Vamık D. Volkan, M.D., DLFAPA, FACPsa.


Vamık D. Volkan

Paper given at “Deutsche Psychoanalytische Gesellschaft e.V. (DGP) Meeting” Gasteig Cultural Center, Rosenheimer Platz. May 23, 2008. 


Dear Collegeaus,

The title of my presentation in the printed program, “Psychoanalysis and International Relations, is a vast topic, and I will only be able to address one limited aspect of it. In the next thirty minutes I will discuss: A psychoanalytic look at large-group identity and how issues related to it play a role in international relations.

International relations primarily refer to interactions between political leaders such as presidents, ministers of foreign affairs or diplomats belonging to different nation states    as they negotiate and decide upon, draft and sign, agreements between each other involving diplomatic, legal, economic, or even sports matters. The negotiating parties will be perceived as allies or enemies according to existing “formal” agreements. Their relationships will also conform, if controversies do not develop, to “international rules and regulations” accepted by organizations such as the United Nations or the European Union. In today’s changing world, however, the term “international relations” includes much more. 

Yesterday I was on a panel concerning the concept, “globalization.” As we discussed, this concept already expands what people in the street think about what international relations means. Furthermore, when there are wars or war-like situations or alliances between ethnic, religious or political ideological groups within one nation state or in different nation states which are not accepted as legitimate entities, often legal international bodies are involved in their unofficial or even diplomatic negotiations. In today’s world there are globalized terrorist groups. Their activities, at least in the public mind, are categorized as international relations. We can also consider the so-called NGO’s (non-governmental organizations) and giant business corporations as players in international relations.

However one defines the concept of international relations and whatever one includes under this term, it always involves interactions between national, ethnic, religious or political ideological large groups composed of tens or hundreds of thousands or millions of persons. My focus today is on the psychology of such large groups. They inevitably are recognized by a name, such as German, Arab, Catholic, or communist, and share sentiments, belief systems, and often language and representations of history; in short, all have a large-group identity. Dissenters in a large group are only important in changing the shared psychological processes within their large groups if they successfully start a major movement that attracts a substantial number of followers or are recognized and supported by foreign large groups.

Starting with Freud psychoanalysts have written about various aspects of international relations. Today I will emphasize that psychoanalytic conceptualizations of large groups, as I define them in this presentation, need to be expanded. For an individual a large group may stand for an idealized oedipal father or as a nurturing mother (Rice, 1965, Turquet, 1975, Kernberg, 2003 a,b). Besides studying what large groups unconsciously symbolize for individuals, psychoanalysis needs to examine the psychology of large groups in its own right. By doing this we can better understand the existing shared processes within each large group that consciously, but more importantly unconsciously, influence and direct its leaders’ negotiations and agreements. In short, we need to look at what it is that motivates the leaders of opposing large groups, above and beyond their individualized psychologies, in their international relations that leads to either peaceful or destructive massive movements.

My second “career” and observations on large-group identity:

I was born on the island of Cyprus. By the time ethnic conflicts became hot and deadly there in the early 1960s. I was already in the United States studying to become a psychiatrist and a psychoanalyst. Nevertheless, it is most likely because of my background that after I became a psychoanalyst I slowly developed a second “career." I became involved in international relations and tried to understand how enemies relate to each other from a psychoanalytic point of view. During the last 29 years I have been involved in bringing together influential enemy representatives for unofficial diplomatic dialogues. During this time I was present when representatives of Arabs and Israelis, Americans and Soviets, Russians and Estonians, Serbians and Croats, Georgians andSouth Ossetians, Turks and Greeks, and Turks and Armenians came together in years-long dialogue series to understand each other and hopefully find “entry points” for strategies and actions for peaceful co-existence (Volkan, 1988, 1997, 1999a, 2004, 2006). I also visited many refugee camps and met many world leaders such as Michael Gorbachev, Jimmy Carter, and Yasser Arafat. At the present time, Lord John Alderdice, the former head of the Northern Ireland Parliament who is also a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, and I have just begun a new project. We are bringing representatives of the Western world, such as those from the USA and Europe, together with representatives from the Islamic countries, such as Iran, Turkey, Jordan and the Arab Emirates, as well as representatives from Israel, Russia and India to try to understand the post-September 11, 2001, world, in particular the Islamic-Western world split.

