NYU Press

Chapter Title: The Tragic Encounter between Freud and Ferenczi and Its Impact on the
History of Psychoanalysis
Chapter Author(s): MARTIN S. BERGMANN

Book Title: Ferenczi's Turn in Psychoanalysis

Book Editor(s): Peter L. Rudnytsky, Antal Bokay and Patrizia Giampieri-Deutsch
Published by: NYU Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qg8tz.13

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.

NYU Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ferenczi's
Turn in Psychoanalysis

This content downloaded from

32.210.58.182 on Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:57:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Eight

The Tragi c Encounte r betwee n Freu d an d

Ferenczi an d It s Impac t o n th e Histor y
of Psychoanalysi s
•
MARTIN S . BERGMAN N

As both the recent volume edited by Lewis Aron and Adrienne Harris (1993)
and a series o f internationa l conference s attest , a reviva l o f interes t i n th e
work o f Sandor Ferencz i is currently takin g place. One reaso n for thi s phe-
nomenon i s th e appearanc e o f hithert o unavailabl e document s tha t affor d
new insights. These include Ferenczi s Clinical Diary (1985), Freud's Phyloge-
netic Fantasy (1985)—discovere d b y Use Grubrich-Simitis amon g Ferencz i s
papers—and th e ongoing publication o f the full Freud-Ferencz i correspon -
dence. Beyon d th e confine s o f psychoanalysis , ther e i s in popula r culture ,
particularly in the United States , an urgent concern with the sexual abuse of
children by adults. Among psychoanalysts Ferenczi was prominent in differ -
entiating between actual seduction and fantasies. His attempt to blur the dis-
tinction between analyst and analysand through mutual analysis likewise has a
special appeal to postmodernists. The interpersonal school of psychoanalysis,
furthermore, represente d in New York by the William Alanson White Insti -
tute, whic h i s still excluded fro m th e Internationa l Psychoanalyti c Associa -
tion, has discovered Ferenczi as its ancestor and through him sought to gain a
new legitimacy in the psychoanalytic movement .

This chapte r wa s rea d i n July 199 3 a t th e meetin g o f th e Internationa l Psychoanalyti c Associatio n

in Amsterda m an d a t th e Fourt h Internationa l Conferenc e o f th e Sando r Ferencz i Societ y i n
Budapest.

145

This content downloaded from

32.210.58.182 on Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:57:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
146 M A R T I N S . BERGMAN N

In an earlier paper (1993 ) I n a ve argue d that psychoanalysis is in dire need

of a better understandin g o f its ow n history . A mor e objectiv e perspectiv e
may help t o protect psychoanalysi s fro m a "confusion o f tongues" betwee n
different schools . In that paper I suggested tha t we need t o differentiat e be -
tween three types of creative psychoanalysts—the extenders, modifiers, and her-
etics. Durin g Freud's lifetime ther e were only the extenders or loyal disciples,
and the heretics who left psychoanalysis to establish their own schools. Only
after Freud' s death , whe n Ann a Freu d i n he r controversia l discussion s wit h
Melanie Klei n an d he r follower s (Kin g and Steine r 1991 ) faile d t o establis h
the authority of the founder, di d the modifier emerg e as an acceptable mem -
ber of the psychoanalytic community . The first self-conscious statemen t o f a
modifier wa s Melani e Klein' s avowal : " I a m a Freudia n bu t no t a n Ann a
Freudian." However, from a broader standpoint, Ferencz i deserves to be seen
as the first modifier i n psychoanalytic history.
The presen t chapte r move s o n tw o levels—th e leve l o f th e persona l
relationship betwee n Freu d an d Ferencz i an d th e leve l o f psychoanalyti c
theory an d technique . Th e firs t appeal s t o ou r huma n interest . W e se e tw o
outstanding me n workin g closel y togethe r an d stimulatin g eac h othe r t o
productive work ; the n th e hostil e componen t o f Ferenczi' s relationshi p t o
Freud gain s th e uppe r hand . Th e rif t coul d hav e bee n mende d ha d Freu d
not bee n s o deepl y injured . W e nee d t o acknowledg e als o tha t Ferencz i
wrote hi s most origina l work while h e was rebelling against Freud . But th e
personal story , movin g thoug h i t is , i s no t a t thi s tempora l distanc e th e
most importan t dimension . Th e controvers y betwee n Freu d an d Ferencz i
touches o n ke y issues of psychoanalysis itself.
No othe r collaborator , no t eve n Kar l Abraham, wa s as close t o Freu d as
Ferenczi. Freud' s Phylogenetic Fantasy, whic h h e sen t t o Ferencz i i n 1915 ,
and Ferenczi' s Thalassa, publishe d i n 1924 , ar e closel y related . I n a lette r
written o n Apri l 8 , 1915 , Freu d explaine d t o Ferencz i th e mechanism s o f
scientific creativit y a s a "successio n o f daringl y playfu l fantas y an d relent -
lessly realisti c criticism " (Grubrich-Simiti s 1985 , 83) . I f we tak e thi s t o b e
an implici t self-description , w e migh t imagin e tha t o f Ferenczi a s "utmos t
fascination wit h clinica l details supplying the raw material for darin g specu-
lations." Ferenczi' s flights of fantasy mus t hav e liberated Freu d fro m exces -
sive self-criticism , particularl y durin g period s whe n hi s correspondenc e

