Although the chapters that appear in this book have been previously published separately in different places at different
times, they have been revised by the author for their publication as a book and are all related to the problem of
historical representation. By putting together essays on Droysen, Foucault, Jameson and Ricoeur, Hayden White hasmanaged to give an encompassing account of a problematic issue that has been one of the major concerns of
historical studies as well as of many other areas of the human sciences: that of the importance of narrative representation in the description or explanation of the “object” of study of
the human sciences. Although the authors mentioned deal with this subject in different ways, White finds in them
common characteristics which confirm the point made by him that historical narratives are, from a semiological
perspective, concerned with the production of meanings.

/pdf/the-content-of-the-form-narrative-discourse-and-historical-1l7rc7mxfw.pdf

The content of the Form: narrative discourse and historical representation

How does experience become a psychoanalytic idea? The case of Ferenczi may provide an answer. Ferenczi played an important and yet controversial role in the development of psychoanalysis. Most of the past Ferenczi studies are either about Ferenczi’s psychoanalytic ideas or life. The former usually point towards Ferenczi’s foresight and creativity in advancing the psychoanalytic movement. The latter, focus more on his relationship with Freud, especially his suffering and wounds, see him more as a victim. These two streams of research, however, rarely cross over one another. This thesis, a psycho-biographical one, provides this missing perspective. 

Ferenczi is noted for his introjective character, as Borgogno (2011) names him the ‘introjective psychoanalyst’. Amongst Ferenczi’s ideas, Introjection is chosen for this study because the phenomenon behind this concept may be prevalent in his relationship with Freud. This relationship is for him to gestate his ideas, not just intellectually but experientially, i.e., psychoanalytically. Given Ferenczi’s merging life with psychoanalysis, it is hypothesized that as and before Ferenczi writes about Introjection, he has been living it in this relationship. 

I search for evidence for this hypothesis by meticulous mapping of the connection between this relationship and Ferenczi’s writings, using historical documents, notably correspondence, and published papers, available. In this historiographic and conceptual study, I strive for a more historically informed position between denigration and idealization in the restoration of Ferenczi and his idea. It is important, given the controversial nature of his character and ideas. This study would throw light on Ferenczi’s inner and relational world and their connection to introjection. It is concluded that the hypothesis is supported. Although Ferenczi pays a price, his idea evolves and lives on. This thesis contributes to an understanding of the making of an idea and advancement of knowledge in the history of psychoanalysis.

Experience into psychoanalytic ideas : a psychobiographical study of Ferenczi's Introjection

ANDRE HAYNAL: Disappearing and Reviving: Sandor Ferenczi in the History of Psychoanalysis. Karnac (Books) Ltd., London UK/New York, 2002, 151 pp., $35.00, ISBN 1-85575-254-9. The author Andre Haynal has been one of the main translators and proponents of Ferenczi's work for the past 15 years, along with Michael Balint and John Gedo. He apparently was the supervisor for, and contributed to, the recently published correspondence between Freud and Ferenczi, Behind the Scenes. Freud in Correspondence. (Scandinavian University Press, 1997). This is a study of the history of psychoanalysis and its developments over the past century. His main thesis is that while Freud is the father of classical psychoanalysis, Ferenczi is the initiator of the development of theory and techniques in contemporary psychoanalysis. Through the work of Michael Balint in the UK middle group and later Clara Thomson in the USA (interpersonal psychoanalysis) Ferenczi's ideas have blossomed following his death. Haynal's thesis is that while Stekel and Adler and Jung all left Freud and founded other schools of thought, Ferenczi was not a dissident in that sense and always considered himself part of mainstream psychoanalysis, even when Freud and he parted ways over his use of "active techniques" and "mutual analyses." Ferenczi's concepts of co-transferences and the necessity for therapist disclosure, as well as the need for a "listener," and the concept of what we now call an "intersubjective third" were all proposed as part of his developing concept for psychoanalysis in the 1920s. Because of his repeated boundary violations, tempestuous marriage, and love/hate personal and therapeutic relationship with Freud, his many contributions were overlooked for years by authors who portrayed him as unbalanced or ill during the later part of his life. The fact that self psychology and relational analysts now champion his infant maternal dyadic attachment and supportive empathie concepts as being more significant than the oedipal transferences and their interpretation, has done much to revive recent interest in Ferenczi's original diaries and publications. Ferenczi being part of the original Freud inner circle, shared an interest in spiritualism, especially thought transfer and word associations with Freud, traumatic war neuroses with Abraham, and active techniques and pre-oedipal primal anxieties with Rank. He advocated the use of "new" techniques aimed at experiencing and empathy rather than the "old" Freudian techniques that had rational insight as its goal. Being dissatisfied with the results of classical analysis and the central issue of transference interpretation, Ferenczi began to experiment with sharing his own associations, countertransferences, and history with his patients in experiments called mutual analyses. …

