AESTHETIC MINDS AND NARROW MINDS - THE MUTUAL STEREOTYPES BETWEEN CULTURAL THEORISTS AND CLINICIAN

The unity of therapeutic treatment and cultural theory, in psychoanaly sis, does not exist any more. The predominance of the clinical psychoa nalysis is obvious. There is an icy co-existence of "cultural theorist s" and "clinichians". The mutual stereotypes - "aesthetic minds" versu s "narrow minds" - are examined here with specific consideration of th eir function as a defence against alarming and stressing aspects of th eir professional identity. The defence of the "cultural theorists" is directed against the mourning at the loss of cultural theoretical trad itions and at their marginal position in the field of psychoanalysis, whereas the defence of the "clinichians" is directed against the burde ns and restrictions of the clinical routine, which are understood as a "deformation professionelle". The article ends with a historical pros pect: An increasing "medico-centrism", the exiling of politically left -wing, jewish analysts, and the institutionalization of psychoanalysis were promotive of the bogging down of cultural theory. Sectarian and dogmatic structures of the organisation of the early psychoanalysis ar e illustrated at the example of the "committee", their traces in the p resent institutions are described. A non-creative climate of discussio n and a gingerly caution against other sciences, as well as against "l imited speculating" on our culture, stand in the way of the developmen t of a cultural theoretical discussion. The view into the history of p sychoanalysis is meant to help to base on realistic historical ground the debate on the bogging down of cultural theory, - a debate that is at the time determined by stereotypes, moralizing and polemics.