This content downloaded from

32.210.58.182 on Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:57:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 T h e Tragi c Encounte r betwee n Freu d an d Ferencz i 14 7

shows a deepenin g depression . A share d commitmen t t o Lamarckianis m

also playe d a role i n cementin g thei r relationship .
In a lette r o f July 12 , 1915 , Freu d outline d fo r Ferencz i th e mai n idea s
of hi s Phylogenetic Fantasy. H e hypothesize d tha t huma n lif e originate d i n a
state o f tropica l bliss , wher e nutritiona l need s wer e satisfie d wit h littl e
exertion. Thi s earl y stat e reappear s i n th e variou s myth s o f paradise , ofte n
projected ont o earl y childhood . Wit h th e adven t o f th e Ic e Age , libid o wa s
transformed int o anxiety , a n observatio n i n keepin g wit h Freud' s theor y o f
anxiety prio r t o th e shif t introduce d i n 192 6 wit h Inhibitions, Symptoms and
Anxiety. "Wha t ar e no w neurose s wer e onc e phase s i n huma n conditions. "
Freud conclude d b y assurin g Ferenczi , "You r priorit y i n al l thi s i s evident "
(Grubrich-Simitis 1985 , 79) .
In 191 9 Ferencz i wrot e a paper, "Technica l Difficultie s i n th e Analysi s o f
a Cas e o f Hysteria, " whic h eve n toda y i s a mode l i n it s dealin g wit h
technique. H e presente d th e cas e o f a woma n whos e symptom s improve d
while sh e wa s i n treatment , onl y t o relaps e whe n sh e left . Th e patien t coul d
not b e persuade d tha t he r eroti c wishe s wer e base d o n transference . Sh e
1
refused t o searc h fo r th e unconsciou s objec t o f he r desires. Ferencz i
prohibited he r fro m crossin g he r leg s durin g th e hour , thu s uncoverin g
what h e calle d a "larva l for m o f onanism " (1919 , 191) . Furthe r inquir y
showed tha t throughou t th e da y sh e eroticize d ever y activit y b y pressin g
her leg s together. Eventuall y thi s patient reache d th e capacit y fo r satisfactio n
in norma l sexua l intercourse . Ferencz i wa s no t ye t advocatin g wha t h e
would cal l "indulgence, " bu t a n activ e techniqu e i n whic h th e analys t
forbade al l masturbatory equivalents .
Freud's "Line s o f Advanc e i n Psychoanalyti c Therapy, " rea d i n 191 8 a t
the Fift h Psychoanalyti c Congres s i n Budapest , wa s a response t o Ferencz i s
active technique . Freu d divide d treatmen t int o tw o distinc t phases . First ,
the therapis t uncover s th e analysand' s resistance s an d make s th e unconsciou s
conscious; the n h e exploit s th e patient' s transferenc e t o convinc e hi m
that regressiv e processe s adopte d i n childhoo d ar e n o longe r expedien t i n
adulthood an d tha t i t i s impossible t o conduc t lif e o n th e pleasur e principle :

Does the uncovering o f these resistances guarantee tha t the y will also be overcome ?
Certainly no t always ; bu t ou r hop e i s t o achiev e thi s b y exploitin g th e patient' s
transference t o th e perso n o f th e physician , s o a s t o induc e hi m t o adop t ou r

This content downloaded from

32.210.58.182 on Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:57:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
148 MARTI N S . BERGMAN N

conviction o f th e inexpedienc y o f th e repressiv e proces s establishe d i n childhoo d

and the impossibility o f conducting life o n th e pleasure principle. (1919 , 159)

This i s a n importan t historica l moment . I n 191 9 Freu d believe d tha t

psychoanalytic cur e come s abou t a s a resul t o f bot h insigh t an d lov e ex -
pressed i n th e positiv e transference . I t i s eviden t fro m thi s quotatio n tha t
Freud n o longe r assume d tha t merel y makin g th e unconsciou s consciou s
would brin g abou t cure . Becaus e th e patien t ha s t o b e induce d t o adop t a
healthier attitud e a t thi s juncture , th e powe r o f suggestio n canno t b e
denied. Bot h Freu d an d Ferencz i wer e convince d tha t th e neuroti c ha s
constructed hi s lif e accordin g t o th e pleasur e principle . Lik e a child , th e
neurotic ha s refuse d t o accep t th e realit y principle . Neithe r wa s awar e o f
the ful l complexit y tha t a neurotic structur e present s t o bot h analysan d an d
analyst.
Ferenczi's influenc e o n Freu d i s eviden t i n th e followin g passage : " D e -
velopments i n ou r therapy , therefore , wil l n o doub t procee d alon g othe r
lines; firs t an d foremost , alon g th e on e whic h Ferencz i i n hi s paper 'Techni -
cal Difficultie s i n a n Analysi s o f Hysteria ' (1919 ) ha s latel y terme d 'activit y
on th e par t o f the analyst ' " (Freu d 1919 , 161-62) .
Clearly, i n th e real m o f techniqu e Freu d wa s willin g t o follo w Ferencz i s
lead. Ther e i s no evidenc e o f tension betwee n them . Awar e o f the problem ,
raised b y Ferenczi , tha t man y analysand s clin g t o thei r therapists , Freu d
advocated conductin g treatmen t i n a stat e o f abstinence . Furthermore ,
aware tha t th e goo d achieve d i n treatmen t ca n easil y becom e th e enem y o f
the better , an d tha t man y analysand s simpl y substitut e a n unhapp y marriag e
or a physica l illnes s fo r th e neurosi s the y wer e force d t o giv e up , Freu d
demanded tha t n o basi c decision s b e mad e durin g analysis . H e encourage d
analysts t o b e activ e i n preventin g suc h substitut e formations . "Crue l
though i t ma y sound , w e mus t se e t o i t tha t th e patient' s sufferin g . . .
does no t com e prematurel y t o a n end " (165) . Man y direc t intrusion s b y
psychoanalysts int o thei r analysands ' live s wer e late r rationalize d unde r thi s
heading.
In subsequen t paper s Ferencz i reporte d h e employe d othe r prohibitions ,
such a s forbidding th e patien t t o us e th e toile t durin g th e analyti c hour . O n
one occasio n h e forbad e a patien t t o hav e sexua l intercourse . I n 192 4 h e
published a shor t paper , " O n Force d Phantasies, " wher e h e recommende d