In this, as in other projects I have facilitated, I noticed that because of the tasks given to them during the dialogue series, the enemy representatives, as spokespersons for their large-group identities, became preoccupied with large-group identity issues. At locations where refugees or internally displaced persons are located, these victims also constantly refer to their large-group identities. Whenever I happen to be with a political leader at the time of an international conflict, I notice that he or she also becomes preoccupied with large-group identity issues. By listening to dialogues involving these people—enemy representatives, dislocated persons, and leaders—I have learned much about large-group psychology.

In peaceful times people usually turn their attention toward themselves, their families, relatives, clans, neighbors, professional and social organizations, schools, sports clubs and local or national politics. But when a large group is humiliated or threatened by “others” who belong to another large-group identity, the attacked population abandons its routine preoccupations and become obsessed with repairing, protecting and maintaining their large-group identity. It is like an individual who is not constantly aware of his breathing, but if he finds himself in a smoke-filled room or develops pneumonia, he notices every breath he takes. Similarly, when a large group is under stress and the large-group identity is injured or threatened, the people who belong to it become keenly aware of their “we-ness” and quickly and definitively separate their large-group identity from the identity of the “other,” the “enemy” large group.

Influences and consequences of traumas that are caused by “others” belonging to another large-group identity do not remain regional (Volkan, 2000). If a foreign large group deliberately shames, humiliates, and destroys the lives of  a number of individuals in the name of their large-group identity in, lets say, the northern part of a country, others belonging to the same large-group identity in the south will also feel their pain and rage. Large-group identity connects people in emotional ways wherever they live. When a large group’s identity is humiliated or threatened, people belonging to that identity psychologically find it easy to humiliate, victimize and kill individuals belonging to the enemy group in the name of identity without blinking an eye. They use aggression in order to repair, protect and maintain their large-group identity. If people who belong to the victimized group feel helpless, they will in this case tolerate forced or voluntary masochism, again, in order to hold on to their large-group identity. This abstract concept, the “large-group” identity, becomes the central force that influences international relations.

When I think of diplomacy, I remember W. Nathaniel Howell, the United States Ambassador in Kuwait when Saddam Hussein’s forces invaded that country, a tall man who played basketball in his youth. He compares good diplomatic negotiation to playing basketball. The opposing teams rush from one side of the basketball court to the other using rules and regulations and try to score points. In the end, one team wins, but the other team also scores and achieve some degree of self-esteem for being a good competitor. According to Ambassador Howell (2000), being involved in a well-managed and fair diplomatic activity is as pleasurable as watching a well-played basketball game.

If an international conflict becomes hot or chronic, a large group’s psychological identity issues contaminate all the real-world problems such as the economy or legal rights, as well as the diplomatic efforts for resolving them. Expanding Ambassador Howell’s metaphor, let us imagine that someone spills a large amount of oil on the basketball court. Now the game becomes chaotic. The first thing required is to wipe off the oil spill and clean the floor. In an international relationship the oil spill that makes a routine play impossible primarily centers around large-group identity, its protection and maintenance. When large-group identity issues become inflamed and problematic, conducting international relations only through “typical” diplomatic efforts becomes very difficult and sometimes impossible. I do not have a name for my second “career,” perhaps it can be compared to cleaning up oil spills on basketball courts. Obviously, mine is a difficult “career,” reminiscent of Freud’s characterization of psychoanalysis as an “impossible profession.”

Shapiro and Carr (2006) state that attempting to understand a large group is a daunting task and that it may be “a defense against the experience of despair about the world, a grandiose effort to manage the unmanageable” (p.256). I join them, however, in their suggestion that to make efforts, nonetheless, is essential for large groups’ psychological well-being. I believe such efforts include the development of a large-group psychology in its own right so that the meaning and influence of the abstract concept, large-group identity, can be better understood and so that we have a theoretical foundation to suggest psychoanalytically-informed strategies for finding peaceful answers for international conflicts. Many obstacles have hindered collaboration between psychoanalysts and authorities dealing with international relations. Elsewhere I tried to examine in some detail these obstacles that come from both the diplomatic world and psychoanalysis itself (Volkan, 1999b, 2005) but this brief presentation does not allow time to review them. 

