You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
It is a noteworthy coincidence when a writer like Jan Philipp Reemtsma, who is so critical of present German society, organizes an exhibition (shown in fifty cities) about the criminal mentality of the Wehrmacht under National Socialism and simultaneously concerns himself (, 820-834) with Freud's interpretation of Leonardo. Indeed, a change in current politics is directly linked to a new evaluation of Freud. At the end of the twentieth century, the call to “return to Freud's texts” (Grubrich-Simitis, 1993) cannot be ignored. Obviously, the present threat to human relationships posed by the only superficially equalitarian and potentially increasingly violent societies of the “leading industrial nations” has something to do with the theories of the founder of psychoanalysis. There is evidence of the uneasiness raised by the questions that Freud raised: for example, a comprehensive exhibition on Freud that opened in 1998 in the United States was subjected to massive criticism years in advance;1 and a leading German political magazine simultaneously attacked the psychoanalyst and proclaimed him to be the Father of the twentieth century.2 These incidents are obviously symptomatic of what Jürgen Habermas proclaimed to be the “new unintelligibility,” referring to a continued aversion for father figures and at the same time, to an unquestioning following of them. The critical reception of Freud is a meeting place of enlightenment and esoterics, a search for protection as well as a rejection of an open display of emotional conflicts and of protracted analytical healing-processes. Often, the focus of criticism is not Freud's work but he himself,3 with obviously only one intention: of tracking down projections in his writings simply to discredit his achievement as a whole. All responses from his followers are thereby considered obsolete.