This content downloaded from

32.210.58.182 on Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:57:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Tragi c Encounter betwee n Freu d and Ferenczi 14 9

that i n certai n case s th e analys t deman d tha t th e analysan d produc e eve n

against hi s wil l aggressiv e o r sexua l fantasie s abou t th e analyst . Al l thes e
papers wer e motivate d b y a wis h t o achiev e bette r an d faste r result s tha n
Freud's technique allowed . Together they represent th e first modificatio n o f
psychoanalytic technique , soo n t o b e overshadowe d b y tha t o f Wilhel m
Reich, wh o extende d th e analys t s activity eve n furthe r i n hi s advocac y o f
character analysis (Bergman n an d Hartman 1976) .
In 192 7 Ferencz i publishe d th e firs t psychoanalyti c pape r o n termina -
tion. In retrospect , i t i s significan t tha t Freu d di d no t includ e a paper o n
termination amon g hi s early works o n technique . Befor e "Analysi s Termi -
nable an d Interminable " (1937) , hi s mai n contributio n t o th e subjec t fol -
lowed Ferencz i s ide a o f "activ e technique, " a s i n hi s insistenc e tha t th e
Wolf Man terminat e a t a given date . Ferenczi states : "A neurotic canno t b e
regarded a s cure d i f h e ha s no t give n u p pleasur e i n unconsciou s fantasy ,
i.e., unconscious mendacity" (1927 , 79). Ferenczi here equates fantasy wit h
mendacity. H e advocate d leavin g the decisio n t o terminat e i n th e hand s o f
the analysand . "Th e prope r endin g o f a n analysi s i s whe n neithe r th e
physician no r th e patien t put s a n en d t o it , bu t whe n i t die s o f exhaustion .
. . . A trul y cure d patien t free s himsel f from analysi s slowl y bu t surely ; s o
long as he wishes to com e t o analysis he should continu e t o d o so" (85).
Reading thi s paper today , i t seem s t o b e writte n chiefl y fro m th e poin t
of view o f a n analysan d unpressure d b y realit y consideration s an d wishin g
to enjo y a n unendin g analysis . Ferencz i di d no t forese e th e dange r o f a n
analysis creating a new equilibriu m o f forces i n which th e analys t facilitate s
an adjustmen t tha t make s terminatio n impossible . Th e pape r neglect s th e
point o f view of the analyst, who mus t always take the reality principle int o
account, an d evidently idealizes the analytic process.
Ten years later, Freu d was in part motivated t o write "Analysi s Termina -
ble an d Interminable " b y th e nee d t o repl y t o Ferenczi s accusations .
Without mentionin g him by name, Freud quoted Ferencz i s allegations tha t
he (Freud ) faile d t o detec t Ferencz i s laten t negativ e transferenc e an d t o
analyze hidde n problem s i n thei r relationship . Freu d maintaine d tha t suc h
an analysi s woul d hav e bee n needlessl y painful , tha t i n fac t on e canno t
analyze problem s prematurely . B y contrast , Ott o Fenichel , i n a posthu -
mously published pape r (1974) , pointed ou t tha t latent problem s ar e always

This content downloaded from

32.210.58.182 on Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:57:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
150 M A R T I N S . BERGMAN N

analyzed. I t i s th e analysi s itsel f tha t actualize s wha t ha s previousl y bee n

only dorman t (Bergman n 1993) .
A historia n o f psychoanalysi s shoul d no t den y tha t durin g th e perio d
where Ferencz i becam e critica l o f Freu d h e als o wrot e hi s mos t origina l
papers. Ferenczi' s paper , " T h e Unwelcom e Chil d an d Hi s Deat h Instinct "
(1929), marke d a new departure . I n i t Ferencz i wa s th e firs t t o appl y Freud' s
death instinc t theor y t o a clinica l situation . H e anticipate d th e findin g o f
R e n e Spit z o n hospitalis m b y fiftee n year s w h e n h e wrote , "Childre n w h o
are receive d i n a hars h an d unlovin g wa y di e easil y an d willingly " (105) .
T h e huma n infant , unlik e mos t animals , need s lov e t o overcom e th e deat h
instinct. H e lai d th e foundatio n fo r objec t relation s theor y b y pointin g ou t
that i t take s a n immens e expenditur e o f love , tenderness , an d car e fo r a
child t o forgiv e hi s parent s fo r bringin g hi m unaske d int o th e world . Fo r
this reaso n th e greates t obstacl e t o cur e i n al l psychopathologie s i s th e
imbalance betwee n libid o an d aggression . Elsewher e (1992 ) I hav e applie d
this insigh t t o th e histor y o f religion .
Ferenczi's las t paper , " T h e Confusio n o f Tongue s betwee n Adult s an d
the Child " (1933) , wa s als o revolutionary . H e postulate d tha t seduction s o f
children ar e fa r mor e prevalen t tha n ha s bee n acknowledged . Incestuou s
seductions b y adult s occu r whe n the y "mistak e th e pla y o f childre n fo r th e
desires o f a sexuall y matur e person " (161) . Seduce d children , h e main -
tained, introjec t th e aggresso r an d attemp t t o gratif y th e wishe s o f thes e
adults, becomin g obliviou s t o thei r ow n needs . A dreamlik e stat e develop s
in whic h th e chil d i s n o longe r sur e whethe r th e seductio n actuall y oc -
curred. Thi s give s wa y t o a traumati c tranc e tha t eventuall y succumb s t o
the primary-proces s distortions . Ferencz i stresse d tha t seduce d childre n
accept th e seducer' s denia l o f reality , adaptin g t o i t a t th e expens e o f th e
development o f thei r ow n sens e o f reality .
Ferenczi raise d anothe r disturbin g problem . H e postulate d a stag e o f
"passive object-lov e o r o f tenderness " an d reache d th e conclusio n tha t "i f
more love or love of a different kind from that which they need, is forced upo n th e
children i n th e stag e o f tenderness, i t may lea d t o pathologica l consequence s
in th e sam e wa y a s th e frustration or withdrawal of love" (163—64) . A s hi s
Clinical Diary furthe r attests , Ferencz i sa w infantil e sexualit y i n a new light :