Large-group identity:

In the psychological literature the term “large group” sometimes refers to 30 to 150 members who meet in order to deal with a given psychological issue (Kernberg, 2003 a,b) but I am not referring to such gatherings. In order to understand international relations by revising Erik Erikson's (1956) description of individual identity, I define large-group identity—whether it refers to nationality, ethnicity, religion, or political ideology—as the subjective experience of thousands or millions of people who are linked by a persistent sense of sameness, even while also sharing some characteristics with people who belong to foreign large groups. In such large groups most of the individuals will never meet during their lifetimes. They will not even know of the existence of many others belonging to the same entity. Yet, they will share a sense of belongingness, usually a language, sentiments, nursery rhythms, songs, dances, and representations of history. They share what John Mack (1979) called, “cultural amplifiers” which are concrete or abstract symbols and signs that are only associated with a particular large group and which are accepted as “superior” and as a source of pride. The sharing of the large group’s national, ethnic or religious elements begins in childhood. This applies also to those who are members of a political ideological group whose parents and the people in the childhood environment are believers in the ideology. To become a follower of a political ideology as an adult includes other psychological motivations.

Belonging to a large group, after going through the adolescence passage (Blos, 1979) becomes crystallized and endures throughout a lifetime. Sometimes belongingness can be a shadow identity, as we sometimes see in persons after voluntary or forced migrations. Nevertheless, such belongingness never disappears (Volkan, 1988, 1997, 1999a, 2006). Only through some long-lasting drastic historical event may a group evolve a new large-group identity. For example certain Southern Slavs became Bosniaks while under the rule of the Ottoman Empire.

Think of a man—let’s say he is German—who is an amateur photographer. If he decides to stop practicing photography and take up carpentry, he may call himself a carpenter instead of a photographer, but he cannot stop being a German and become French. His Germaneness’ is part of his large-group identity, which is interconnected with his core individual identity, his subjective experience of his self-representation.

Through early identifications with mother and important persons in their environment small children begin to “learn” how they are members of a specific large group and what cultural amplifiers are theirs. Some children have parents who belong to two different ethnic or religious groups. If an international conflict erupts between these two large groups, these youngsters may, even as adults have severe psychological problems. I saw such examples in South Ossetia, when people had one South Ossetian and one Georgian parent. When South Ossetians' and Georgians' began a deadly conflict after the collapse of the Soviet Union, persons with “mixed” lineage became confused and psychologically disturbed.

There is another childhood process that more clearly creates the precursors of large-group enemies and allies in the child’s mind. This process also illustrates how people, without being aware of it, need to have large-group enemies and allies, to one degree or other, throughout their lifetime.  Belonging to the same large-group identity allows thousands or millions of people to share the same large-group enemy and ally representations, and this in turn play a key role in large-group identity issues contaminating and influencing international relations. This childhood experience can be understood with a concept that I call “suitable targets of externalization” (Volkan, 1988). The object relations theory of psychoanalysis, as well as observations of children, tells us that when children become able to tolerate ambivalence they integrate their previously fragmented or split self- and object images. (Kernberg, 1976; Volkan, 1976). However, such integrations are not totally complete. Some self- and object images remain unintegrated and the child finds ways to deal with them in order to avoid facing and feeling object relations tension. One psychological method a child uses to deal with this problem is to externalize his or her unintegrated self- and object images into other persons, or animate or inanimate objects.  

The people in the child’s environment also help the child to find permanent reservoirs in which to keep the externalized unintegrated self- and object images. Such images, in the psychoanalytic literature, are known as “bad” aggressively loaded and “good” libidinally loaded unintegrated images. Since externalizations into such reservoirs are approved by the individuals important to the child, what is externalized will not boomerang; will not be re-internalized by the child. Such reservoirs are the suitable targets of externalization that become the precursors of large-group enemy and ally representations. A child is, to use Erik Erikson’s (1966) term, a generalist as far as nationality, ethnicity, religion or political ideology are concerned. Once the child utilizes suitable targets of externalization, he or she ceases to be a generalist. Here are two examples:

In Cyprus Greeks and Turks lived side by side for centuries until the island was de facto divided into two political entities in 1974. Greeks often raise pigs. Turkish children, like Greek children, invariably are drawn to farm animals, but imagine a Turkish child wanting to touch and love a piglet. His mother or other important individuals in the Turkish child’s environment would strongly discourage him from playing with the piglet. For Moslem Turks, the pig is “dirty.” It, as a cultural amplifier for the Greeks, does not belong to their large group.

