PubMed · 15412972
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
W SCHMIDEBERG. 1950. Original sin.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15412972/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Posttraumatic shame and guilt are important dimensions of posttraumatic syndromes, including simple and complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The concepts of posttraumatic shame and guilt have received little theoretical or empirical investigation in the field of traumatology. It is proposed that there are acute and prolonged states of posttraumatic shame and guilt that can be compared in their consequences across eight psychosocial dimensions: (a) self-attribution processes, (b) emotional states and capacity for affect regulation, (c) appraisal and interpretation of actions, (d) the impact of states of shame and guilt on personal identity, (e) suicidality, (f) defensive patterns, (g) proneness to psychopathology and PTSD, and (h) the dimensions of the self-structure adversely affected by states of posttraumatic shame and guilt. The experience of posttraumatic states of shame and guilt are associated with compounded affective processes in PTSD, depression, and substance use disorders.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Hans Loewald's work was relatively marginalized in its day and it is little known outside the United States. It is, however, assuming increasing importance in American psychoanalysis. Loewald's attractiveness as a theoretician is due, in no small part, to his rigor and synthetic reach. He is able to accomplish the difficult feat of remaining non-sectarian and systematic at the same time. Indeed, Loewald's work contains an integrative vision that is unusual in today's fragmented psychoanalytic world. This author tries to show how Loewald attempts to reconcile many of the rigid oppositions that often become reified in analytic controversies: structural theory versus relational psychoanalysis, traditionalism versus revisionism, oedipal versus pre-oedipal, modernist versus postmodernist and hermeneutical versus scientific. The article examines how Eros, understood in terms of the psyche's synthetic strivings, plays a major role in Loewald's theory. The author also situates Loewald's position within contemporary psychoanalytic discussions of epistemology. These discussions tend to criticize the objectivism of modern science-and analysis in so far as it models itself on science-and stress countertransference and the subjectivity of the analyst. Loewald's argument, however, runs in the opposite direction. Because of his concern with the autonomy and individuality of the patient, he is concerned with the clinical dangers rising from an overemphasis on the subjectivity of the analyst.