This content downloaded from

32.210.58.182 on Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:57:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 T h e Tragi c Encounte r betwee n Freu d an d Ferencz i 15 1

A larg e par t o f children's sexualit y i s not spontaneous , bu t i s artificially grafte d o n

by adults , throug h overpassionat e tendernes s an d seduction . I t i s onl y whe n thi s
grafted-on elemen t i s reexperienced i n analysis , and is thereby emotionall y spli t up,
that ther e develop s in the analysis, initiall y i n th e transferenc e relationship , tha t
untroubled infantil e sexualit y fro m whic h i n th e fina l phas e o f analysis , th e longe d
for normalit y wil l grow. (1985 , 75)

In m y experience , t o le t th e untrouble d infantil e sexualit y emerg e an d

flourish i n th e transferenc e i s ver y difficult . I t i s alway s complicate d b y th e
paranoid suspicion s tha t al l analysand s w h o wer e seduce d a s childre n brin g
into th e transference . Nevertheless , Ferencz i s formulatio n o f th e analyti c
task i s admirable .
Freud's initia l grea t discover y wa s hi s recognitio n tha t traumati c events —
primarily infantil e seduction s b y adults—wer e no t alway s fact s bu t al l to o
often fantasies , an d tha t i n th e unconsciou s fac t an d fantas y canno t b e
distinguished. Ferencz i returne d t o a traumati c theor y o f neurosis . H e
believed tha t a n earl y blissfu l phas e o f th e infan t i s typicall y interrupte d b y
traumatic events . T h e tas k o f psychoanalysi s i s t o uncove r thi s earl y trau -
matic stat e an d lea d th e patien t bac k throug h regressio n t o th e prio r
pretraumatic phase . Fro m thi s angl e Ferencz i define d memor y a s " a collec -
tion o f scars of shocks in th e ego " (1985 , i n ) . Analysi s mus t g o bac k befor e
the origina l splittin g occurre d t o a pretraumatic tim e whe n th e patien t wa s
still on e wit h himsel f (1933 , 270—71) . T o pu t i t i n Balint s (1968 ) terms ,
Ferenczi thought , a s Winnicot t di d also , tha t psychoanalyti c cur e ca n tak e
place onl y i n a state o f regression . T h e proble m o f regressio n i s still wit h u s
as an importan t issu e i n psychoanalyti c technique .
Is thi s ne w hypothesi s o f tende r lov e i n conflic t wit h Freud' s an d Abra -
ham's table s o f psychosexua l stages ? Doe s i t negat e th e centralit y o f th e
Oedipus complex ? Thes e ar e seriou s question s demandin g dispassionat e
discussion, bu t Freu d sa w i n Ferenczi' s observation s onl y a return t o th e ol d
seduction theor y h e ha d relinquishe d wit h s o muc h inne r struggle .
O n a theoretica l level , Ferencz i raise d a n importan t problem . I s th e ai m
of psychoanalysis th e acquisitio n o f insights , i n th e sens e tha t th e analysan d
learns t o understan d wh y h e becam e th e kin d o f perso n h e i s an d wh y h e
developed th e particula r neurosis ? O r doe s psychoanalysis , i n th e perso n o f

This content downloaded from

32.210.58.182 on Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:57:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
152 M A R T I N S . BERGMAN N

the analyst , giv e th e analysan d a secon d chanc e t o rewor k childhoo d prob -

lems wit h a ne w an d differen t lovin g parenta l figure ? I n clinica l practic e
both processe s operat e simultaneously , bu t th e weigh t assigne d t o eac h
differs i n th e emphasi s o f differen t psychoanalyti c schools . W e ar e her e
confronted wit h anothe r majo r debat e i n psychoanalyti c technique . I s
regression indispensabl e fo r psychoanalyti c cure ? W h e n confronte d wit h
seriously depressed , suicidal , o r paranoi d patients , i s i t desirable , o r eve n
permissible, t o le t the m ente r suc h thoroughgoin g regression ?
O n Decembe r 13 , 1931 , Freud sen t Ferencz i th e famou s "kissing " letter ,
the best-know n documen t i n thei r exchange :

I se e tha t th e differenc e betwee n u s conie s t o a head i n a technical detai l whic h i s

well wort h discussing . Yo u hav e no t mad e a secre t o f th e fac t tha t yo u kis s you r
patients an d le t the m kis s you. . . . You hav e t o choos e betwee n tw o ways : eithe r
you relat e thi s or you concea l it . Th e latter , a s you ma y well think, i s dishonorable.
What on e doe s in one' s techniqu e on e ha s to defen d openly . . . . We have hithert o
in ou r techniqu e hel d t o th e conclusio n tha t patient s ar e t o b e refuse d eroti c
gratifications. Yo u know to o tha t where mor e extensiv e gratification s ar e not t o b e
had, milde r caresse s very easil y take ove r their role , in love affairs, o n th e stage , etc.
(Jones 1957 , 163-64 )

