Mental Bondage in the midst of Political Freedom
The pattern detected by reformers studying history from the Enlightenment period of the West and into the 20th century was that of powerful people and how they couldn’t be trusted to administer power in such a way that it could be expected that the powerless would be taken care of in any reasonable way. They were often exploited. The consequences for the powerless was the development of ingrained habits where it became difficult to advocate for oneself and even know what it was like to have well-being and emotional security related to one’s livelihood. By chasing authority figures, one can be disembodied and lose sensitivity to what is happening in the body. Rewards can cover over pains and what may be exciting can smother discontent. As time passed, successive generations have focused on taking command of their lives in as many arenas as possible in order to change their fate, but without a practice of contemplation, inner conflicts were rarely explored, let alone resolved. “One of the most striking differences between the older generation and the younger one is that previously the emphasis lay on duty, work, or submission to authoritative standards or persons, whereas now it is on the right of the individual to seek his own happiness and live his own life. The question is whether the contrast is as definitive as it seems to be. Have boys and girls attained the goal of independence and happiness? If not, what factors are interfering?”
Ego Psychology: Anna Freud Pt. 7: https://rumble.com/v6rhsov-ego-psychology-anna-freud-pt.-7.html
Karen Horney felt that when external dictators were defeated, they could still echo in the minds of victims where they tyrannize themselves psychologically, by ruminating over what the remaining authority figures might want them to do, to stay in their good graces. “Notwithstanding their noisy self-assertion, the younger generation does not appear to be happy. They are full of fears. While they search for pleasure, their capacity for enjoyment is impaired, and they are much too vulnerable to have good human relationships. Although they are freer from authoritarian pressure from without, their lives are often determined by a system of relentless inner demands and prohibitions. Instead of being led by their own spontaneous wishes and ideals, they are often driven by ego-alien goals without being aware of it…Various factors in childhood may be responsible for these ego-alien goals. Children may have to live up to standards imposed by their parents because they have been made to feel that they are not acceptable unless they fulfill other people’s expectations. Lack of warmth and appreciation may make them insecure. They may feel that they are being treated unjustly and need to render themselves unassailable to unfair reproaches and demands by striving for rectitude and perfection. This striving makes them constantly dissatisfied with themselves, and they become afraid that others will be dissatisfied with them also. A further result is that they do not have a nurturing, constructive love either for themselves or for other people.”
Cultural standards often pit self-care against an unbalanced slavish devotion to the plight of others, with no awareness that there could be a healthy middle ground. “The difference between a constructive love for the self and an anxious concern for the self will be discussed. The cultural ideal of unselfishness suggests that one must choose between loving oneself and loving others. In reality, we tend to have the same attitude toward others that we have toward ourselves, whether it be positive or negative…Some of the difficulties being experienced by the younger generation can be understood as the result of unresolved conflicts between the old cultural ideology of unselfishness and subordination and the new goal of unrestricted individual freedom.”
Different parents provided different ways to teach their children and one neighbor’s children could easily live in a different world from another. “Children may come out of puritanical families with inexorable standards. They may have parents who are too much engaged in the pursuit of righteousness and perfection to be able to give the child real affection and who make the child feel that he is not acceptable unless he is perfect. Often, however, there is a need for perfection in children whose parents are quite liberal and do not subject them to any explicit pressure. But these parents are still under the influence of former generations and often, in spite of their best intentions, are incapable of giving the child real affection. They may treat him unfairly without meaning to.”
Slaves may be described as defenseless, but the original defenselessness happened to everyone who was a dependent minor at the beginning of their life. It’s impossible to control those conditions and there’s not enough experience or education that can combat that kind of helplessness for most children as they grow up. “Because he has a preferred brother or sister, a child will become nagging and then will be criticized for not being amiable. A parent may betray a child’s secrets after having been taken into his confidence and then blame the child if he shows anger at this betrayal. Or a parent may fail to keep promises and then scold the child if he insists that they be fulfilled. In other words, parents often scold children for attitudes that they find inconvenient but that are the result of their own behavior. Naturally, children resent this. If they rebel, perhaps only by raising an eyebrow, they will be regarded as disagreeable…At the same time, however, a development may set in that saves the child from being submerged in feelings of unworthiness or resentment. He may escape into feelings of superiority and believe that others do not understand him because he is so far above them. Without being aware of it, he sets out to prove the others to be wrong in their evaluation of him. Or he may respond to a sense of having been treated unfairly by trying to make himself so perfect that no one can criticize him again. By doing this, however, the child becomes unfair to himself. He tries to measure up to goals he cannot possibly attain.”
