Klaus Holzkamp


Gerburg Treusch-Dieter


A.S. Neill


Peter L. Berger


Max Horkheimer


Pierre Bourdieu


Trin Minh Ha


Morus Markard


Hannah Arendt


Stuart Hall


Thomas Luckmann


Donna Haraway

Theodor W. Adorno


Karl Marx


Michel Foucault

Klaus Theweleit


Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak


G�nther Anders


Bell Hooks


Klaus Ottomeyer


Simone de Beauvoir


Norbert Elias


Judith Butler


Lawrence Grossberg


Marshall McLuhan


George Herbert Mead


Frigga Haug


Sandra Harding

Jean Paul Sartre


Thomas Slunecko

ikp gallery


















Critical Psychology in Austria

by Daniel Sanin, Vienna, Austria
Feb., 2006

(first published in Annual Review of Critical Psychology 5, 2006)

Table of contents:


Biographic Preliminaries

Critical Psychology in Austria







Introduction[1] (Top)

Before I detail the Austrian situation of Critical Psychology, I will mark a few basic thoughts on (possible) roles and functions of Critical Psychology in general.

The fundamental question is: What could (or should) the function of Critical Psychology be, what is its deeper meaning? Is there a deeper meaning at all? Why is there (if there is) a need for Critical Psychology? And to what refers the word “Critical” in “Critical Psychology”?

Apparently, if there is a Critical Psychology, there must be – at least from Critical Psychology’s standpoint – a Non-critical Psychology. Of course this is true, as almost everyone who studies or studied Psychology knows. Non-critical Psychology is the norm, the realm of real science, the field that has not to be named, since it is the very space from where the world is named, while it itself remains in the shadows of objectivity. The student of Psychology does not necessarily need to ever hear of a “Critical” Psychology; it is likely that s/he only learns about mere “Psychology”, which presents itself as the one and only, as the true science. Critical Psychology now tries to bring some light into these “shadows of objectivity”, it claims that “Psychology” is not just “Psychology”, but “Mainstream Psychology”. It claims that this Mainstream Psychology is not the, but only one position of Psychology. Critical Psychology, thus, takes a special position in the field of Psychology, in the field of (social) science, and in the field of social and societal discourses. It is a kind of counter position, a position against something that is perceived as wrong, or a position for something that is not yet (fully) realized. In short: Critical Psychology has a mission, and its mission is to struggle for a “good” Psychology, a Psychology that takes into account human beings as societal beings, that does not degrade persons to values or variables, and that does not just serve the actual power without raising any questions[2].

Critical Psychology as I understand it is the attempt for a better science, a contribution for a better society. It must be (or provide) a space where one can speak against bad conditions and for alternatives. Another dimension of Critical Psychology is the political one. This includes political awareness followed by political action, in University structures, academic discourses, society discourses, practical action etc.

All these points mentioned above are the standards with which I will measure Austria’s Critical Psychology. But before we are getting closer to the real subject of these article I shall explain myself, make clear my personal standpoint, my biographic approach to Critical Psychology, so that it can become clearer who is speaking, from which position, and with which assumptions. Furthermore my personal story may provide also some general insights in the local[3] approaches to Mainstream and Critical Psychology.

Biographic Preliminaries[4] (Top)

I started studying Psychology in Vienna in fall 1994. At this point, critical seminars or lectures were already very “endangered”. At the beginning of the study it was hard to encounter anything critical altogether. The most prominent feeling in those times was frustration, since it was not clear at all what statistics or physics formulas had to do with Psychology, which I imagined as the science of human behaviour, functioning etc.

Since there is no access limitation to Austria’s universities[5] the Institute of Psychology (IoP) installed its own methods of reducing the amount of students. Therefore the first semester was crowded with very boring and sometimes difficult lectures, held in the “Auditorium Maximum”, the biggest lecture hall with a capacity of 800 seats, with no possibility of asking anything, with – e.g. for statistics – an old professor who almost appeared to be covered in cobwebs. I remember when once a student dared to interrupt him asking a question and, not being satisfied with the answer, asked again, and also for a third time. The professor then said that he could not hold his lecture under these conditions and simply left the crowded auditorium. This is just a typical example for the dominant atmosphere at the IoP: Just do what you have to do, don’t raise any (stupid) questions, respect the professor’s authority, and learn to become a “proper” student of Psychology, acquiring step by step the right “habitus” (Bourdieu). There was almost nothing of “social science” in the curriculum of those days[6]. Hence the main strategy of accomplishing your duties was to learn the things you had to learn without asking questions. I call it a “bulimic” strategy, since you stuff yourself full with the required “knowledge” and choke it out in your exam. But there is no process of thinking about what you are learning, no discussion, no examination, just blind learning by heart. In my whole study I only had one oral exam, which was my final examination, all others where written exams or even just multiple choice. So there is hardly any professor or lecturer who ever knows you. In those times we had about 7 regular professors for approximately 7000 students[7].

