ferenczi's clinical diary

8/10/2019 Ferenczi's Clinical Diary

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ferenczis-clinical-diary 1/3



OOKREVIEWS 287

writes: “Trauma is concussion, reaction to an unbearable external or internal stimulus

in an autoplastic manner modifying the self) A neoformation of the self is im-

possible without the previous destruction, either partial or total, or dissolution of the

former self. The relative strength of the ‘unbearable’excitation determines the degree

and depth of the ego’s disintegration:

a.) change in consciousness trance, dream state)

b.) loss of consciousness

c.) syncope

d.) death.

The return of consciousness reveals gaps in remembering or in the certainty-of-remem-

bering in relation to the events, while in shock. Without any change in the external situa-

tion or in the ego’s capacity for endurance, the return of a psychic traumatic situation

can only result in disintegration and reconstruction”

(181 -182).

This theory of trauma was at the center of Ferenczi’s

analytical-therapeutical

work,

and stands in sharp contrast to that

of

Freud. In his letter

of

25

December

1932,

quoted

by Judith Dupont, Ferenczi writes to Freud that “psychoanalysis deals far too one-sidedly

with obsessive neurosis and character analysis hat is, ego psychology while neglect-

ing the organic-hysterical basis of the analysis. This results from overestimating the role

of fantasy, and underestimating that of traumatic reality, in pathogenesis ” xii).

This takes us to the second major theme of the Diary: praxis and technique. Ac-

cording to Ferenczi, “The newly acquired experiences naturally also affect some par-

ticular features of technique. Certain measures are far too severe and must be tempered

without completely losing sight of the secondary, educational aspect” xii). This theme

is discussed under the heading ‘‘mutual analysis.” In his entry dated May 1932, Ferenczi

tells how the idea of mutual analysis emerged at the suggestion of one of his patients.

He was well aware of its problematic nature as his entries of January

3 1

and February

16

prove under the heading “Limitations of mutual analysis.” a.) One cannot allow oneself

to be analyzed by every patient. b.) Discretion is necessary. If the analysis is correctly

conducted, the secretsof other patients must be divulged by the analyst to the analysing

analysand, or, c.) “What would an analysis be like that would begin with my saying

to a patient, male or female: ‘Basically I find you perfectly repulsive”’

(34-35).

Thus,

the innovative technique

of

mutual analysis had its built-in problems which remained

unresolved.

The third theme is Ferenczi’s relation to and criticism of Freud, already touched

upon in themes one and two, regarding both theory and practice. In a letter of

17

January

1930

Ferenczi writes:

“I

do not share your view that the therapeutic process is

negligible or unimportant, and that simply because it appears less interesting to us we

should ignore it” xiii). But his major criticism of Freud is directed at his nihilistic attitude

towards patients. He quotes Freud disapprovingly on three occasions: “Patients are a

rabble. ‘Die Patienten sind ein Gesindel”’

(93).

Under the heading

“Freud. Doctor hating

patients ” Ferenczi writes: “Freud: ‘rabble,’ ‘only any good for making money out of,

and for studying”’

(1 18).

In a lengthy entry of

4

August

1932,

Ferenczi tells of his early

relation to Freud and

of

their later divergence; we are told that Freud adopted “Dr.

F[erenczi] almost like his son” and “regarded him as the most perfect heir of his ideas.

Thereby he became the proclaimed crown prince ”

(184).

But the reasons for the

cooling

of

the relationship are also told: “The dishonesty of reserving the technique for

one’s own person; the advice not to let patients learn anything about the technique,



288

OOK REVIEWS

and finally the pessimistic view, shared only with a trusted few, that neurotics are a

rabble, good only to support us financially and to allow us to learn from their cases.

This was the point where I refused to follow him

”

185-186).

The fate

of

psychoanalysis in America and in Ferenczi’s native Budapest, Hungary,

is a special story, still to be written. Ferenczi quotes Freud: “How could I take somuch

pleasure in the honors the Americans have bestowed on me, when I feel such contempt

for the Americans?”

(184).

As for Hungary, it was the country where the first university

chair for psychoanalysis was established by the then Commissar of Culture, Georg

LukBcs, during the

1919

Commune. With the coming of Horthy’s Conservative-nation-

alist regime the chair was abolished and most analysts many of Jewish background)

fled the country. In due course, they made their great contribution to the world of in-

ternational scholarship. Ferenczi and a few stayed behind. The second blow came with

the Nazi occupation in March

1944.

After World War 11, the few survivors tried to revive

psychoanalysis, but the third blow, the Stalinist takeover in

1949,

pushed them

underground. Today in postcommunist Hungary psychoanalysis is thriving and

a

Ferenczi

Society is taking good care of the legacy of the grand old man of psychoanalysis in

Hungary.

The publication of the Diary is the result of the cooperation of a number of in-

dividuals, most notably Michael B a h t and Nicola Zarday Jackson, who translated it

one-fifth of it had to be deciphered from Ferenczi’s handwriting). B a h t believed that

the Diary and the Freud-Ferenczi correspondence should be published simultaneously.

Since the publication of the correspondence has been delayed indefinitely, the editor

of this volume, Dr. Judith Dupont, presents it with a twenty-six page long scholarly

introductory essay, which is an excellent introduction not only to the Diary but also

to many problems of the Freud-Ferenczi relationship.

Professor Dupont Responds:

1.

Freud’s expectations were that Ferenczi should be president of the I.P.A. and

marry his daughter Mathild[e?]. Both are true, but the marriage with Mathild[e?] was

his desire before

1909,

and the presidency of the I.P.A. in

1932.

It seems difficult to

consider both on the same level.

2.

The quotation

of

Freud, “How could I take so much pleasure. ” is a little

difficult to understand correctly without the context.

3.

The

Diary

was first translated by Michael B a h t alone. Nicola Zarday Jackson

went through the translations many years later, after Michael Baht’s death, to make

it proper for publication. It was Michael B a h t alone who deciphered the one-fifth of

it that was handwritten.

Except for these small clarifications, I perfectly agree with Mr. Tarr’s review.

ferenczi's clinical diary

Documents