Freud admonishe s Ferencz i tha t wher e h e allow s kissing , a mor e radica l

therapist wil l procee d t o genita l relationships . Freu d ma y wel l hav e bee n
right, bu t i n fairnes s t o Ferencz i w e mus t sa y tha t h e advocate d onl y th e
kind o f intimacies tha t tak e plac e betwee n paren t an d child .
According t o Ernes t Jones, Freu d wa s greatl y shocke d b y Ferenczi' s las t
paper an d di d hi s bes t t o kee p Ferencz i fro m readin g i t a t th e 193 2
Wiesbaden Congress . I n attemptin g t o understan d thi s conflict , i t ma y b e
helpful t o examin e Freud' s obituar y o f Ferenczi , writte n i n 1933 . Freu d
first describe d thei r earl y clos e friendship , thei r travel s i n 190 9 t o th e
United States , wher e h e delivere d th e Clar k Universit y lectures , an d Fer -
enczi's proposa l fo r th e formatio n o f the Internationa l Psychoanalyti c Asso -
ciation. H e the n recalle d how , i n 1923 , a special numbe r o f th e International
Journal wa s dedicate d t o Ferenczi , an d h e praise d abov e al l Ferenczi' s Tha-
lassa. Freud the n concluded :

After thi s summit o f achievement, i t came about that our friend slowl y drifted awa y
from us . On hi s return fro m a period o f work i n Americ a h e seeme d t o withdra w
more an d mor e int o solitar y work , thoug h h e ha d previousl y take n th e livelies t

This content downloaded from

32.210.58.182 on Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:57:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 T h e Tragi c Encounte r betwee n Freu d an d Ferencz i 15 3

share in all that happened i n analyti c circles . We learnt tha t on e singl e problem ha d
monopolised hi s interest. Th e nee d t o cur e an d t o hel p ha d become paramoun t i n
him. H e ha d probabl y se t himsel f aim s which , wit h ou r therapeuti c means , ar e
altogether ou t o f reach today. From unexhausted spring s of emotion th e convictio n
was born e i n upo n hi m tha t on e coul d effec t fa r mor e wit h one' s patient s i f on e
gave them enoug h o f the love which the y had longed fo r a s children. (1933 , 229)

Freud s sadness a t Ferencz i s last stage o f development i s obvious, bu t s o is

his belief tha t Ferencz i s endeavors wer e essentiall y motivate d b y a neurosis ,
especially i n th e obliqu e referenc e t o "unexhauste d spring s o f emotion. "
Freud's analysi s o f Ferencz i ma y hav e bee n correct , bu t th e histor y o f
psychoanalysis show s tha t al l heretic s an d mos t modifier s wer e criticize d a s
being imperfectl y analyze d an d thei r innovation s ascribe d t o resistances .
Freud believe d tha t Ferenczi' s innovation s endangere d psychoanalysis , and ,
like ever y creativ e person , hi s commitmen t t o hi s creatio n wen t deepe r
than an y objec t relationship .
Ferenczi's feeling s abou t Freu d ca n b e gleane d fro m hi s Diary, thoug h
we shoul d remembe r tha t thes e remark s wer e no t intende d fo r publication .

He [Freud ] coul d . . . tolerat e m y bein g a so n onl y unti l th e momen t whe n I

contradicted hi m fo r th e firs t time . . . . The advantage s o f following blindl y were :
(1) membership i n a distinguished grou p guarantee d b y th e King , indee d wit h th e
rank o f field marsha l fo r mysel f (crown-princ e fantasy) . (2 ) On e learne d fro m hi m
and fro m hi s kind o f technique variou s thing s tha t mad e one' s life an d wor k mor e
comfortable: th e calm , unemotional reserve ; the unruffled assuranc e that on e kne w
better; an d th e theories , th e seekin g an d findin g o f th e cause s o f failur e i n th e
patient instea d o f partly in ourselves . The dishonest y o f reserving the techniqu e fo r
one's own person; the advice not t o let patients learn anything about the technique ;
and finall y th e pessimisti c view , share d onl y with a trusted few , tha t neurotic s ar e a
rabble, goo d onl y t o suppor t u s financiall y an d allo w u s t o lear n fro m thei r cases :
psychoanalysis as a therapy ma y be worthless. (1985 , 185-86 )

Ferenczi maintaine d tha t analysand s scrutinize d thei r analyst s muc h mor e

thoroughly tha n analyst s assumed . Bu t whe n the y not e th e analyst' s weak -
nesses, the y identif y wit h hi m rathe r tha n criticiz e him . Ferencz i empha -
sized th e hypocris y inheren t i n th e analyti c situation :

We gree t th e patien t wit h politenes s whe n h e enter s ou r room , as k hi m t o star t

with hi s association s an d promis e hi m faithfull y tha t w e wil l liste n attentivel y t o
him, giv e ou r undivide d interes t t o hi s well-bein g an d t o th e wor k neede d fo r it .
In reality , however , i t ma y happe n tha t w e ca n onl y wit h difficult y tolerat e certai n

This content downloaded from

32.210.58.182 on Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:57:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
154 M A R T I N S . BERGMAN N

external or internal features o f the patient, o r perhaps we feel unpleasantly disturbe d

in some professional o r personal affair b y the analyti c session. (1933 , 158-59 )

