Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To search for a specific phrase…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Did you write an article’s title and the article did not appear in the search results? Or do you want to find a specific phrase within the article? Go to the Search section and write the title or phrase surrounded by quotations marks in the “Search for Words or Phrases in Context” area.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Stanton, M. (1997). On Strategic Misreading of Ferenczi: A Reply to Piers Myers. Brit. J. Psychother., 13(4):555-557.

(1997). British Journal of Psychotherapy, 13(4):555-557

Responses

On Strategic Misreading of Ferenczi: A Reply to Piers Myers

Martin Stanton

Since his death in May 1933, Ferenczi's work has suffered from various misreadings, most of them connected to judgements of his clinical practice. Ernest Jones (who underwent his ‘training analysis’ with Ferenczi) sketched out the base-line here by asserting that Ferenczi's later work was marked by a ‘mental disturbance (which) had been making rapid progress (with) violent paranoiac and even homicidal outbursts’ (Jones 1957, p. 190). Ferenczi's ‘mutual analysis’ and his reported willingness to hold and comfort distressed patients (sarcastically dismissed by Freud as the ‘kissing technique’) are cited as clinical examples of this ‘mental disturbance’. Even 30 years later, Peter Gay (1988) uncritically reproduces main aspects of the Jones line, dismissing Ferenczi's Clinical Diary, for example, as ‘woolly-minded, unworldly metaphysics’ (p. 581), and supporting Freud's view of Ferenczi's ‘Confusion of Tongues’ paper as ‘harmless, stupid, also inadequate’ (p. 583).

In the last five years, the publication of Ferenczi's Clinical Diary and two volumes of his Correspondence with Freud, as well as extensive original research on Ferenczi's life and work, have prompted a major critical re-evaluation of his importance. The ‘Ferenczi Renaissance’, as Emanuel Berman (1996) recently called it, has reestablished Ferenczi as a complex and sophisticated innovator, whose work pioneered the study of transference and countertransference issues in traumatic process, and whose ‘technical experiments’ consciously highlighted the special needs of dissociatively disordered people in analysis.

[This is a summary excerpt from the full text of the journal article. The full text of the document is available to journal subscribers on the publisher's website here.]

Copyright © 2019, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.