ABSTRACT
It would be helpful at the outset to give a brief explanation of just what (media) psychology understands as catharsis, but unfortunately that is not possible, because of the manifold meanings that are currently associated with the use of that term. In some cases, they reflect very divergent, and sometimes even diametrically opposed, conceptions that have been developed in the field of psychology during the last century. Looking to Aristotle and the concept of catharsis in his theory of tragedy would seem to suggest itself as a starting point, and indeed, authors often reference Aristotle’s work as a source for understanding their own (later) conceptions of that term. Simply going back to Aristotle, however, will not offer any real solution to the problem either, because a one-and-only Aristotelian catharsis does not exist. This is the result of Aristotle not given (or our primary sources not reporting) a sufficiently complete and clear explication of what he meant by catharsis. The result that there is no philological consensus as to what Aristotle wanted to be understood—and what should not be understood—by catharsis. Thus, the history of reconstruction has lead to positions that, in the most extreme case, are diametrically opposed. According to one, catharsis means a psychic cleansing (purgation), and to the other, a spiritual purification.
