Schröter M
Psyche (Stuttg). 1995 Jun;49(6):513-63.
With access to new sources the author reconstructs the conditions and circumstances leading in 1912 to what in the literature has come to be known as Freud's "secret committee". Schröter's sociological vantage enables him to pinpoint the mechanisms that made it possible for Freud to seek a resolution of the conflict smouldering between himself and Jung by staging a "palace revolution" which dethroned the institutionalized powerholder (Jung was president of the IPV and editor of the Jahrbuch für psychoanalytische und psychopathologische Forschungen) and established the Viennese group-centering around Freud and standing for his interest in the survival of his work-as an informal, secret body wielding power collectively and thus making it unnecessary for Freud himself to take over direct, personal "rule". At the same time, the author contends, the differences between Vienna and Zurich also need to be understood in terms of local and historical factors. Whereas Freud and Vienna represent a monarchic understanding of power in which power may be delegated but is never shared or relinquished, Jung and Zurich stand for democratic, liberal-bourgeois attitude towards power stemming from a long tradition of anti-monarchism in Switzerland.
借助新的资料来源,作者重构了1912年导致在文献中被称为弗洛伊德“秘密委员会”的条件和情况。施勒特的社会学视角使他能够查明那些机制,正是这些机制使得弗洛伊德有可能通过发动一场“宫廷革命”来寻求解决他与荣格之间愈演愈烈的冲突,这场革命推翻了制度化的掌权者(荣格是国际精神分析协会主席和《精神分析与精神病理学研究年鉴》的编辑),并建立了以弗洛伊德为中心、代表他对其作品存续的关注的维也纳团体,作为一个非正式的秘密团体集体行使权力,从而使弗洛伊德本人无需直接进行个人“统治”。同时,作者认为,维也纳和苏黎世之间的差异也需要从当地和历史因素的角度来理解。弗洛伊德和维也纳代表了一种君主制的权力观念,即权力可以被委托,但永远不会被分享或放弃,而荣格和苏黎世则代表了源自瑞士长期反君主主义传统的对权力的民主、自由资产阶级态度。