Now, the Turkish child finds a suitable target of externalization for his unwanted, aggressively contaminated and unintegrated “bad” self- and object images. Since Moslem Turks do not eat pork, in a concrete sense, what is externalized into the image of the pig will not be re-internalized. When the child unconsciously finds a suitable target for unintegrated “bad” self and object images, the precursor of the “other” becomes established in the child’s mind at an experimental level. The Turkish child at this point does not know what Greekness means. Sophisticated thoughts, perceptions and emotions, and images of history about the “other” evolve much later without the individual’s awareness that the first symbol of the enemy was in the service of helping him avoid feeling object relations tension. Since almost every Turkish child in Cyprus will use the same target, they will share the same precursor of the “other” who may become an “enemy” if real world problems become complicated.

Children also are given suitable targets as reservoirs for their “good” unintegrated self- and object relations. For example, a Finnish child most likely uses the sauna as such a reservoir. Only when Finnish children grow up will they have sophisticated thoughts and feelings about Finishness. It is interesting that when there is an international conflict or a war-like situation, members of a large group who feel victimized regress and become involved in the creation of an adult version of suitable targets of externalization. For example, when Gaza fell under the Israeli occupation, Palestinians began to carry in their pockets small stones painted with the Palestinian flag’s colors. When facing humiliating external situations they would reach in their pockets and touch the stones. Having stones created a network of “we-ness” and supported the large-group identity of Palestinians living in Gaza at that time and separated their large-group identity from the Israelis’ large-group identity.

Two principles:

Large-group psychology primarily deals with a shared need to repair, protect and maintain large-group identity. Thousands or millions of people, without being aware it, are assigned these tasks and respond to international relations accordingly. In their daily lives, members of a large group mostly unconsciously follow two unalterable and intertwined principles (Volkan, 1988, 1997, 1999a.) They may become aware of these principles if the “other” humiliates and threatens them in the name of large-group identity.

I call the first principle the maintenance of non-sameness. One large group must not be the same as, or even closely similar to, a neighboring large group that is perceived as an enemy. Although antagonistic large groups usually have major differences in religion, language and historical or mythological backgrounds, minor differences between antagonists can become major problems that lead to deadly consequences. Much earlier Freud (1921), noted minor differences among small and large groups, but did not study their deadly consequences in international relations. When large groups regress, any signal of similarity is perceived, often unconsciously, as unacceptable; minor differences therefore become elevated to great importance to protect non-sameness.

Another unalterable principle in large-group relationships, intertwined with the first one reflects the need to maintain a psychological border, gap, or tangible space between large groups in conflict. Although the demarcation and maintenance of physical borders has always, and especially in modern times, been vital to international and large-group relationships, closer examination indicates that it is far more critical to have an effective psychological border than a simple physical one. In a regressed large group political, legal or traditional physical borders begin to symbolize the large-group identity that provides a huge umbrella protecting the people belonging to it, including the political leaders. In individual psychology, as Freud (1921), indicated, what is important is to idealize the leader and identify with the other followers and sometimes even lose individuality. In large-group psychology what is important is to repair, protect and maintain the large-group identity. Physical borders become highly psychologized and people, leaders, and official organizations become preoccupied with their protection. At the present time the border issue in Israel is very prominent and deadly, but its psychological aspects are not taken into account.
The upcoming presidential elections in the USA will rein flame the border issue between the USA and Mexico. Once again discussion will make reference to “real world” issues such as illegal Mexicans “stealing” Americans’ jobs. Its psychological meaning will not be examined.  In Europe immigrants from the Middle East, Africa and Eastern European countries inflame the affected large groups’ border psychology. When clear physical demarcations are perceived as ambiguous or indistinct, psychological borders are weakened as well, and shared anxiety can develop.

These two principles—maintaining non-sameness and psychological borders—influence international relationships especially at negotiation tables. I have observed that one of the dangerous times during which diplomatic negotiations quickly may collapse is when the opposing parties, usually with the help of a third “neutral” party, come close to making a major agreement. This “coming close,” for both parties, unconsciously threatens the two principles mentioned above. Anxiety about injury to large-group identity increases and this leads to the collapse of negotiations, paradoxically after hard work and after coming very close to making an agreement. Knowing about these two principles will help the “neutral” third party introduce a strategy that will inform the opposing parties in the following way: “Making an agreement and signing a document does not mean that you will lose the border separating your large-group identity from the identity of your enemy’s large group or that you will face the possibility of becoming the same as your enemy. When a mutual formal agreement on a difficult issue is reached, both sides will still keep their own identities.”