In hi s Diary Ferencz i pursue d th e sam e ide a wit h les s restraint : "Whil e

the patien t i s goin g throug h agonies , on e sit s calml y i n th e armchair ,
smoking a ciga r an d makin g seemingl y conventiona l an d hackneye d re -
marks i n a bore d tone . . . . I n on e o r anothe r laye r o f hi s min d th e patien t
is wel l awar e o f ou r rea l thought s an d feelings " (1985 , 178) . H e advocate d
that i n suc h a situatio n th e analys t shoul d b e candi d wit h hi s patien t abou t
his emotions . Eventuall y thi s approac h le d t o mutua l analysis . T h e dilemm a
whether o r no t th e analys t shoul d tel l th e patien t ho w h e feel s abou t
him personall y i s stil l a n importan t proble m tha t separate s psychoanalyti c
schools.
Freud accuse d Ferencz i of furor sanandi, a n excessiv e zea l t o cure , an d
Ferenczi reciprocate d b y accusin g Freu d o f educatin g rathe r tha n analyzing .
This accusatio n woul d surfac e agai n i n Melani e Klein' s controvers y wit h
Anna Freud . A s a forme r patient , Ferencz i wa s awar e o f th e analysand s
capacity accuratel y t o discer n th e analyst s negativ e feeling s expresse d b y
boredom, irritation , o r fallin g aslee p w h e n hi s complexe s ar e stimulated .
Reversing th e stan d h e too k i n 1927 , Ferencz i i n hi s Diary accuse d psycho -
analysts o f prolongin g analysi s fo r financia l gai n an d turnin g patient s int o
"taxpayers fo r life " (1985 , 199) .
Freud stresse d th e principl e o f abstinence ; Ferenczi , th e principl e o f
relaxation. Ferencz i fel t tha t greate r responsivenes s o n th e par t o f the analys t
could preven t a lifeless an d drawn-ou t analysis . I n hi s view , al l patients w h o
asked fo r psychoanalyti c hel p shoul d receiv e it . I t i s th e analyst s tas k t o
discover th e specifi c techniqu e necessar y fo r cure . Ferencz i disregarde d
Freud's differentiatio n betwee n narcissisti c an d transferenc e neuroses . H e
did no t believ e i n an y criteri a o f analyzability . T h e analog y wit h Moses ,
with w h o m Freu d wa s s o strongl y identified , i s appropriat e here . Freu d
offered hi s analysand s a for m o f secula r salvation , provide d the y coul d
live u p t o certai n requirements : fre e associations , rememberin g an d no t
reenacting, an d willingnes s t o analyz e th e transference . Ferenczi , b y con -
trast, offere d hi s analysand s unconditiona l understandin g an d a right t o fin d
their ow n pat h t o cure . I n m y view , i t i s har d enoug h t o b e a creativ e
analyst o n Freud' s model ; i t i s nex t t o impossibl e t o liv e u p t o Ferenczi's .

This content downloaded from

32.210.58.182 on Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:57:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Tragi c Encounter betwee n Freu d and Ferencz i 15 5

Ferenczi maintained that when th e analyst ascribes his own shortcoming s

to transferenc e reaction s o n th e par t o f the patient , h e damage s th e patien t
in thre e ways : (1 ) h e injure s th e analysand' s capacit y t o tes t reality ; (2 ) h e
behaves lik e th e rationalizin g paren t i n th e analysand' s infancy ; an d (3 ) h e
demonstrates hi s lack of courage an d reinforce s th e resistance s of the analy -
sand b y demonstratin g tha t fre e association s ar e no t reall y possible , eve n
within th e analyti c situation . Patients the n surmis e tha t th e psychoanalyti c
relationship i s no mor e based o n trut h tha n ar e other huma n relationships .

Reflections on the Controversy

I have included th e word tragic in th e titl e o f this chapter because th e brea k
between Freu d an d Ferencz i wa s painfu l t o bot h men . Neithe r coul d
transcend th e rol e allotte d t o hi m b y history . Fo r us , th e heir s t o thei r
controversy, th e result s hav e als o bee n tragic . Instea d o f fosterin g tw o
complementary line s o f researc h an d therapy , i n whic h th e difference s ar e
permitted t o emerg e an d become clarified , a rigid polarit y o f either/or se t
in. Observin g th e event s fro m a distance , on e ca n se e tha t the y mirro r
many o f the later problems in the developmen t o f psychoanalysis.
Ferenczi wa s the firs t psychoanalys t wh o als o experience d himsel f as an
analysand an d who suffere d a premature interruptio n o f his treatment. Lik e
many patients in that position, h e became hostil e toward his former analyst .
He yearned for greate r mutuality i n his analysis with Freud . Once , in 1926 ,
he eve n offere d t o g o t o Vienn a an d analyz e Freud , wh o a t tha t tim e
had develope d psychosomati c symptom s an d becom e depressed . Ferencz i s
unmastered yearning s di d no t fin d sublimation , an d th e mutua l analysi s h e
could no t achiev e with Freu d h e late r attempte d wit h som e o f his patients.
In Freud' s defense , on e ca n sa y that eve n ha d h e bee n willin g t o continu e
analyzing Ferenczi , th e intimat e relationshi p betwee n th e tw o an d th e fac t
that Ferencz i ha d knowledg e o f Freud's persona l trait s would hav e mad e i t
impossible.
Earlier I alluded to recent biographical material about Freud' s childhood .
Josef Sajne r (1968) , Harr y Hardi n (1987 , 1988 ) an d Us e Grubrich-Simiti s
(1991) have changed our view of Freud's early years. While Freu d presente d
himself as the golde n child , th e firstbor n t o a young mother , thes e biogra -