Disappearing and Reviving: Sandor Ferenczi in the History of Psychoanalysis

The experience of World War I has long been understood as the truly definitive experience of that generation which took part in the war; what is clear from the second volume of the Freud-Ferenczi exchange is how greatly it impacted on the Father's generation. The experience of the Hungarian psychoanalyst Saindor Ferenczi as an almost combatant is well documented here; he was billeted as a physician all over the place to serve in the rear guard with all the boredom and stupidity of that sort of role. Freud, who had three sons and a son-in-law in uniform, is clearly of the Father's generation. His letters are of interest not only because they chronicle the scholarly exchanges, but because they reveal the anxiety of daily life and its small ameliorations. From a scholarly point of view, the correspondence is rich in its discussions of the major anthropological texts which Freud worked on during the war as well as pragmatic questions of technique. Ferenczi's discussion of his own analytic work is such that this volume serves as a natural parallel to the published clinical diaries. And the deviations from \"orthodox\" approaches are noted by Freud. For me the most fascinating part of the correspondence was its tone. Only in Freud's letters with Karl Abraham, who was very much more of his own generation, does one get the bantering quality which marks an exchange between equals, equals clearly not in their position in the psychoanalytic establishment, though Ferenczi during this time was obviously the \"crown prince\", but in a sense of familiarity based on trust and a common experience. Given the differences and competitions between Budapest and Vienna, given the complex and subtle shifts in Ferenczi's life course, many of which Freud too greatly opposed or too strongly advocated, this banter turns around their Jewish experience. Over and over again in this volume, the Jewishness of both men is the space which they can occupy as equals. Here \"Jewishness\" certainly has nothing to do with religion or politics (i.e., Zionism) but with what one can truly describe as a hyperethnicity. It is a hyper-ethnicity because it is determined in this setting by a set of parallels which are in point usually taken as absolute marks of ethnic difference. Both men speak different national languages, neither one a \"Jewish\" language such as Yiddish. Freud speaks German; Ferenczi, Hungarian. But their Jewish experience is that of a highly acculturated, secular minority in a society which clearly had doubts about their acculturation. Ferenczi thinks about himself as a Hungarian, a Jew, and a physician (according to his own account). When one of these identities shifts, as in the collapse of the prewar Hungarian identity in 1919, he can (he states) rely on the others. This function of an ethnic identity which spans the generation of the Father and the Sons during World War I is an important insight provided by this correspondence. As with the first volume, this volume is the final result of a project begun by Michael Balint in the 1950s. The editing and notes are impeccable and the translation fluid. It is imperative that we continue to get such exchanges to clarify and document Freud's life and world. They will also have a wide range of other readers. When is volume three going to appear?

The correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Sándor Ferenczi, volume 2, 1914–1919

PETER BROOKS AND ALEX WOLOCH, EDS: Whose Freud?: The Place of Psychoanalysis in Contemporary Culture Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2000,342 pp, $1995, ISBN 0-300-08745-4 The debate about psychoanalysis, its validity, the truths of its theories, the meanings of Freud's complex and contradictory pronouncements, its place in our current rapidly changing culture, continues into the twenty-first century Whose Freud, the proceedings of a symposium held at Yale University in April 1998, with the participation of 25 distinguished academicians, addresses itself to these questions Following the organization of the symposium, the book is divided into five parts, each of which poses a central question Each part contains three or four chapters, at least one of which typically focuses on the central question, while some of the other chapters tend to be more peripheral Most of the essays are quite abstract, making us welcome the two editors' Peter Brooks, Tripp Professor of Humanities at Yale University, and Alex Woloch from Stanford University, helpful and thoughtful guidance throughout the book They provide a detailed introduction to the entire book, as well as a short introductions to each of the five parts A panel discussion, including some questions from the audience, ends each of the sections It is of course impossible to do justice to all the essays in an edited book, so I shall highlight only a few that especially engaged my interest I am starting with Part Six, Psychoanalysis: What Kind of Truth?, because this question pervades the whole conference It is arguably the most compact section because all its writers, Richard Wollheim, Donald Davidson, Jonathan Lear, and John Forrester equivocate about the nature of truth Truth is treated, here, as such an elusive concept with distinctions between concealed versus apparent truth, transferential, historical, narrative or psychic truth, that participant Robert Lifton, among others, becomes alarmed at the brushing aside of "factual truth" (p 329) As mentioned above, the question of truth actually starts being debated in Part One, Psychoanalysis and Its Discontents by Frederick Crews, the only well-known "Freud-basher" of the whole conference, a "token" (p 20) role he accepts graciously enough Crews elaborates his major criticism that psychoanalysis proves its theoretical validity by referring to its own postulates He tries to illustrate how conference speakers are precisely engaging in this scientific fallacy Robert Michels, however, brushes aside such criticism as irrelevant since his interest does not center on the theoretical truths of Freud's theories but instead on their effectiveness "in facilitating the therapeutic process" (p 34) Michels also enumerates the groups that have expressed discontent with psychoanalysis, such as certain philosophers, scientists, psychiatrists, and patients, but concludes that some concerns have become obsolete with the changes in contemporary psychoanalysis, while the field continues to be open to "constructive criticism" (p 38) The question of truth is also addressed in Part Two, Psychoanalysis: Between Therapy and Hermeneutics …

Whose Freud?: The Place of Psychoanalysis in Contemporary Culture

I examine how Sandor Ferenczi has survived in the cultural memory of psychoanalysis, and why myths and legends have been created around his life and work. It seems that he could not escape the fate of the founding fathers of psychoanalysis, most notably, that of Freud and Jung: their life and work have become an object of cultic respect for the followers, diabolic figures for the enemies. Quasi-religious cultivation of the “great man” is an often observable phenomenon in literature, politics, history and in science, and it has several political and ideological functions. These functions may help to increase the inner cohesion and the group identity of the cultic community, to defend the group against external threats. Psychoanalysis has always been vulnerable to myth formation; first, for obvious sociological reasons, and, secondly, for reasons originating in the nature of therapy. The cultic functions can be realized in several ways, such as, for example, the ritualization of the transmission of knowledg...

Ferenc Erös

Papers

The Ferenczi cult: its historical and political roots