Becoming like the enemy:
While it is very threatening for a large group to lose its psychological border and contaminate its own large-group identity with the one belonging to the enemy, in situations where conflict between two large groups becomes hot and deadly or chronic, paradoxically, enemies become alike. This process, on a conscious level is denied vehemently. At the foundation of this paradox lies the fact that large-group enemies are both real and fantasized. They are real if they are humiliating, shooting and killing people in the other large group. They are also fantasized because they are reservoirs of the first large group’s externalized unwanted parts, a result of the process that began in childhood when suitable targets of externalization were established, or as a result of large-group regression in which adult members do the same thing children would do: create suitable targets of externalization. In hot and deadly or chronic international conflicts, suitable targets of externalization do not remain permanent, safe, effective and distant reservoirs “out there.”
The first large group’s externalizations and projections put in these reservoirs overflow and come back to contaminate itself. Thus, psychologically speaking, both large groups, to a certain degree, become the same. al-Qaeda divided the world into two categories. After September 11, the United States did the same. “You are either on my side or else,” became a political doctrine. Ideas such as the “clash of civilizations” or in this case “clash of religions,” directly or indirectly was supported within both large groups. Again, I should repeat that in examining large-group processes the voices of dissenters do not count much unless they are capable of starting new large-group processes.

On a conscious level there is a wish on the part of a large group to do to the enemy what the enemy did to them. When speaking of enemies becoming alike, I refer to shared psychological movements, not to the actual methods used by each group involved in wars or war-like situations. One may kill through terrorism and the other may kill in “legal” and so-called “civilized” ways. Many factors, such as historical circumstances, reactivation of past victimizations, the existing political system, military power, technology, economy, and most importantly, the degree of large-group regression can make a large group dehumanize the “other” and exercise terrible cruelty in both “barbaric” and “civilized” ways. Elsewhere (Volkan, 2004) I describe how a political leader’s personality organization plays a crucial role in inflaming or taming the process of one large group becoming like the enemy group. If the leader is able to explain to the followers where the reality of the enemy ends and where the fantasy about the enemy begins, this tames the process of becoming like the enemy. If the leader does not provide good reality testing that includes an understanding of the enemy large group’s “psychic reality” and does not make some attempt to respond to it in humane non-destructive ways, dangers become magnified and regression is maintained. Therefore, we should find non-controversial and psychoanalytically informed methods to openly examine the concept of a large group becoming like its enemy in order to conceptualize and realize opportunities for different responses, above and beyond destructive ones.

Difficulty in mourning:

Large groups are made of individuals; therefore, large-group processes reflect individual psychology. But a large group is not a living organism that has one brain. Therefore, once members of a large group start utilizing the same mental mechanism, it establishes a life of its own and appears as a societal, and often a political, process. In this chapter I already referred a few times to “regression” of large groups. I borrow the word “regression” from individual psychology since I have not yet found a good term that describes a large group’s “going back” to the earlier levels of its psychic development in defense of the shared anxiety caused by threats to large-group identity. First of all it is difficult to imagine that large groups have their own psychic developments. The closest thing to the concept of a large group having a psychic development is the large group’s usually mythologized history and the story of how the large group was “born.” In fact, when large groups regress, they reactivate certain, sometimes centuries-old, shared historical mental representations, which I named “chosen glories” and “chosen traumas” (Volkan, 1988, 1999a, 2004, 2006.) They are linked to large-groups’ difficulty in mourning.

Large groups celebrate independence days or have ritualistic recollections of events and heroes whose mental representations include a shared feeling of success and triumph among large-group members. Such events and heroic persons attached to them are heavily mythologized over time.

These mental representations become large-group amplifiers called “chosen glories.” Chosen glories are passed on to succeeding generations through transgenerational transmissions made in parent/teacher-child interactions and through participation in ritualistic ceremonies recalling past successful events. Chosen glories link children of a large group with each other and with their large group, and the children experience increased self-esteem by being associated with such glories. It is not difficult to understand why parents and other important adults pass the mental representation of chosen glories to their children; this is a pleasurable activity. Past victories in battle and great accomplishments of a religious or political ideological nature frequently appear as chosen glories. In stressful situations political leaders reactivate the mental representation of chosen glories and heroes associated with them to bolster their large-group identity. A leader's reference to chosen glories excites his followers simply by stimulating an already existing shared large-group amplifier. During the first Gulf War Saddam Hussein made many references to Sultan Saladin’s victories over the Crusaders even though Salaadin was not an Arab, but a Kurd.