This content downloaded from

32.210.58.182 on Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:57:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
I56 M A R T I N S . BERGMAN N

phers hav e pointed ou t tha t hi s early years containe d man y traumati c events ,
including th e death s o f hi s brothe r an d uncle , bot h name d Julius . Thes e
events mus t hav e affecte d Freud' s mothe r significantl y durin g a decisiv e
period o f hi s infantil e development ; hi s nanny' s arres t fo r thef t an d th e
crowded livin g condition s i n Freiberg , wher e th e whol e famil y share d on e
room, mus t hav e adde d t o th e emotiona l difficulties . I t seem s tha t Freu d
himself, i n hi s self-analysis , coul d no t penetrat e bac k t o thes e years . Instea d
he create d wha t Erns t Kri s (1956 ) ha s calle d a "persona l myth. " Thi s
defensive structur e prevente d Freu d from returnin g t o hi s ow n earl y years ,
as hi s analysi s o f Ferenczi , w h o likewis e ha d man y sibling s an d gre w u p i n
2
crowded conditions , demanded.
It i s beyon d th e scop e o f thi s chapte r t o trac e th e impact—direc t an d
indirect—of Ferencz i o n subsequen t development s withi n psychoanalysis ,
but I wis h t o highligh t a particular moment . I n 196 1 Le o Ston e delivere d a
Freud Anniversar y Lecture , " T h e Analyti c Situation. " B y tha t time , th e
idea tha t lov e play s a rol e i n th e analyti c proces s o f cur e wa s anathem a
within th e orbi t o f th e America n Psychoanalyti c Association . Ston e at -
tempted t o redres s th e balance :

I do not believe that any patient can ever, except in a morbid sense, accept even th e
possibility (no t t o spea k o f th e fact ) tha t th e analys t i s no t al l intereste d i n th e
course of his personal life or his illness. . . . Whereas purely technica l or intellectua l
errors can , i n mos t instances , b e corrected , a failure i n a critical juncture t o sho w
the reasonabl e huma n respons e whic h an y person inevitabl y expect s fro m anothe r
on who m h e deepl y depends , ca n invalidat e year s o f patien t an d largel y skillfu l
work. (1961 , 55 )

Nevertheless, Ston e too k pain s t o disassociat e himsel f fro m Ferenczi . H e

accused Ferencz i o f disregardin g th e differenc e betwee n th e traumatize d
child an d th e adul t undergoin g psychoanalysi s an d assumin g tha t th e tw o
were interchangeabl e (58) . H e als o believe d tha t Ferencz i s demand tha t th e
analyst sho w lov e wa s incompatibl e wit h a n hones t an d emotionall y health y
attitude. I believ e tha t suc h disclaimer s serv e essentiall y t o maintai n grou p
cohesion withi n a give n psychoanalyti c school . Simila r reaction s ca n b e
found w h e n eg o analyst s fin d somethin g usefu l i n th e wor k o f Melani e
Klein. A kerne l o f trut h ca n b e grante d t o a modifier , bu t i t ha s t o b e
followed b y massiv e criticism .

This content downloaded from

32.210.58.182 on Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:57:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Tragi c Encounter betwee n Freu d and Ferenczi 15 7

What ar e the larger implication s o f this controversy fo r our understand -

ing o f psychoanalysis? Elsewher e (1993 ) I hav e suggeste d that , unlik e th e
discoveries o f Darwin an d Copernicus, wit h who m Freu d identifie d him -
self, ther e wa s nothing inevitabl e i n th e discover y o f psychoanalysis. Ha d
Freud not lived, quite different technique s of coping with hysterical patients
and psychoneurose s woul d hav e bee n established . Ferencz i wa s on e o f
Freud's firs t pupil s t o sho w tha t th e techniqu e Freu d devise d wa s not th e
only one that can be used in helping to ameliorate neuroti c suffering .
Thus, Freud's discoveries and Freud's technique o f healing are not identi-
cal. By stressing how the child is received and valued by the parent, Ferencz i
originated th e objec t relation s schoo l o f psychoanalysis . W e ma y assum e
that th e histor y o f psychoanalysi s woul d hav e take n anothe r cours e ha d
Freud feare d les s for its future an d been mor e ope n t o othe r investigations .
But histor y canno t b e undone . Psychoanalyti c techniqu e i s s o comple x
that, wit h hindsight , w e ca n see tha t bot h Freu d an d Ferencz i capture d a
part o f the truth . I n retrospect, w e can sympathize wit h bot h and , I hope,
narrow th e ga p betwee n Freud' s focu s o n intrapsychi c conflic t an d Fer -
enczi's empath y wit h th e chil d wh o di d not obtai n fro m hi s parents wha t
he neede d fo r a happ y childhoo d an d productiv e adulthood . Ferencz i
emphasized relivin g the past with a n understanding an d even loving paren-
tal substitute . Th e idea o f the analys t a s a substitute paren t le d Ferenczi t o
permit th e usual intimacie s tha t tak e plac e betwee n paren t an d child. No t
the sexua l intimacie s betwee n tw o adults ! Freu d di d no t believ e tha t thi s
line of demarcation coul d be maintained .
Ferenczis metho d demande d a deepe r regressio n t o brin g abou t th e
acceptance o f th e analys t a s a new primar y parenta l figure . Freud' s tech -
nique relied heavily on the ability of insight to bring about cure . Psychoan -
alytic experienc e ha s shown that , whe n i t i s skillfully done , th e establish -
ment o f ne w connection s betwee n pas t an d presen t wil l usuall y brin g
relief. Ther e is , however, anothe r aspec t tha t I believe Freu d di d not full y
appreciate. I became awar e of its role in my work wit h Holocaus t survivor s
(Bergmann an d Jucovy 1982) . Thos e wh o hav e suffere d majo r traum a a s
children o r adults cannot expec t to be cured by insight alone. They hav e to
mourn wha t wa s take n awa y fro m the m an d will neve r b e replaced . W e
may paraphrase Freu d by saying that, aide d by their therapists , such patient s

