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.
We shall never completely subdue nature; our body, too, is an organism, itself a part of nature, and will always contain the seeds of dissolution, with its limited powers of adaptation and achievement.
The conditions of the possibility of experience are at the same time the conditions of the possibility of the objects of experience.
An “ecological-cum-psychoanalytic” perspective elucidates the innate kinship between modern, critical ecological thinking and the assumptions on the nature of the human animal underlying Freudian psychoanalysis. “Critical ecology” engages with the issues posed by a meaningful, “sustainable” design for the relationship between nature and culture; psychoanalysis investigates and engages therapeutically with human self-relations in the field of tension existing between the culture-imprinted and culture-productive “ego,” on the one hand, and the independent, naturally established motivational sides of the psyche subsumed by Freud under the term “id” on the other. Against an ecological-cum-psychoanalytic backdrop, modern developments in object relations theory and self psychology can be understood in a way that places them in a conceptual framework corresponding to Freud's central concern with the balance or integration—successful or unsuccessful—of the motivational (interactional) strivings of “internal nature” and the requirements posed by human “self-production” via culture. Psychoanalysis and critical ecology, it is argued, stand to profit from one another.