And here all the steps together:

DeMause refers to his approach as a psychogenetic theory of history. The central driving force of historical change is neither seen in technology nor economics, but in the psychogenetic changes in the personality or in the make-up structure of the character which result from the interaction of parents and children throughout the generations. His theory is grounded on the five following basic assumptions which, according to deMause, can all be either verified or falsified by empirical and historical evidence...[...]

While I appreciate that deMause uses historical sources in order to support his psychogenetic theory. In this theory, he theory in which he tries to include the actual cultural development. , Unfortunetaly, he fails unfortunately to acknowledge the interrelation of cultural and the interrelation between the culture and the psychological psychic development. Historical phenomena only serve as verifications or falsification of his psychogenetic theory. He explicitly writes declares that the evolution of the parent-child-relationship is an independent source for historical change. To me, it seems hardly possible does not seem very likely that the parent`s ability to cast back their minds to their children`s psychological psychical age and to thus better understand their fear anxiety, should could constitutes the driving force for a psychological change in history [...ability to go back to the psychological age of a child and thus to better understand their children`s fears, should constitute ...].

de De Mause perceives evolution as a continuous development, a development in the course of which parents become increasingly able to understand their children. This striking deficiency in deMause`s theory is revealed when the theory applied to early modern times. If psychological psychical change may can be explained by the improving improvement in childhood conditions, how, then, is it possible then that, during the witch persecution s, the childhood conditions have did not in the least at all undergone a similar positive development at all but rather the contrary? Can the sending-away of the children in the age era of ambivalence, as deMause characterizes the early modern times, in fact be traced back to a better understanding of the parents of former generations? Can you judge a whole culture by the childrearing child rearing practices alone [...Is it possible to come to an understanding of culture by considering childrearing ...]? Don`t we rather need to understand them in their psychodynamic function for supporting the adjustment adaption to the respective society? [...Should we not rather instead understand those practices...]

For an understanding of In order to understand the relation between psychological psychic development and culture one has to turn to ethnology again in particular to ethno-psychoanalysis. Ethno-psychoanalysis examines the individual`s conscious and subconscious conflicts in the respective culture. Hereby In this, the foreign culture is not regarded as more mature or higher better developed than any other another culture, and the tendency in the evolutionary concept/concept of evolution to devalue the previous stages of evolution is not being adopted. Subconscious conflicts caused by culture, are regarded as functional for this particular culture, that is, as a subconscious process of adaptation.

Who corrected?

Students

Native speaker

Client

According to the corrector, the corrections marked in colour should be deleted.


Back

Section Homepage

Next