Anxiety builds as the child realizes that it’s very difficult to escape criticism. Parents are in a situation of criticism in the workplace and also self-criticism based on cultural expectations that everyone at the threat of shame should attain social cohesion, which is a life path from marriage, to children, and to retirement. Any detours or setbacks are treated as intolerable and the burden of children can be blamed on those very kids who had no choice about being born in the first place. The feeling of not being good enough is unquestioningly taken in without any examination as to whether these standards are inhuman or not. There’s a hatred for the world as well as a lack of trust in oneself. “At bottom, the compulsive need for perfection is driven by anxiety. There is the anxiety of not being acceptable unless one is flawless, the anxiety of having to prove oneself and feeling worthless if one cannot, and the anxiety of being unjustly criticized and hence of having to make oneself unassailable…While a child’s compulsive need for perfection arises because of disturbed relationships with others, it is apt to disturb these relationships further because the youngster will be convinced that others criticize him as inexorably as he criticizes himself and expect as unreasonable things of him as he expects of himself. Just as important is the impairment of his relationship to his own self. While his perfectionistic goals have arisen because of an impaired self-esteem, they are bound to impair self-esteem further because, as I tried to show at the beginning, he will become mercilessly critical and condemnatory toward himself.”
Love for oneself becomes near impossible to experience, and it’s hard to love others that are expected at any moment to criticize and to reject. To trust oneself based on the intention to do good, however imperfect, is a first step towards self-love, which is to reduce inhuman severity in self-talk and self-judgment. It is then also easier to forgive others when they manifest their imperfections. If I know it’s natural to want love, I can predict accurately that many others feel the same way. “Because they give rise to constant self-condemnation, strivings for perfection contribute to the incapacity of youngsters to love themselves. You may ask: ‘Should one love oneself? Is that not selfish? Has not Freud said, ‘The more you love yourself the less you love others?’ What Freud meant is that the more egocentric a person is, the less he can love others. Being egocentric, however, means being anxiously concerned with the self. It is a sign not of self-love but of an essentially hostile, derogatory attitude toward the self…There is no opposition, but a correlation, between a good attitude toward oneself and a good attitude toward others. You can love others only if you love yourself. We have to be clear, however, about what we mean by ‘loving oneself.’ We certainly do not mean an indiscriminate self-admiration and self-indulgence. We have in mind, rather, the attitude that a very good friend might have toward us, someone who wants us to have everything that contributes to our development and thereby ensures our happiness. Loving oneself means appreciating our strengths and virtues and having a critical but constructive attitude toward our shortcomings.”
Plato: Lysis: https://rumble.com/v6vs8dr-plato-lysis.html
When people introject the perfectionism of culture, that eliminates healthy self-love and mistrusts others, the individualistic plan stumbles off course. We are not really free if we self-sabotage, fail to advocate for ourselves, and cannot heal our minds with genuine love and peaceful abiding. Our intimate relationships easily move into suspicion of exploitation and end as fast as they began. This is especially true if we can’t trust ourselves let alone trust others. If partners can’t communicate what they want or believe that others are authentic about their true goals, it’s hard to bond in lasting ways and commit to any long-term projects. “In the younger generation and their teachers the emphasis is on the development of inner freedom and independence. If we look more closely, however, the difference is not as great as it seems, because the younger generation has to bear the brunt of difficulties it has inherited from the older generation…Although the new goals of youngsters and of progressive education represent progress, we have to be aware that the progress is not as great as it seems, that the old factors still have a powerful influence. It is important for educators to know that the excessive demands that youngsters put on themselves may help them to a superficial ‘adaptation’ but prevent them from developing autonomous ideals and good relationships with themselves and other people.”
New Order – Age of Consent: https://youtu.be/hZXxmhok1AU?si=MJenudHWh550LWug
Motivated by Fear
This self-mistrust has a fuel that Karen knew was based on fear. Many beliefs about the world are based on saying what will keep us in the good graces of an important cultural group. Parents held life and death over their children because of their ability to punish and remove rewards, but authority figures in society can do the same and so those conformist pressures continue throughout life. To actually know what one believes and wants requires an enormous time commitment to read many different points of view, and since most people cannot make that commitment, they will default with those around them who have control over the resources we can get. We are watched by powerful people and then we have to watch ourselves to see if taking a stand is actually worth it at this time. “It would appear that there are two main sources from which incapacity to take a stand arises: fear of others and failure to take oneself seriously. These traits are interdependent. By taking oneself seriously, I do not mean having no sense of humor in respect to one’s own person. Still less do I mean insisting upon one’s own importance. Curiously enough, there are many persons who demand a great deal of admiration and are grievously hurt if they do not receive it but who are honestly amazed if anyone takes them seriously.”
For those who can’t take a stand and who change their environments, they can easily adopt a new worldview simply by connecting to a new power-and-consumption network. Nothing is well thought out and considered with this kind of mentality. “First of all, a deep feeling of insecurity constrains these persons. They can never take a stand because their feelings and thoughts are largely determined by others. As a result, they are easily swayed, now this way, now that. For instance, the first patient, whom I described above, was asked by a friend to attend a Communist meeting. My patient knew nothing about Communism; she went to the meeting just to observe it. The next time I saw her—only a day later—she had joined the Communist Party! The other patient had a similar experience, but one that led her in the opposite direction, politically speaking. She made a trip to one of the totalitarian states and came back an enthusiastic advocate of dictatorship. Again, I am convinced that the change was not due to any real understanding of the social philosophy so readily and enthusiastically adopted.”
Object Relations: Helene Deutsch Pt. 2: https://rumble.com/v2yepky-object-relations-helene-deutsch-pt.-2.html
How this can be measured is the same as a child assessing the mood of their parents. This just gets transferred to leaders of groups in adulthood, and any mild disapproval in them sparks a motivation to conform. “The second socially important consequence of individual feelings of inadequacy is that persons who are the victims of these feelings evaluate themselves entirely in terms of what others think of them. They feel unattractive if others appear to find them unattractive. All of them, therefore, are enormously susceptible to any kind of ideology that bolsters up the ego…Third, as their behavior and their feelings are wholly directed by expectations from the outside, they lose whatever power of initiative they may once have had. Hence, though they may preserve a semblance of independence, in reality they are lost if they are without guidance, and they naturally become easy converts to any ideology that promises guidance.”
How these weak people become dangerous, and also how they attract narcissists into their lives, is how a fifth-column in a nation can arise. A free society can only be maintained by outspoken people who have no fear in advocating for themselves. They may have to sacrifice jobs and social networks in order to advocate for themselves, and that’s why the adult has already been so conditioned to self-sabotage and to behave like a mouse when their energy and boundaries have been violated. “Democratic principles are in sharp contrast to fascist ideology. Democratic principles uphold the independence and strength of the individual and assert his right to happiness. It is important, therefore, that everyone who is convinced of the value of democracy do his utmost to strengthen individual self-confidence and willpower, and to develop individual capacity for forming judgments and making decisions. In the education of children, especially in ‘progressive education,’ these democratic aims have been emphasized. In adult education, it seems that, before we can stimulate self-confidence, we must first of all combat feelings of personal inadequacy and inferiority.”
Why are so many choosing a life in a cage? | Dr. Julie Ponesse: https://youtu.be/mIGJk7DXU0w?si=IJVAL08rdA4DxsnQ
We are focused on only one kind of threat (Julie Ponesse & Bret Weinstein): https://youtu.be/CwbPi94rlA4?si=EwsVtp9NBcs7J2Y0
Karen wasn’t entirely free from this problem, and like many other therapists, they were often projecting and writing at the same time. The weakness of individual therapy is clear in that all therapists know that cultural influences affect the patient after the sessions are over and only what the patient is willing to advocate for truly remains, against the cultural punishments and threats to withdraw pleasure and resources. “What can adult education do to strengthen the weak and to develop in the citizens of this country a genuine capacity for self-government? I fear that I, personally, can be of very little help in finding an answer to this question. You are dealing with groups, and therefore you cannot make use of individual therapy, as I do. I can merely suggest that in your contacts with students you do everything in your power to impress upon the mind of each of them that he, as an individual, matters. Teach them that everyone should consult and express his own feelings and not blindly follow the leadership of others. Show them how imperative it is to take a stand upon all important questions. In a word, try both by precept and by example to give each of them the courage to be himself.”
Progressive Politics
These fears that fuel motivations to conform have been talked about for ages in both religious and secular revolutionary texts. In Karen’s time at the early 20th century, capitalism had already been criticized heavily, and the cultural milieu she found herself was that of feminism, socialism and communism. Like many who wanted to change the world, Karen needed role models who could cut a pathway for everyone else, like Swedish reformer Ellen Key. “Key had written in 1909 that marriage was unimportant, only an ‘accidental social form,’ and that the only immoral union is one that occasions ‘bad conditions for the development of… offspring.’ A country setting was deemed ideal for the rearing of children. ‘Sport and play, gymnastics and pedestrianism, life in nature and in the open air,’ Ellen Key wrote, ‘…will be most excellent bases for the physical and psychical renewal of the new generation.’ Karen shared many of Key’s child-rearing ideals. Like Key, she believed in fresh air and exercise, a minimum of control and direction, allowing children’s true nature to surface without the imposition of adult values. Like Key, she preferred progressive schools—coeducational, nonreligious, and nonpunitive. But Karen Horney differed from Ellen Key’s ideal mother in one crucial way. Key insisted that the mother ‘should be entirely free from working to earn her living during the most critical years of the children’s training.’ This of course was not Karen’s situation, nor would she have wished it to be.”
Medical treatment at this time was also not free, and it was easy to decide to correct inequities of the past and reform social relations along with economic systems. Progressive reformers needed to bridge the gap between doctor and patient, both on the ability to pay fees, and to solve social problems with social work. “The [Berlin] institute reflected the Socialist-egalitarian sentiments widely held by [their] intellectuals at the time. From its beginnings, in 1920, the institute polyclinic provided free analytic treatment, often to more than a hundred patients. And, beginning in 1927, the Berlin Institute provided inpatient treatment to about thirty more severely disturbed persons in a small renovated castle on the outskirts of the city. When Ernst Simmel, a Socialist analyst who succeeded Karl Abraham as institute president, looked back on the Institute’s first ten years, he noted with pride that the polyclinic’s free treatment did not differ in the least from that of patients paying high fees. ‘Here also, the doctor must occupy himself alone in a private room with his patient for the duration of an hour’ and the patient is ‘entitled to as many weeks or months of analysis as his condition requires.’ In this way, Simmel concluded, the Institute fulfilling social obligations incurred by society, which ‘makes its poor become neurotic and, because of its cultural demands, lets its neurotics stay poor, abandoning them to their misery.’ Through analysis provided by clinics, Simmel predicted, men lost to drink, abandoned women on the verge of breakdown, and delinquent children would be helped to function again. Freud, in a tenth-anniversary tribute, hailed the Berlin Institute’s effort ‘to make our therapy accessible to the great numbers of people who suffer no less than the rich from neurosis, but are not in a position to pay for treatment.'”
Like with Melanie Klein and Anna Freud, there was a utopian atmosphere that assumed too quickly that psychoanalysis would be effective enough to cure mental illness and solve political strife. The Russian experiment, for example, would’ve seemed attractive to a woman surrounded by hostile men in her profession. “The personal challenge of combining marriage, motherhood, and medicine, the male doctors’ resentment of women in the field, and, ‘most of all, the irony that a profession so dedicated to caring for people, nurturing them…should be so overwhelmingly made up of men. (At least in this country, she reminded me; in Russia things are far different.) In Berlin in the twenties there were those who believed that psychoanalysis could save the world. The Kinderseminar (children’s seminar), an unofficial group of young, political psychoanalysts, met regularly to discuss politics and analysis. It included not only such dedicated Socialists as Simmel, Otto Fenichel, and Wilhelm Reich (who later became a Communist for a time) but also Edith Jacobson, whose activities in the anti-Fascist cause landed her in jail briefly in the Nazi era, and Erich Fromm. Edith Weigert, who attended some of the meetings as an institute candidate, remembers long conversations about ‘finding a bridge between Marx and Freud.'”
Karen’s interest in finding the True Self, like for many other psychologists, it led to explorations requiring introspection, in like meditation, to look inward phenomenologically. “Horney’s last two books foreshadow an adventure yet to come. In discussing ‘impoverishment of personality’ in Our Inner Conflicts she noted that ‘in Zen Buddhist writings sincerity is equated with wholeheartedness, pointing to the very conclusion we reach on the basis of clinical observation—namely, that nobody divided within himself can be wholly sincere.’ She went on to quote a conversation between a monk and a master, taken from a book by D. T. Suzuki called Zen Buddhism and Its Influence on Japanese Culture. It was natural for Horney, given her increasing emphasis on finding the real self, on authenticity, to be drawn to Zen Buddhism. It also happened that D. T. Suzuki, a respected Japanese interpreter of Zen to the West, was teaching at Columbia during those years, so that Horney had an opportunity to meet him, through a mutual friend, and to invite him to lecture at the AAP. Around the time that Neurosis and Human Growth appeared, she, Suzuki, and some of her friends began to plan a trip to Japan to experience Zen life firsthand. Two years later she made the journey. The trip to Japan with Suzuki was to be one of the happiest of Karen Horney’s many adventures, not only because it was a journey of discovery but also because she was accompanied by her daughter Brigitte, from whom she had been separated for so many years.”
Her trip to Japan was delayed due to investigation into Karen’s revolutionary connections, who were mostly circumstantial, and people were naïve at that time about the destruction already caused by the Communist experiment. “But when Karen applied for a passport renewal, she discovered to her surprise that the State Department wouldn’t give her one. As a result, the trip was put off for a year…The FBI had begun keeping an eye on Karen Horney way back in November of 1940 when an informant had called in to file a report, accurately describing her history and noting that she was listed in the spring catalogue of the New School for Social Research. ‘This institution,’ the report noted, ‘is known to have communistic sympathies.’ The report ends by stating—apparently on the basis of the New School affiliation—that ‘Dr. Horney is listed as a communist or communist sympathizer.’ In March of the following year another informant wrote that Horney was probably a Nazi-using the New School as camouflage. Evidence for this was the fact that her daughter ‘Brigida’ was ‘absolutely nothing until the Nazis got going and since then she has become the big number,’ and that Karen Horney ‘spoke well of Rudolph Hess…as recently as four or five years ago.’ For this somewhat confused informant the ‘circle seemed…complete’ when he learned that ‘a work of hers attacking Freud is the only book on psychiatry that the C.P. [Communist party] allows sold in its book shops’ and that ‘Madame Horney’s books sell fine’ in Russia. A month later J. Edgar Hoover himself wrote a letter passing along this information to another office.”
Karen was denounced by people around her and who could follow her activities, but knew little about her personally. “In the summer of 1942, during the first year of U.S. involvement in World War II, the postmistress for Monhegan Island, in Maine, began writing to the FBI about a woman named Karen Horney who was ‘outwardly’ a psychologist and who had been vacationing on the island for a few weeks during the past several summers. The postmistress had learned from Horney’s neighbor that she might have a ‘short wave radio set’ and that ‘a plane went over the cottages a short time ago and, right away, she heard the dot-dash dot-dash…from the set…for a period of a few minutes after the plane went past; then it stopped and went into news.’ Her opinion was that the plane was sending ‘some sort of a message that these people could have received.’ Later that summer the postmistress wrote again, assuring the FBI that ‘with quite a few foreigners here—they may be Germans or Jews—I am on the alert, to the ‘nth degree,’ and noting that Dr. Karen Horney ‘receives and sends a lot of mail….She may be bona fide…and a real psychologist but she does seem to have goodly sums of money at her disposal’ and had sent four hundred and fifty dollars of it to a bank in Mexico City. ‘Practically all of the foreign accent people here are of one party or seem to have known each other before coming here,’ the postmistress added. ‘I am apprehensive and shall continue to be.’ Later that summer, the postmistress wrote once again, concluding that ‘the fact that at least some of them are Jews and that Dr. Horney is a writer of established reputation would seem to free them from suspicion and I have no definite proof that they are not what they assume themselves to be. But they do not fit into the picture, and, in view of the activities along the Atlantic coast, I shall feel easier if you know of their continued location here.’ The FBI assured her that her efforts were ‘sincerely appreciated.'”
Many people who were communist did love Karen’s work, especially work that exposed the fears people face in competitive capitalist environments and for those women held back in professional situations by traditional beliefs in the family home. “For these reasons, the memo concludes, Horney shouldn’t be allowed to go. ‘It is well known that the shock of Japan’s defeat has left Japanese educators bewildered and confused, resulting in many becoming receptive to communism. It would appear that an American with Dr. Horney’s record of active participation in several Communist front organizations visiting Japan at this critical time and discussing subjects with Japanese professors in which the subject of socialism and communism is certain to come up, could influence the thinking of these Japanese to the detriment of the American interests in the Far East. It is, therefore, recommended that she be denied a passport to visit Japan at this time…Karen Horney asked her influential friends to write letters on her behalf and wrote a long letter herself to Secretary of State Dean Acheson pleading her case. But what seems to have turned the tide was a personal connection Cathy Bernatschke had, possibly through her admiral father, with a woman named Ruth Shipley, who was chief of the Passport Division. Cathy went to Washington with Cornelius and stopped by Ruth Shipley’s office to say hello. And on June 25 a memo went out stating that ‘one-time membership in Communist-front organizations should not prejudice a person for all time.’ On-July 21, 1952, a passport was finally issued.”
Despite being equated with communists, Karen herself was quite capable of charging fees and capitalistically enjoying a good standard of living. The reality is that the -ism that people prefer most involves getting a cash-flow buffer when one most needs it. In Capitalism, you have to save for a buffer. With Socialism, taxes have to be paid as insurance. If a buffer is not there, or if it is promised but still unavailable, the mind goes into emotional dysregulation, which is the neurosis fuel in Karen’s theories that started the entire downward spiral in the first place. “[Karen] seldom knew how much money she had, either in her purse or in her bank account. At times she might ask a patient to pay in cash instead of the usual monthly check just to have some for her immediate expenses. Her income was fairly good, never large; financially she was comfortable, never wealthy. She did not save much. Her fees were not high by current standards, even though she could have asked any fee she chose because of the demand for her services. Once her junior colleagues started their own private practices they soon asked higher fees and earned more than she did. She turned away many patients, referring them to colleagues…Even though she might accept a slightly reduced fee in special cases, she felt strongly that the fee helped establish a healthy attitude toward the analysis. If you did not pay, you would feel the analysis worthless. This may have been a carryover of Freud’s original position—later changed after the success of the Berlin Clinic—that sacrifice was a necessary precondition for analytic progress. It was for this reason that she would not practice analysis on credit. Some candidates would later complain that she was unfeeling and unsympathetic if she threatened to discontinue analysis when they were temporarily hard-up and unable to pay…Her handling of money was a constant worry to her accountant. Whether buying food, clothes, a little knicknack or a house, she showed an equal disregard for the expense. Shopping she would often ask, ‘Can I afford that? How much money do I have? She gave generously, directly or in gifts—to her daughters, her ex-husband, relatives and friends in Germany—with a uniform disregard for her actual resources. Only once is she known to have protested—after the war she received so many requests for money, food and clothes from Germany that she found it hard to comply with them all. Yet she liked to bargain. On one occasion, when the Association was negotiating for their new apartment on Ninety-eighth Street, she was told by the Committee that she could “handeln” (bargain). She was delighted and literally clapped her hands with joy.”
Why Communism Is So Deadly? – New Discourses: https://youtu.be/LjLJm3HIQSA?si=6FivTxgx0ZXkJCvf
Horney focused on the main aversion, which was the aversion to narcissistic wounding found in intimate relationships, and capitalism, that routinely threatened rejection to economic access, and therefore fight or flight reactions were triggered in the vulnerable. What narcissistic wounding in socialism did Horney not foresee? It took a long time for people to understand what happened in the Holocaust, Communist famines, including many famines and murders yet to come after Karen’s life and death, and so people trapped in communist countries suffered threats to their very lives through murder and starvation. They endured forced conformity, ideological purity tests, surveillance, punishments for excellence, and slavish dependency on the state. These all could provide as much or more narcissistic wounding found in any capitalist system. People may want to escape forms of narcissism that stem from an individualistic culture, but one must accept that narcissists will just transfer their tactics to that of collective narcissism and trap victims just the same.
A Mind Of Her Own: The Life Of Karen Horney – Susan Quinn: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9780201155730/
The Unknown Karen Horney – Karen Horney, Bernard J. Paris: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9780300080421/
Psychology: https://psychreviews.org/category/psychology01/