In Memoriam: Friedhelm Nyssen (1938-2003)

Friedhelm Nyssen, sociologist, pedagogue, psychohistorian, and emeritus professor of education at the University of Frankfurt, died on 18 December 2003, after a long, excruciatingly painful illness that made his life intolerable. I lost a good friend with whom I enjoyed a close personal and professional relationship. We first met nine years ago at a meeting of the German Society for Psychohistorical Research where he lectured on “The Psychogenetic History of Childhood and Historical Demography: Do They Supplement Each Other?” We soon discovered we shared a passionate interest in modern and classic art, touring German and Dutch exhibits where we exchanged spontaneous associations on the psychosocial and aesthetic meanings of paintings, some of which Friedhelm used as source material in his psychohistorical work. It was a pleasure to associate with this outstanding German psychohistorian.

Years earlier Nyssen, a student at the Free University of Berlin, had been a prominent member of the German student organization, which toward the end of the sixties had initiated an attack on the conservative-hierarchical structures of German universities. It helped bring about a German “cultural revolution” that was part of the transformation of Germany into a more open, democratic, and socially responsible society. Even then he had the reputation as a dynamic speaker, capable of appealing to thousands while remaining true to cognitively elaborated and differentiated argumentation. He was moved by a passion to democratize and improve social and educational conditions at universities and institutions of learning at all levels. He developed his careful reasoning at the University of Kiel and through his own scientific work as a sociologist and

Page 23

educator.

In 1972 Nyssen became a professor in the Department of Educational Sciences at the University of Frankfurt, which was well known as a center of critical theory. Up to the middle of the seventies Nyssen’s publications aimed mainly at the interconnections of education, the history of education, political socialization, and society. Outside the scientific and university world he became well known for his book, The Influence of Economic Interest Groups on Schools [Der Einfluß wirtschaftlicher Interessenverbände im Felde der Schule] (1969), which was reprinted repeatedly. Beginning in the late seventies, Nyssen focused on the improvement of educational and socialization processes through the interconnections of psychoanalysis and the history of childhood. The latter became his life’s work—a passion that may well have been rooted in his life history: he was born on July 28, 1938 in Düsseldorf and his childhood was deeply affected by his experiences during the violent displacement of millions of Germans from Germany’s former eastern territories and its aftermath.

Professor Friedhelm Nyssen was the first author in Germany to examine thoroughly the historical sources of Lloyd deMause’s “History of Childhood” and to open a discussion concerning their representative value (1979, 1984, and 1989). He became an important contributor to organized psychohistorical research in Germany through activities such as the invitation of American scholars to a psychohistorical congress at Frankfurt University and especially as the author and editor of numerous essays and books. Among his publications were: “Concerning the History of Childhood: To Recognize and to Remember” (1979); “In Search of the Lost Self: Alice Miller and Michel de Montaigne” (1980); “Concerning deMause’s History of Childhood: A Discussion of Sources”; “Childhood in Tsarist Russia” (1987); “The History of Childhood as ‘Black Pedagogy’?” (1987); “Do Parents Love Their Children?” (1989); “Child Crèches and “The Evolution of Childhood” (1991); “A New Beginning or Repetition? Childhood and Christianity in the Past” (1993); “The Distorted Child Wish in the Christian Past” (1994); “The Psychogenetic History of Childhood and Historical Demography” (1997); and “Psychohistory, Social Inequality, and Political Changes” (2002).

Central to most of these publications was Nyssen’s preoccupation with the reworking of anxieties (zweite Angstbearbeitung). Though this reworking meant that the anxieties of early childhood follow us through our entire lives, as mothers and fathers we have in our parent-child-relationship the chance for renewed and new possibilities in facing these anxieties, perhaps leading to better results for parents and children alike. In this sense, he endeavored to discover to what extent the evolution of childhood was embedded, that is a “natural psychogenetic” phenomenon, or to what extent it is supported, delayed or even contradicted by economic circumstances, demographic processes, and socio-historical developments. Among the latter he included the effects of religion and changing educational and medical thinking since the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century and the more recent feminist discourse. The resulting enquiries enabled Nyssen to bring into play his social and educational scientific background, his rigorous theoretical training, and his extensive personal and theoretical knowledge in psychoanalysis and social-historical psychology.

Nyssen contrasted and supplemented the idea of a psychogenetic evolution of childhood with findings from the social sciences and historical studies. This meant for him a revitalization of Lloyd deMause’s theoretical approach and an important addition to existing explanatory modes of the social sciences. He hoped that the latter could gain—by including and integrating psychohistorical aspects—additional explanatory power. (An example of this is Friedhelm Nyssen and Marion Bornhoff, “Is There Any Such a Thing as “‘Evolution of Childhood?’”, The Journal of Psychohistory, Vol. 16. no. 2, [1988] pp. 184-188).

Through his studies, Nyssen came to the conclusion that a psychohistory that explains societal developments only through psychic processes and denies the influence of societal and economic factors impedes its further development. This view found its final expression and underpinning in A Critique of Psychohistory: Appeals and Limits of a Psychological Paradigm (2003), reviewed in this issue on page 22. This book represents the results of the research of an interdisciplinary group of scholars he had brought together and moderated for several years to inquire into the interrelationships between psychohistory and the social and historical sciences. In two extensive essays, he focused on an “independent psychohistory,” as initiated by deMause, and expressed his deep fascination with this approach. Simultaneously, he carefully demonstrated that a psychohistory will founder if based only on psychic processes without being integrated with

Page 24

social and human sciences.

With this book Nyssen sought and found a link to the topics he faced at the beginning of his scientific career: the problems of political socialization and critiques of educational processes in capitalistic societies. This endeavor to integrate his scientific life had found an earlier expression in his seminal speech on “Psychohistory, Social Inequality, and Political Changes” at the Psychohistorical Symposium in Heidelberg in 2000. There he pointed out that much of the extent and intensity of abuse and maltreatment of children in today’s globalized world cannot be understood without recourse to an interdisciplinary approach to global poverty.

Nyssen sought to integrate his earlier social science work with his later scientific pursuits and succeeded before his death, even if he was already worn down by intense pain. This breakthrough was not only of great personal significance to him, but it is also of great importance for the scientific understanding (Selbstverständnis) of psychohistorians of themselves and the possibilities and standing of their field.

Friedhelm Nyssen taught thousands of students and familiarized all of these students with psychohistorical and psychopedagogical research and theory. I participated in one of his typical seminars: he was seated in the midst of over 100 students of different scientific fields and spoke about childhood and adolescence in various cultures. The students listened eagerly because they saw the relevance of the topic and approach to themselves. Professionally, and with great personal warmth and empathy, he handled the lively and controversial debates typical of Frankfurt University. He was so successful as a teacher because he was eager to see what the students would add to the topics under discussion, to learn something new he had not thought of himself. At such a moment he would express astonishment and do what he could to further develop the ideas expressed. Similarly, at the interdisciplinary work group meetings, he maintained an open and empathic style that was free of the competitive distortions one often finds at German universities. This ability to initiate and develop a topic or an activity openly will remain unforgettable to his students, colleagues and friends.

Contrary to present trends, the university was for Friedhelm Nyssen not an educational and research machine that aims at the efficient output of the highest possible number of usable products, including human ones. The university he worked to create was primarily a cultural and humanistic enterprise that encouraged a continuous self-reflective learning; he endeavored to gain an empathic understanding of the other and to encourage responsible autonomy and independence. Perhaps the latter was expressed in his conscious choice of death in the face of unbearable pain. He is survived by his wife Marion Bornhoff-Nyssen and sons Peter and Felix.

Page 25