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.
Karen Horney moved away from the classical Freudian psychoanalytic thinking and inaugurated a conceptualization of neurosis that has created a new line of development in psychoanalysis. Her views coincided in many ways with those of other authors whose views are usually not associated with hers. Also, Horney's criticisms of Freudian theory by and large coincide with those of many psychiatrists who are critical of mainstream psychoanalysis. Examples are the central role of the oedipus complex, the privileged role of childhood in the genesis of neurosis, and biological reductionism. In the following remarks, I want to stress the following:
The pathogenic role of cultural phenomena as opposed to instinctual determinism in neurosis
The importance of the present life situation as opposed to early childhood in the genesis of neurotic trends.
The shift from clinical — i.e., hysteria, obsessions, phobias-to character neurosis
The concept of basic anxiety
Although Horney's name is frequently placed in the context of names such as Freud, Adler, Sullivan, E. Fromm, and even W. Reich, as authors who mutually influenced each other to different degrees, there is an important link that I believe has been neglected, namely that of Horney and Jung. In this respect, we can find the following points of confluence between the psychoanalytic theories of these two authors:
The person is viewed as the resultant of a compromise between the individual and the social.
Masculine and feminine trends are universally complementary.