While no complicated psychological processes are involved when chosen glories increase collective self-esteem, the role of a related concept, “chosen traumas,” in supporting large-group identity and its cohesiveness, is more complex. It is for this reason that a chosen trauma is a much stronger large-group amplifier than a chosen glory. A chosen trauma is the shared mental representation of an event in a large group’s history in which the group suffered a catastrophic loss, humiliation, and helplessness at the hands of its enemies. When members of a victim group are unable to mourn such losses and reverse their humiliation and helplessness, they pass on to their offspring the images of their injured selves and the psychological tasks that need to be completed, such as reversing humiliation and helplessness and completing the work of mourning. This process is known as the transgenerational transmission of trauma. (For a review and an examination of the concept of transgenerational transmission and the ways it is accomplished see: Volkan, Ast and Greer, 2001.) 

All such images and tasks contain references to the same historical event, and as decades pass, the mental representation of such an event links all the individuals in the large group. Thus, the mental representation of the event emerges as a most significant large-group identity marker, a large-group amplifier. Such reactivation can be used by the political leadership to promote new massive large-group movements, some of them deadly and malignant. In one prime example of this, I have (1997) documented the story of how Slobodan Milosevic allowed and supported the re-appearance of the Serbian chosen trauma—the mental representation of the June 28, 1389, Battle of Kosovo.

The reactivation of chosen traumas fuels “entitlement ideologies.” Entitlement ideologies are also connected with the large group’s difficulty mourning losses, people, land, or prestige at the hands of an enemy in the name of large-group identity. Mourning is an obligatory human psychobiological response to a meaningful loss. When a loved one dies, the mourner has to go through predictable and definable phases. The individual mourning processes can be “infected” due to various causes (Volkan, 1981, Volkan and Zintl, 1993), just as “infected” large–group mourning for losses caused by the actions of another large group will appear on societal/political levels. For example, a political ideology of irredentism—a shared sense of entitlement to recover what has been lost—may slowly emerge that reflects a complication in large-group mourning and an attempt both to deny losses and to recover them. What Greeks call the “Megali Idea” ("Great Idea") is such a political ideology. Such political ideologies may last for centuries and may disappear and reappear when historical circumstances change (Volkan and Itzkowitz, 1994), thereby influencing international relations. Diplomatic efforts become very difficult to handle because the reactivation of a chosen trauma with its accompanying entitlement ideology causes “time collapse”: This is reactivation of shared anxieties, expectations, fantasies, wishes and defenses associated with the chosen trauma and the entitlement ideology’s magnification of the image of the current enemies and current conflicts. 
Concluding remarks:
This paper focuses on large-group identity and on some psychological processes that are related to repairing, protecting, and maintaining it. Such processes are reflected in various aspects of international relations. There are warning signs for malignant and destructive large-group processes. Besides an obvious provocation from the enemy large group, these signs include inability to maintain principles concerning non-sameness and psychological borders, reactivating chosen traumas and evolving a time collapse, inflaming entitlement ideologies, attempting extreme purification and having political leaders whose personality organizations will not allow them to separate the realities about enemies from fantasies about them. Perhaps psychoanalysts, because they study human nature, are best equipped to notice these signs to which official diplomacy may not pay attention. This recognition gives psychoanalysts—if they are willing to do some field work outside of their offices and work with diplomats and scholars from different professional backgrounds such as history and political science—an opportunity to suggest strategies for peaceful solutions for some selected international conflicts. My colleagues and I have been trying to do this.

Thank you.


1- Blos, P. (1979.) Adolescent Passage. New York: International Universities Press.

2- Erikson, E.H. (1956.) The Problem of Ego Identity. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1:56-121.

3- Erikson, E.H. (1966.) Ontogeny of Ritualization. In Psychoanalysis: A General Psychology, (Eds.), R.M. Lowenstein, L.M. Newman, and  M. Schur, and A.J. Solnit, pp.601-621.
New York: International Universities Press.

4- Freud, S. (1921.) Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. Standard Edition, 18:65-143.

5- Howell, W.N. (2000.) Personal Communication.

6- Kernberg, O.F. (1976.) Object Relations Theory and Clinical Psychoanalysis. New York: Jason Aronson.

