Talk:Love and hate (psychoanalysis)
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Great Article!
editI enjoyed this article very much. Especially the great in-line references to psychological terms. Thanks!
It was tagged missing cross reference, so I added the "See Also" section and scraped the article for Wikipedia links. Added several more that might be used to add to this article. See: Psychoanalytic_concepts_of_love_and_hate#See_Also especially on bonding and attachment. Might also develop a section on empathy (which is huge) and relationship to "hateful" / "neglectful" personalty traits/disorders (narcissism, anti-social, borderline...) Just some ideas. Rick (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Origins of Love and Hate (Suttie,1935)
editRE:
Although his work has been out of print in England for some years, it is still relevant today.[dubious – discuss]
and...
It has been often cited and makes a contribution towards understanding the more difficult aspects of family relationships and friendships.[citation needed]
From publishers statement
- The Origins of Love and Hate has long had an underground reputation within psychoanalysis. It is one of the most passionate arguments for a therapeutic practice based on the physician's love for the deeply deprived patient. It also advocated a view of human nature congruent with the findings of modern biology - a more optimistic vision than that of traditional Freudian psychology. The book is a powerful and early critique of the dual instinct theory of psychoanalysis - Eros and Thantos.
Book was published in hardcover: 1935, 1939, 1945, 1948, 1952, 1966, and in paperback: 1960, 1963, 1966, 1999 (1999 ISBN-13: 978-1853430138), so it clearly had impact. Suggest correct sentence #1 to talk about the publishing history and provide a cite to most current editions (available on Amazon).
Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society (2009) 14, 375–392. doi:10.1057/pcs.2008.38
Ian Suttie's matriarchy: A feminist utopia?
Gal Gersona
- Widely acknowledged as an inspiration and early model for the British object relations school, Ian Suttie's work illustrates both the school's advantages and its pitfalls. Suttie's work includes a core concept of matriarchy as the social order best suited for healthy upbringing. As object relations theory has attracted both praise and criticism from feminists for its perceptions of gender and the family, examining Suttie's notion of matriarchy may serve as a test case for the relationist approach to gender and its links to wider political questions. I argue that Suttie provides some insights that will later be appropriated and further developed by key feminist thinkers. His position, however, implies an essentialist foundation that makes family relations hierarchic and non-negotiable. The structured household and its gendered division of labor is the cornerstone of Suttie's utopia.