But this situation also had a positive effect: Since the regular staff of the IoP could not provide all the necessary lectures/seminars, a lot of external lecturers had to be hired, and among them where quite a few critical scientists. Especially in the second part of the curriculum[8] there was a broader variety of seminars and lectures to choose from. Nevertheless, one did not have much possibility to do a lot of critical seminars since one also had to follow one’s degree course scheme, unless one did not mind doing extra-seminars which were not necessary for ones curriculum. Like this there was at least the chance that the students could get in contact with theories or thoughts beyond of Mainstream Psychology.

Already almost at the end of my studies I joined a small group of Critical Psychology students, called “CRIPS”[9]. This was a period in my student time where I was very active in a political sense. When I finally realized what was possible, that there was much more in Psychology than the things we had to learn, I became passionate in trying to change the – from my point of view – wrong conditions at the IoP. With this group I finally had found a few people who shared (more or less) my views, my dissatisfaction with Mainstream Psychology. We literally worked day and night, organizing speeches, actions, parties, making contacts, editing a commented university calendar, writing articles, trying to gain new members or at least supporters, etc. It was a very challenging time full of enthusiasm. We tried very hardly to be elected for the student council, fighting against the “PT”, the “Psychological Team”, which defined itself as a non-political, service-oriented group.

Unfortunately, it was almost impossible to gain any support from the students. Nobody seemed interested in political struggles. After two years I left the group, a bit disappointed, since in the end we did not achieve anything. In the last elections in 2005 CRIPS won all of the 5 council seats, but I daresay that this was mainly because of the implementation of the fees and the reforming of the curriculum, making it more rigid, which had and has the result that most of the students try to study as fast as possible and, hence, judge student activism a loss of time. In our neoliberal and extremely individualized times this is even more true for the average student, who regards criticism as something strange and not valuable. In my view this was the main reason that the rivaling “PT” is by now almost inexistant, having lost nearly all of its activists, and hence not being able to provide enough candidates for the elections. On the other side, critical students see critical activism as something necessary and are hence more willing to invest time into it, regardless of the study conditions. Hence CRIPS’ victory is not the victory of the insight into the necessity of criticism against bad realities. It is only the achievement of a position which has less and less influence as more as the neoliberal capitalist logic enters and controls every corner of societal structures.

Let us now have a look on the history and actual situation of Austria’s Critical Psychology.

Critical Psychology in Austria (Top)

As probably anywhere else in the western world, the critical tendencies in Austria’s Psychology arose in the late 60’s and early 70’s, consolidated through the latter and began to weaken already in the 80’s. In the early 90’s one could still find some initiatives and a certain amount of critical lectures and seminars at university but Critical Psychology’s decline was fully in progress. It was, at the beginning, a period of enlightening, refreshing, radical, and passionate science – much of the time “grass root-science”, outside or at the borders of established institutions. The very question that one has to raise today is: Is there anything still alive of Critical Psychology in Austria? The answer is yes. But it’s not much. Almost nothing survived until today. Energies faded, battles were lost, groups shattered, sometimes fighting themselves, sometimes fighting other groups, sometimes just the entrance in working life was sufficient to replace academic struggle.

On an academic level the centers of critical thinking in Psychology were Innsbruck, Salzburg, and Vienna.[10]Other than in the former two in the latter Critical Psychology was never institutionalized. Both Innsbruck and in Salzburg had, at least for a certain period, critical professors. These were Peter Gstettner and Peter Seidl (†) in Innsbruck and Igor Caruso (†) in Salzburg. These men provided a more liberal climate of openness, at the same time continuously fighting against the narrow-minded colleagues and politicians. Let’s have a closer look on these three cities.

Innsbruck (Top)

The movement of Critical Psychology in Innsbruck was closely related to Germany’s “Berlin School of Critical Psychology” (BCP), associated mainly with the names of Klaus Holzkamp and Ute Osterkamp[11]. This is a very profound and exhausting psychological school, based on the theories of Karl Marx, which I will not explain here[12]. In 1978 they founded their own journal, the “Forum Kritische Psychologie”[13], which is still being published. This journal is a valuable source of BCP’s critical theories, and an important academic media where discourses of Critical Psychology take place.

The BCP’s theories were gladly welcomed as a new and sharp instrument to criticize everything which up to this point was perceived as wrong and bad in society but which was not yet thoroughly analyzed or understood in all its implications and consequences. On the other hand BCP’s representatives over the years received more and more criticism for their reported dogmatic and “absolutistic” manners[14], and for not recognizing other theoretical positions, e.g. psychoanalysis[15]. This development had its climax in the Summer University in 1985. As the “Innsbruck’s Authors Collective” writes[16] it was the moment where this reported dogmatism became apparently unbearable: “It was not about advancing with contents, but about defining political principles. The qualification gained through Critical Psychology found its limits with the possibilities of criticize it: Either you are a real Critical Psychologist or you are none.”[17] (1988: 233)

Over various years critical students always tried to organize, to find structures for exchange, improve, advance. This movement can thus be defined as a university grass-root group with changing persons, titles[18], and goals. The critical students fought their way into the democratic structures of the university, using the capabilities of the student council, e.g. submitting lectures, seminars, or external teaching positions. This practice lasted for years, in some cases becoming almost institutionalized. There were some critical lecturers (e.g. Frigga Haug, Kornelia Hauser, Jens Brockmeier, Klaus Weber, for just mentioning a few) teaching in Innsbruck until recently, possibly out of routine, but on the other hand surely because there where still enough students who got involved in university political activism, and continued submitting these proposals.

As I mentioned above, Innsbruck (as well as Salzburg) had some institutionalized structures in the form of three professors with a rather critical approach. These three, Eva Köckeis-Stangl, Peter Gstettner and Peter Seidl, were not psychologists but educationalists. They moved to Innsbruck’s IoP because of serious differences at the local Institute of Educational Sciences. At the IoP they founded the “Work Group Socialisation Studies”, a structure where several students could learn about critical theories, sharpen their minds, and write their theses that would maybe not have matched in the regular structure of the Institute or would not have been accepted by any other professor. Peter Seidl died in 1986. His death weakened the already endangered structures at Innsbruck’s IoP, leading in the end to its decline.

According to testimonials, Eva Köckeis-Stangl had an inmportant and prominent role in this trio. She was the first to habilitate and made it possible for students to write critical dissertations, and not only theses, allowing critical minds to enter into academical structures even further. She died in 2001.

Peter Gstettner is currently working at the University of Klagenfurt, Austria, in the “Section for Intercultural Education” within the Institute of Educational Sciences. He’s still an important critical voice in Austria’s academic and societal discourses.

At present there is no Critical Psychology movement in Innsbruck, neither inside the University nor outside. But some residues of these critical times still persist in form of critical lecturers for example Klaus Weber and Kornelia Hauser.

Salzburg (Top)

Contrary to the rest of Austria, Salzburg’s history of Critical Psychology is not related with the BCP, but closely tied with Psychoanalysis. Between 1969 and 1979, Salzburg’s IoP had a charismatic professor, Igor Alexander Caruso, the first psychoanalyst to become a professor of Psychology in Austria. He lived and worked for several years in Latin America, an experience that influenced him in a lasting way. He was interested in the connections, dynamics, and dialectics of the individual and society, thus open to the emerging (or sometimes re-discovered) critical tendencies in social sciences. He also sympathised with the various movements rising in those times. From the beginning he had the rest of the Psychology professors more or less against him. This became particularly clear after he became an emeritus in 1979. Not having safeguarded the structures for critical science in Salzburg’s IoP, the other professors immediately began to dismount his achievements. But they had not counted with students’ resistance. A good part of the Institute’s professors came form Germany, having fled students’ rebellions there, and trying to follow their ‘objective’ scientific goals in Austria. According with psychoanalytic notions Mätzler (1988: 320) speaks here of a “return of the suppressed”. The student group “Institute’s Group of Psychology” was founded, serving as a platform for exchange, information, and the planning of activities. The reports of this psychoanalytic movement present me with a more inventive impression in comparison with others: As some professors began lawsuits against certain students because of “defamation of character” this student group organised a “Caruso Succession Comedy Show”, which earned them a big part of court costs. Another example: Since in the end they lost their struggle for keeping the critical structures within the IoP, they decided to continue with their fight outside of it. They founded a special project of the “Institute’s Group of Psychology”, named: “Institute of Psychology II – Temporary Institution Until Reestablishment of Regular Conditions in the Institute of Psychology I”.