This content downloaded from

32.210.58.182 on Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:57:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
158 M A R T I NS . BERGMAN N

must lear n t o transfor m depressiv e feeling s an d melancholi a int o ordinar y

mourning. Ferenczi' s metho d tend s t o avoi d th e nee d t o mourn .
Some psychoanalyst s belon g t o Freud' s camp , an d other s t o Ferenczi's .
Still other s us e a mixture o f both approaches . I presen t thes e reflection s o n
an earl y chapte r i n th e histor y o f psychoanalysi s i n th e hop e tha t the y wil l
help forestal l orthodox y an d a prematur e closur e o f issue s tha t shoul d
remain ope n unti l the y ca n b e discusse d o n les s partisan lines .

NOTES

1. A s I hav e argue d elsewher e (1993) , th e danger s o f eroticize d transferenc e

haunted earl y psychoanalytic writing s o n technique .
2. Fo r a different interpretation , whic h hold s tha t Freu d i n hi s self-analysi s di d
reach preoedipal problems, see Blum (1977) .

REFERENCES

Aron, L. , an d A . Harris , eds . 1993 . Tlie Legacy of Sandor Ferenczi. Hillsdale , N.J. :
Analytic Press.
Balint, M . 1968 . Tlie Basic Fault: Therapeutic Aspects of Regression. London : Tavis -
tock.
Bergmann, M . S . 1992 . In the Shadow of Moloch: The Sacrifice of Children and Its
Impact on Western Religions. Ne w York : Columbia Universit y Press.
. 1993 . Reflection s o n th e Histor y o f Psychoanalysis . J. Am. Psychoanal.
Assn., 41:929-55 .
Bergmann, M . S. , an d F . R. Hartman . 1976 . The Evolution of Psychoanalytic Tech-
nique. Ne w York: Columbi a Universit y Press , 1990 .
Bergmann, M . S. , an d M . E . Jucovy. 1982 . Generations of the Holocaust. Ne w York :
Columbia Universit y Press , 1990 .
Blum, H . P . 1977. The Prototyp e o f Preoedipal Reconstruction . J. Am. Psychoanal.
Assn., 25:757-85 .
Fenichel, O . 1974 . A Revie w o f Freud' s "Analysi s Terminabl e an d Interminable. "
Int. Rev. Psychoanal, 1:109-16.
Ferenczi, S . 1919 . Technica l Difficultie s i n th e Analysi s o f a Cas e o f Hysteria . I n
Further Contributions to the Theory and Practice of Psycho-Analysis, pp . 189-97 . Ed .
J. Rickman . Trans . J. I . Suttie e t al. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1980 .
. 1927 . The Proble m o f Termination o f the Analysis . I n Ferencz i 1955 , pp.
77-86.
. 1929 . Th e Unwelcom e Chil d an d Hi s Deat h Instinct . I n Ferencz i 1955 ,
pp. 102-7 .
. 1933 . Confusio n o f Tongue s betwee n Adult s an d th e Child . I n Ferencz i
1955, PP 156-67 .

This content downloaded from

32.210.58.182 on Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:57:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 T h e Tragi c Encounte r betwee n Freu d an d Ferencz i 15 9

. 1955 . Final Contributions to the Problems and Methods of Psycho-Analysis. Ed .

M. Balint. Trans . E. Mosbacher e t al. New York : Brunner/Mazel, 1980 .
. 1985 . The Clinical Diary of Sandor Ferenczi. Ed . J. Dupont. Trans . M. Balin t
and N. Z.Jackson . Cambridge , Mass. : Harvard Universit y Press , 1988 .
Freud, S . 1919 . Line s o f Advanc e i n Psychoanalyti c Therapy . I n The Standard
Edition of the Complete Psychological Works. Ed . an d trans . J. Strache y e t al . 2 4
vols., 17:159-68 . London: Hogart h Press , 1954-73 .
. 1933 . Sandor Ferenczi . S.E., 19:267-69 .
. 1985 . A Phylogenetic Phantasy: Overview of the Transference Neuroses. Ed . I .
Grubrich-Simitis. Trans . A. HofFer an d P. T. HofFer. Cambridge , Mass.: Harvard
University Press , 1987.
Grubrich-Simitis, I . 1985 . Metapsycholog y an d Metabiology . I n Freu d 1985 , pp .
73-107.
. 1991 . Freuds Moses-Studie als Tagtraum. Munich : Verla g International e
Psychoanalyse.
Hardin, H . T 1987 . O n th e Vicissitude s o f Freud' s Earl y Mothering : I . Earl y
Environmental Loss . Psychoanal. Q., 56:628-43 .
. 1988 . On th e Vicissitudes o f Freud's Early Mothering: II . Alienation fro m
His Biological Mother. Psychoanal. Q., 57:72-86 .
Jones, E. 1957 . The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud. Vol . 3. New York: Basic Books.
King, P. , and R . Steiner , eds . 1991 . Tfie Freud-Klein Controversies 1941-43. London:
Tavistock.
Kris, E . 1956 . Th e Persona l Myth : A Proble m i n Psychoanalyti c Technique . I n
Selected Papers, pp . 272-300. New Haven : Yale University Press , 1975.
Sajner, J. 1968 . Sigmund Freud s Beziehungen z u seine m Geburtsor t Freiberg . Clio
Medica, 3:167-80 .
Stone, L . 1961 . The Psychoanalytic Situation. New York : Internationa l Universitie s
Press.

This content downloaded from

32.210.58.182 on Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:57:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms