English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

pathology (Carstairs 1961; Spratt 1966; Masson 1980; Kakar 1981) or normative developments relative to each culture (Roland 1988; Kurtz 1992), the seemingly uncontested consensus is that Hindu India nurtures a "collective self." Though generally finding many of these studies quite fascinating and often persuasive, I wish to draw attention to a dimension that is routinely overlooked. In an effort to paint with broad strokes a culture preoccupied with psychological mergers and integrations, many authors fail to take note of particular forms of bhakti, or devotion, that appear to contest such a preoccupation. The structural features of viraha bhakti (love-in-separation) and virodha bhakti (love-manifest-as-enmity) in particular reflect and influence a psychological construction of self that is not merged in or integrated with the other: viraha bhakti and virodha bhakti present Hindu god images that model a separated-individuated self. Because any one religious tradition is clearly overdetermined, definitive psychological interpretations remain elusive. This is certainly the case with viraha bhakti and virodha bhakti. While maintaining that the two devotional models similarly reflect a separated-individuated self, I nevertheless present competing interpretations. The competition issues from the difference between interpreting god imagery as either corresponding with or compensating for the realities of childhood (Kirkpatrick 2005). In the former case, the religious model repeats culturally normative developments; in the latter, the religious model deviates from culturally normative developments. Whether or not the compensation is psychologically deviant is an altogether different issue. The two interpretations I present here share a common point of departure in what the psychoanalytic anthropologist Stanley N. Kurtz calls the "new psychology of Hinduism" (1992: 6). Kurtz's new psychology is based upon what many contemporary ethnographers consider to be a "more" accurate portrait of Hindu childrearing practices. Where the "classical" account addresses the Hindu mother's wholesale indulgence of her child, the new account stresses physical indulgence accompanied

I Love You, I Hate You: Toward a Psychology of the Hindu Deus Absconditus