Out of these attempts arose the famous “Workshop for Psycho- and Societal Analysis”, a “society for the promotion of critical science”, which lasted until 1998. Two structures born within this workshop survive until today, one on a more practical level and the other on a theoretical. The first is the “Sexual Counselling Center”[19], an institution of some significance in conservative Salzburg. Beside offering personal counselling in all matters of sexuality it also tries to place important topics in the social and political discourse, as well as monitoring them, and intervening in problematic developments if it appears necessary (e.g. child pornography, sexual abuse within the Church, Feminist topics, etc.).

The second project is the Journal of Critical Psychoanalysis “Werkblatt”[20], one of the most important voices of Critical Psychoanalysis in the German-speaking world. Here theoretical but also practical issues are discussed. An example for the former is the repeatedly treated topic of Austria’s Nazi past, a very important subject in a country that sees itself more as the first victim of National Socialism instead of a confederate[21]. An example for a practical issue is the constantly discussed subject of “transference” and “counter transference”, focusing on the critical view upon the psychoanalyst him/herself.

In conclusion it can be asserted that psychological criticism is still alive and active in Salzburg, but it is focused almost completely on Psychoanalysis.

Vienna (Top)

The history of Critical Psychology in Vienna is closely related to the “Society of Critical Psychologists – SCP” (“Gesellschaft kritischer Psychologen und Psychologinnen – GkPP”[22]). As the vigilant eye may have detected, the word critical“ is written in lower case. This refers to a special condition in regard to Critical Psychology in the German speaking world: “C”ritical refers exclusively to the BCP, while “c”ritical refers to Critical Psychology in general, possibly including postmodern, psychoanalytic, feminist, postcolonial, etc. tendencies[23]. Thus, the SCP makes clear already in its name that it is not to be associated directly with the BCP. We here re-encounter the conflict with the German School of Psychology as we have seen already in Innsbruck and Salzburg. Although their theories deeply impacted Critical Psychology in Austria, there also was a continuous attempt to keep independency and distance.

The SCP was founded in 1985 by a group of students and practitioners. These people were heavily influenced by the radical theories of the late 60’s and 70’s and wanted to build up a counterweight to the already established “Austrian Association of Professional Psychologists – AAPP”[24], a counterweight which could give them a forum and also a base after leaving University.

In the 80’s the AAPP tried to propose a – in the eyes of the SCP – conservative professional law for psychologists, which should regulate psychological practice. The SCP managed for some years to impede the implementation of this law. Finally, in 1990 a professional law for psychologists was installed, in which only few of the SCP’s objections were considered. But a specific circumstance was also created, which makes Austria a special case: the curriculum for Clinical Psychology and Health Psychology were outsourced. This does not mean that you do not hear anything of Clinical or Health Psychology in your studies, on the contrary, but merely that you are not allowed to call yourself a Clinical or Health Psychologist. However for the majority of the available positions it is required to be a Clinical Psychologist, forcing many students to do a postgraduate curriculum.

This leads us to the main activity of the SCP nowadays. Three institutions offer the Clinical Psychology Curriculum: the University[25], the AAPP, and the SCP. While in its early days the SCP was a broad and enthusiastic union of critical spirits (see Lobnig et al., 1988, or Benetka et al., 1992), over the years its energies faded and its active members disappeared. Now it seems that aside from engaging in Professionalists’ Association issues, the main activity of the SCP is running its own curriculum. Within the legal guidelines they try to make this curriculum as critical as possible by inviting as lecturers critical professionals and psychologists from Austria and Germany. In this way they are presenting a critically inspired counter-offer to the other providers of this postgraduate study. For many psychologists this is the first place where they get in contact with Critical Psychology. Hence with this work the SCP is contributing a certain part to the spreading of critical contents, especially regarding to psychological practice.

Furthermore it must be noted that in two other cities, Graz and Linz, “spin-offs” of the SCP were founded.

Nevertheless both Critical Psychology and the SCP’s work lost public attention and support. This becomes clear with the fate of the SCP’s journal “Störfaktor” (which means “disturbing factor”). This journal was founded in 1987 and ended in 1998. As cited in the final issues editorial: “Motivational problems in some of the editorial members led to discussions about reforms, which in a first place were fruitless and proceeded to nothing.”[26] (Störfaktor 43/44: 3) It seems that the discussions of a first place were also the discussions of the last one. Austria’s only journal of Critical Psychology died without leaving any alternative behind, only testifying that apparently the (critical) public in Austria does not need a forum of this kind.

