As I understand it, the term "political psychology" seeks to capture the correlation of psyche and polis; instead of simply reducing one dimension to the other, it aims to highlight the peculiar interlacing between psychic drives and social contexts, between inner human "nature" and public institutions or norms. The same ambition, it appears, lies at the heart of psychoanalysis?despite a shift of accent from manifest behavior to latent or covert motiva? tions. Ever since Civilization and its Discontents, a central preoc? cupation of Freud's heirs has been the linkage of instinctual impulses and social constraints, of unconscious "libido" and publicly sanctioned rules. To be sure, psychoanalytic theory does not offer a compact consensus on these matters. In fact, Freudianism in our century has splintered into an array of competing schools?all of them providing a distinct slant on the mentioned correlation. During recent decades, antagonism has prevailed chiefly between spokesmen of libidinal or "id" psychology, on the one hand, and champions of "ego" and "superego" psychology (and facets of "object relations" theory), on the other. In large measure, the conflict centers around the definition of human "nature": with proponents of the two schools stressing unconscious, inner-psychic and moral or interpersonal components respectively.1 The conflict carries over into conceptions of psychic illness and therapy. While "id" psy? chologists seek to rescue the individual from the traumatizing or destabilizing effects of society, their opponents see the main goal of therapy in the effort to reintegrate the patient into the world of social norms and public meanings. It cannot be my task here to sort out the many disputes raging between Freud's heirs?a task exceeding not only the confines of one paper but also the limits of my professional competence. Instead, adopting a more restricted focus, I intend to concentrate on the status and changing fortunes of psychoanalysis in the context of the Frankfurt School. Even within that context I shall not offer a detailed historical narrative but rather highlight salient views of some prominent spokesmen of "critical theory" (notably Adorno,