, and with even an iota of decency would find a positive model to follow, and they will try to imitate it. These are not models of behavior; these are exact human tendencies of behavior.
Therefore, we could conclude a fair critique to Maximin as follows: the model embodies ethical treatment and the overall meaning of what a democratic government should do for its people. It does it with transparency, as it does not intend to favor some against others. Maximin intend to do the best, as it argues that all individuals deserve the same opportunity for success. All this is true. However, the individual is responsible for his or her own actions, as well as free to pursue them. The next best step is to educate such individuals in what would be the best course of action for them: crime does not pay, and leads to more chaos. Brushing up with positive role models, and moving onto a proximal social zone is perhaps the most humane and democratic opportunity to offer. Hence, let’s continue our efforts to demonstrate how a sensible life looks like so that the offerings of a fair government are put to their best use, rather than being abused.
lingtechguistics.com 
Leave a Reply