At the University the situation is desolate[27]. As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, for over a decade there were critical lecturers present at Vienna’s IoP, some of whom teached there over several years, e.g. Günter Rexilius, Peter Mattes, Morus Markard, Sigfried Grubitzsch, for just mentioning some. But governmental policies are focused more and more on economic and functional efficiency. Mainstream Psychology does not have any problem with the latter since being functional is its (implicit) mission. Complaining about savings measures is ubiquitous, but the complaints are not leading to consequences: the principle of political activism appears to have become extinct. There are still some professors at Vienna’s IoP that accept critical theses and promote theories beyond the mainstream. In particular Thomas Slunecko, who also helps to maintain the website “Sluneckication”, a portal for the Theory of Culture and Media[28], and Gerhard Benetka, who – contrary to the former – has never been a “regular” professor at the IoP and has to make his living as an adjunct professor in Vienna, Innsbruck, Klagenfurt and elsewhere. There are few more names to mention, of course all of them adjunctive professors, for example Dr. Margarta Anna Vobruba and Dr. Agnes Büchele, who both come from a feminist background and teach gender studies. Some of the adjunctive professors that I still got to know in the time of my study, for example Dr. Matthias Marschik, Prof. Gerald Steinhardt or Dr. Christine Stromberger, did not get their contracts renewed. Nowadays in a very common and apparently neutral term one could say they got economised (while the mainstream sector flourishes).

In 2005 the Sigmund Freud Private University for Psychotherapy[29] was founded, where some of the already mentioned psychologists, e.g. Gerhard Benetka or Thomas Slunecko, have found a new place where critical thinking is apparently appreciated. It could be that in the future this Institution will also offer a curriculum for psychology, possibly enabling some of the critical academical forces to gather there.

Klagenfurt (Top)

Last but not least to mention is Klagenfurt, the capital of the region named Carynthia. Here, Critical Psychology is present in the form of Professor Klaus Ottomeyer, head of the Department of Social Psychology, Ethnopsychoanalysis, and Psychotraumatology[30]. He was academically socialised in the 60’s and 70’s in Germany. Actually he worked at Berlin’s IoP with Klaus Holzkamp, but he never really attached to the BCP’s theory. From the beginning he tried to combine Marxist and psychoanalytic theories, to analyse and criticise society’s grievances[31]. Over the years he may have lost some of his acuity but especially in Austria’s public discourse about Racism and Discrimination his contributions are still very important and valuable (e.g. Menschik-Bendele & Ottomeyer, 2000, and Ottomeyer, 2002). With the Civil War in former Yugoslavia and the mass of refugees heading to Austria he began to work in the field of traumatology, co-founding the research and counselling centre for the victims of violence and torture – ASPIS[32], in Klagenfurt. He’s also a lecturer in the SCP’s Clinical Psychology Curriculum.


Conclusions (Top)

Overlooking the facts presented and the picture drawn here, the main impression is that Critical Psychology in Austria is only the remnants of past times. What remains is only supplied with the energy of few people. The process of development of critical theory seems to have almost stopped with no apparent new force rising.

What I see are people in their midlife, with a critical – sometimes even radical – past, now somehow settled, doing their things, living in their routines, running their projects as they have done for several years. While this is a choice of some, what I miss are new energies, new efforts to question oneself, to question the established (critical) theories, and the (few) established structures. I am afraid that if it continues like this Critical Psychology in Austria will die with its actual representatives. Maybe then something new will arise? Obviously this is a possibility, but I am not too optimistic.

There is very much discontent about the actual conditions in general society, as well as in smaller societal structures – for example amongst the students of Psychology with the conditions at the various Institutes of Psychology, on the infrastructural level but also regarding the contents of the study. But all this dissatisfaction is not becoming condensed and directed together. It remains individual frustration that is not transformed into political action.

In this sense, if I may have neglected or overlooked some initiatives I would be very happy to correct my (rather dark) point of view.


Bibliography (Top)

Benetka, Gerhard, Brandl, Gerda, Fürnkranz, Wolfgang, Lobnig, Hubert & Novak, Christian. (1992). Gegen-Teile: Gemeinsamkeiten und Differenzen einer kritischen Psychologie. (transl.: Counter-Parts: Commonalities and Differences of Critical Psychology). Munich: Profil.