7- Kernberg, O.F. (2003a.) Sanctioned Social Violence: A Psychoanalytic View Part 1. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 84:683-698.

8- Kernberg, O.F. (2003b.) Sanctioned Social Violence: A Psychoanalytic View Part 2. International Journal of Psych-Analysis, 84:953-968.

9- Mack, J.E. (1979.) Foreword. In CyprusWar and Adaptation by V.D. Volkan, pp.ix-xxi. Charlottesville, VA: University of  Virginia.

10- Rice, A.K. (1965.) Learning for Leadership: Interpersonal and Intergroup Relations. London: Tavistock Publications.

11- Shapiro, E., and Carr, W. (2006.) Those People were Some Kind of Solution: Can Society in Any Sense Be Understood? Organizational and Social Dynamics, 6:241-257.

12- Turquet, P. (1975.) Threats to Identity In the Large-group: Dynamics and Therapy, (ed.) L. Kreeger, pp.87-144. London: Constable.

13- Volkan, Vamık D. (1976.) Primitive Internalized Object Relations: A Clinical Study of Schizophrenic, Borderline and Narcissistic Patients.
New York: International Universities Press. (Psychoanalyse der Frühen Objektbeziehungen. Tr. Heiga Steinmetz-Schunemann. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.)

14- Volkan, Vamık D. (1981.) Linking Objects and Linking Phenomena: A Study of the Forms, Symptoms, Metapsychology and Therapy of Complicated Mourning.
New York: International Universities Press.

15- Volkan, Vamık D. (1988.) The Need to Have Enemies and Allies: From Clinical Practice to International Relationships. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
16- Volkan, Vamık D. (1997.) Bloodlines: From Ethnic Pride to Ethnic Terrorism. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
(Bluts-Grenzen: Die historischen Wurzeln und die Psychologischen Mechanismen Ethnischer Konflikte und ihre Bedeutung bei Friedensverhandlungen.
Tr. Klaus Kochmann. Zurich: Scherz Verlag, 1999.)

17- Volkan, Vamık D. (1999a.) Das Versagen der Diplomatie: Zur Psychoanalyse Nationaler, Ethnischer und Religiöser Konflikte.
(The Failure of Diplomacy: The Psychoanalysis of National, Ethnic and Religious Conflicts.) Giessen: Psychosozial-Verlag. 

18- Volkan, Vamık  D. (1999b.) Psychoanalysis and Diplomacy Part III: Potentials for and Obstacles Against Collaboration. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies,1:305-318.

19- Volkan, Vamık D. (2000.) Traumatized Societies and Psychological Care: Expanding the Concept of Preventive Medicine. Mind and Human Interaction, 11:177-194.

20- Volkan, Vamık D. (2004.) Blind Trust: Large Groups and Their Leaders in Times of Crises and Terror. Charlottesville, VA: Pitchstone Publishing.
(Blindes Vertrauen: Grossgruppen und Ihre Führer in Kriesezeiten. Giessen: Psychosozial-Verlag, 2005.)

21- Volkan, Vamık D. (2005.) Politics and International Relations. In textbook of Psychoanalysis, (Eds.), E.S. Person, A.M. Cooper, and G.O. Gabbard, pp.525-533.
Washington, DC.: American Psychiatric Publishing.

22- Volkan, Vamık D. (2006.) Killing in the Name of Identity: A Study of Bloody Conflicts. Charlottesville, VA: Pitchstone Publishing.

23- Volkan, Vamık D., Ast, G., and Greer, W. (2001.) The Third Reich in the Unconscious: Transgenerational Transmission and Its Consequences.
New York: Brunner-Routledge.

24- Volkan, Vamık D., and Itzkowitz, N. (1994.) Turks and Greeks: Neighbors in Conflict. Cambridgeshire, England: Eothen Press.

25- Volkan, Vamık D., and Zintl, E. (1993.) Life After Loss: The Lessons of Grief. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
(Wege der Trauer: Leben mit Tod und Verlust. Tr. A. Potts. Giessen: Psychosozial-Verlag, 2000.)
Copyright © Vamık D. Volkan and Özler Aykan 2007.
All rights reserved.
Policies & Info / Accessibility / Sitemap / RSS / JSON
 Webmaster: Oa Publishing Co. 
Editor: Ö–zler AYKAN
Last modified on: Apr 20, 2016