Explore the vast range of titles available.

After the foundation of psychoanalytic institutes in Berlin (1920), Vienna (1922), and London (1925), the Frankfurt Psychoanalytic Institute (1929-1933) was among the first European institutes. Its closure in 1933 at the hands of the National Socialists, along with the transformation of the Berlin Institute into a state-governed psychotherapeutic institute, obliterated for a long time all memory of psychoanalysis in Germany. In West Germany, Alexander Mitscherlich was able to found a new \"Institute and Training Centre for Psychoanalysis and Psychosomatic Medicine\" in Frankfurt in 1960, which was renamed the \"Sigmund-Freud-Institute\" (SFI) in 1964. The German Federal State of Hessen financed this foundation as an act of reparation for psychoanalysis. From 1995 onwards, the institute mainly focused on research and the training branch was given to the newly founded Frankfurt Psychoanalytic Institute (FPI). The SFI was now defined as a purely psychoanalytic research institute and remains the only state-supported institute devoted solely to psychoanalytic research up to the present. Due to the changes in the scientific world, it had to be structured in new ways over the last 15 years. The SFI is now an internationally and interdisciplinary well-known and productive psychoanalytic research institute.

In October of 1946 Alexander Mitscherlich encountered Egon Schulz, a common criminal turned psychopathic murderer. Mitscherlich's notes on the case provide the earliest evidence of conceptual linkages that would later mark his social psychology. Via an analysis of Schulz's psychic configuration and life story and in yet unsystematic form, Mitscherlich makes connections between fatherlessness, emotional vacuity, remorselessness, reality distortions, and the inability to empathize and feel regret. Mitscherlich discovers in this case a disconcerting lack of empathy, which both Margarete and he will later identify as a psychological and emotional necessity for a functioning democratic society. Reprinted by permission of the German Studies Review

Margarete Mitscherlich was a German-Danish psychoanalyst and feminist who famously claimed that Germans could not mourn. Often referred to as the \"Grande Dame of German psychoanalysis\", with her husband [Alexander Mitscherlich] she co-authored Die Unfhigkeit zu trauern [\"The Inability to Mourn\"] in 1967. It was an exploration of Germany's attempts to come to terms with the Second World War in the era of the economic miracle, \"'restoration\" and Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. They concluded that not enough had been done to address the crimes of the Nazi era, and called on Germans to embark on more collective attempts to do so. It was provocative and touched on the taboos many Germans had long nourished.

Rabinbach responds to Karen Brecht's paper on the role of Alexander Mitscherlich in psychoanalysis in Germany. He tries to locate the debunking of the Mitscherlich myth in its broader political context.

Dr. [Alexander Mitscherlich] was internationally known among psychiatrists for using psychoanalysis to explain complicated social problems that are caused by the actions of large institutions. In 1949, he created a stir with the publication of his book, ''Doctors of Infamy.'' In 1969 the book won the Peace Prize of the German book trade, a prize previously won by Martin Buber and Albert Schweitzer. Another book, ''The Inability to Mourn,'' further investigated such nonremorseful behavior under a variety of conditions. Roots of Aggression In his book, ''Society Without the Father,'' published in English in 1969, Dr. Mitscherlich was critical of a society in which the father-dominated family had died out. He argued that its place was being taken by a consumer society based on science and technology.

Alexander Mitscherlich saw himself as the founder of post-war psychoanalysis in Germany and was seen as its representative by the general public. Brecht examines Mitscherlich's role in psychoanalysis and how he became a figure who obstructed the view of the true history of psychoanalysis in Germany and the role of German psychoanalysts with the Nazis.

Schlant distinguishes the silence of the Holocaust -- a silence over the horror of direct experience -- from the silence about the Holocaust -- the silence of perpetrators and the succeeding generations that attempted to address that silence. Those attempts have been undermined for decades by Germany's \"inability to mourn,\" even as our knowledge, interpretations, and understanding of Nazism and the Holocaust have increased since 1945. Schlant argues that \"coming to terms\" with the past is not equivalent to \"working through,\" for \"it leaves the victims and the crimes as unmourned as they have always been\" (p. 14). In the 1980s the subtexts emerged as part of German public discourse in the episode of Bitburg, the Historikerstreit over the uniqueness of Nazi crimes, the Jenniger affair, and literary disputes over Germany's continued relation to \"Auschwitz.\" Schlant rightly sees German fictional narratives as a \"seismograph of a people's conscience and unstated assumptions.\" The unification of Germany has \"not brought a lessening of the awareness of the Holocaust\" -- Auschwitz will remain, though the context is changing. That change is evident in writers such as Peter Schneider, who attempt to represent Jews and Germans as \"individuals with their own voices\" engaged with friends in moments of crises, even confrontations, but also capable of genuine human relations. Here, Schlant affirms \"the language of silence ceases to exist\" (p. 224).

This review essay seeks to direct attention to intellectual history as a new and flourishing subfield in the historiography of post-1945 Germany. The essay probes and critically interrogates some of the basic arguments of Dirk Moses' prize-winning monograph German Intellectuals and the Nazi Past. It does so by engaging with a series of German-language monographs on key intellectuals of the postwar period (Alexander Mitscherlich, Jürgen Habermas, Herbert Marcuse) or groups of intellectuals that have appeared during the last few years. The essay also includes two books that focus on intellectual transfers from and to the United States and hence transcend the purely national framework. The essay highlights some broader themes such as West German intellectuals' confrontation with the Nazi past and with the memory of Germany's failed experiment with democracy during the interwar Weimar Republic. It also discusses the significance of the West German student movement in the 1960s for West German intellectual history. The essay concludes with some broader reflections on writing intellectual history of the postwar period, and it points to some avenues for further research. It underlines the significance of intellectual debates—and hence of intellectual history—for charting and explaining the process of postwar democratization and liberalization in the Federal Republic of Germany.