Fallend, Karl, Handlbauer, Bernhard, Kienreich, Werner (Ed.) (1989). Der Einmarsch in die Psyche. Psychoanalyse, Psychologie und Psychiatrie im Nationalsozialismus und die Folgen (transl.: The Invasion of the Psyche. Psychoanalysis, Psychology, and Psychiatry in National Socialism and the Consequences). Junius Verlag. Wien

Hoffmann, Peter (1988). Eine junge Idee mit langer Geschichte. Zur Entstehung der „Gesellschaft kritischer Psychologen und Psychologinnen“ unter Berücksichtigung der ökonomischen, gesellschaftspolitischen und universitären Entwicklungen in den 60er, 70er und 80er Jahren (transl.: A Joung Idea With a Long History. On the Formation of the „Society of Critical Psychologists“ Taking Into Account the Economic, Societal, and University Developments in the Sixties, Seventies, and Eighties). Störfaktor, 7/8, 24-49.

Hoffmann, Peter (1992). Kritische Psychologie in Österreich (transl.: Critical Psychology in Austria). In Benetka, Gerhard et al. Gegen-Teile: Gemeinsamkeiten und Differenzen einer kritischen Psychologie. Munich: Profil.

Holzkamp, Klaus (1995). Rassismus und das Unbewußte in psychoanalytischem und kritisch–psychologischem Verständnis(transl.: Racism and the Unconscious in Psychoanalytic and Critical-Psychological Understanding) in Forum Kritische Psychologie 35, 4-41.

Innsbrucker Autorenkollektiv (1988). Kritische-Psychologie-Geschichte in Innsbruck (transl.: Innsbruck’s Authors Collective: Critical Psychology’s History in Innsbruck). In Rexilius, Günter (Ed.). Psychologie als Gesellschaftswissenschaft (transl.: Psychology as a Societal Science). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 227-244.

Lobnig, Hubert, Schuster, Brigitte & Trinks, Reinhilde (1988). Kritische Psychologie in Österreich (transl.: Critical Psychology in Austria ). In Rexilius, Günter (Ed.). Psychologie als Gesellschaftswissenschaft. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 245-254.

Mätzler, Karl (1988). Frei flottierende Psychoanalyse an unsicheren Orten (transl.: Free Floating Psychoanalysis in Insecure Places). In Rexilius, Günter (Ed.). Psychologie als Gesellschaftswissenschaft. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 318-332.

Maiers, W., & Tolman, C.W. (1996). Critical psychology as subject-science. In I. Parker & R. Spears (Eds.), Psychology and society: Radical theory and practice. London: Pluto Press, 105-115.

Menschik-Bendele, Jutta & Ottomeyer, Klaus (2000). Sozialpsychologie des Rechtsextremismus (transl.: Social Psychology of Right-Wing Extremism). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Osterkamp, Ute (1995). Rassismus als Selbstentmächtigung. Texte aus dem Arbeitszusammenhang des Projektes Rassismus/Diskriminierung (transl.: Racism as Self-Weakening). Berlin: Argument.

Ottomeyer, Klaus (1980). Marxistische Psychologie gegen Dogma und Eklektizismus. Antworten an Michael Schomers und die Kritische Psychologie (transl.: Marxist Psychology Against Dogma and Eclecticism). Forum Kritische Psychologie, 7, 170-207.

Ottomeyer, Klaus (2000). Die Haider-Show. Zur Psychopolitik der FPÖ (transl.: The Haider-Show. About the Psycho-Politics of the “FPÖ”). Klagenfurt: Drava.

Ottomeyer, Klaus (2004). Soziale Zwänge und menschliche Beziehungen – Soziales Verhalten im Kapitalismus (transl.: Social Constraints and Human Relationships – Social Behaviour in Capitalism. Münster: Lit.

Rexilius, Günter (Ed.). (1988). Psychologie als Gesellschaftswissenschaft (transl.: Psychology as a Societal Science ). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Sanin, Daniel (1999). Psychologie studieren in Wien (transl.: Studying Psychology in Vienna). Psychologie & Gesellschaftskritik, 92, 45–67.

Störfaktor 15/16 (1990). Diskussion, 73-92.

Störfaktor 43/44 (1998). Preface, 3.

Tolman, Charles (1989c). What's Critical about ‘Kritische Psychologie’? Canadian Psychology, 30, 628-635.

Tolman, Charles W., & Maiers, W. (Eds.). (1991). Critical Psychology: Toward a Historical Science of the Subject. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tolman, Charles W. (1994). Psychology, Society, and Subjectivity: An Introduction to German Critical Psychology. London: Routledge.



 ___follow us on




_       YouTube




Stop the Bomb

Impressum: Initiative kritische Psychologie Wien/Daniel Sanin