The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA Paul Roazen

Home , Character Analysis, Erich Fromm, Jacques Lacan, John Rittmeister, Otto Fenichel, Paul Federn

The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

Paul Roazen

“The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA,“ in: Contemporary Psychoanalysis, New York (Wil- liam Alanson White Psychoanalytic Society), Vol. 37 (2001), pp. 5-42.

The subject of psychoanalytic lineage has re- England published under the title The Fear of cently acquired a new respectability among his- Freedom) became for years a central text in the torians in the field; although privately analysts education of social scientists. Works of Fromm’s have known and acknowledged how critical it is like Man For Himself, Psychoanalysis and Relig- who has gone where and to whom for training, ion, The Forgotten Language, and also The Sane it is only relatively rarely that public attention Society5 formed an essential part of my genera- has been focused on the unusually powerful im- tion’s general education. (Fromm’s most horta- pact which such training analyses can have. The tory last writings, and his specifically political special suggestive role of analytic training ex- ones, fall I think into a different category as far periences was long ago pointed out in the as the general influence that he had; still, the course of controversial in-fighting by such differ- book Fromm co-authored with Michael Mac- ently oriented pioneers as Edward Glover1 and coby, Social Character in a Mexican Village, de- Jacques Lacan, but it has been unusual to find serves more attention.6 Fromm’s The Art of Lov- the institution of training analysis itself publicly ing has meanwhile sold millions of copies, and challenged. It remains too little known that his- To Have Or To Be? succeeded in selling a mil- torically the requirement that all analysts be lion copies in Germany alone; The Anatomy of themselves analyzed for purposes of training Human Destructiveness was also a notable only officially got going under the auspices of achievement.7) the International Psychoanalytic Association Ernest Jones’s biography of Freud was also (IPA) in 1925, after Freud was ill with cancer formative of the psychoanalytic education of my and had implicitly to concede his inability per- time, as was Fromm’s short and relatively ne- sonally to control the future of his movement.2 glected retort to Jones: Sigmund Freud’s Mis- At the same time, however, that analytic sion: An Analysis of His Personality and Influ- lineage (family tree matters3) deserve to get full ence8. The fact that such distinguished literary attention, it can be too easy to forget the role critics as Lionel Trilling and Steven Marcus faith- that books themselves play, especially for intel- fully edited Jones’s biography into a one- lectuals, in spreading ideas One might think it a volume edition is only the tip of the iceberg of truism that people not only go for treatment but the specific means by which orthodox psycho- respond powerfully to what they come across in analytic thinking worked its way into being print. Many of us were first attracted to psycho- credulously accepted within the culture at large. analysis by reading the writings of Erich Fromm Jones’s multiple distortions are so built into his (1900-80), and this includes even such stalwart heavily documented narrative that they con- defenders of recent orthodoxy as the historian tinue to slide by even many of the most consci- Peter Gay. Erich Fromm’s powerful papers from entious researchers. the early 1930s were once relatively unknown, Let me give just one example from Sigmund but a book of his like Escape From Freedom4 (in Freud’s Mission of the persuasivenss of Fromm’s

page 1 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

reasoning. In the following passage Fromm was thought once known as „neo-Freudianism“ writing about the „secret“ Committee, made up (Fromm did not like having the term applied to of Karl Abraham, Jones, Otto Rank, Sandor Fer- himself) has been considered as a „failure“ enczi, Hanns Sachs, and Max Eitingon, which within intellectual history11. Even while he was was designed before World War I to safeguard alive Fromm saw how peculiar and wayward a the psychoanalytic „cause“ after the so-called direction the history of ideas seemed to be mov- defection of Carl G. Jung: ing in, as his rightful standing seemed to sink Who were these first most loyal disciples, ever since the late 1960s. When the term „psy- the wearers of the six rings? They were urban in- cho-history,“ thanks largely to the initiative of tellectuals, with a deep yearning to be commit- the work of Erik H. Erikson, had first started to ted to an ideal, to a leader, to a movement, and take hold in the late 1950s and early 1960s, yet without having any religious or political or Fromm justifiably felt somehow left out of the philosophical ideal or convictions; there was whole story. (Freud’s own most speculative neither a socialist, Zionist, Catholic nor Ortho- works might appeal to political philosophers, dox Jew among them. (Eitingon may have had but not to most practicing social scientists.) mild Zionist sympathies.) Their religion was the Fromm could not understand how Erikson could Movement. The growing circle of analysts came proceed in ignoring Fromm’s own pioneering from the same background; the vast majority work in this area – after all Fromm’s The Dogma were and are middle-class intellectuals, with no of Christ12 (a text among those the Nazis religious, political or philosophical interests or banned) had originally come out as long ago as commitments. The great popularity of psycho- in 1930. analysis in the West, and particularly in the We now know that Erikson had explicitly United States, since the beginning of the thirties discussed Fromm’s Escape From Freedom at a has undoubtedly the same social basis. Here is a meeting of the San Francisco Psychoanalytic So- middle class for whom life has lost meaning. ciety in March 1943, well before Erikson’s own They have no political or religious ideals, yet Childhood and Society saw the light of day in they are in search of a meaning, of an idea to 195013. Erikson always proceeded more than devote themselves to, of an explanation of life warily about ever even citing Fromm – Erikson’s which does not require faith or sacrifices, and own enduring concerns about his biological le- which satisfies this need to feel part of a move- gitimacy helped feed his insecurities as a psycho- ment. All these needs were fulfilled by the analyst. And so Erikson could be fearful of risk- Movement.9 ing the fate of Fromm’s having been excluded as a psychoanalyst, even more than the conse- These words seem to me still strikingly valid. En- quences of Erikson’s favorably mentioning -- in tirely aside from any of Fromm’s other clinical his last works -- the otherwise dread name of and theoretical contributions, one essay of his Jung; Erikson publicly idealized Freud at the (which originally appeared in the old Saturday same time Erikson was moving away from or- Review of Literature) played a notable role, de- thodox thinking in an original direction.14 spite an effort to rebut it by an orthodox ana- (Fromm would remain intransigently unforgiv- lyst, in helping to start the „rehabilitation“ of ing about Jung’s work, and in good part this the historical reputations of both Ferenczi and was related to Jung’s politics in the 1930s that Rank.10 In fact I think that the recent renaissance we will be touching on.) in Ferenczi’s clinical reputation is the one great Yet Erikson had himself played a subtle part success story in the psychoanalytic historiogra- in assisting in the process of Fromm’s being phy with which I have been associated over the stigmatized as a professional alien; Fromm last forty years. seems to have been virtually alone in pointing Yet bureaucratic struggles, as we shall see, out, in reading Erikson’s Young Man Luther, the were to limit Fromm’s own historical place. By significance of the passage where Erikson refers now he can be accurately described as a „forgot- to „sociological treatises of our time by authors ten intellectual,“ and the whole school of from Weber to Fromm“15. The word „sociologi-

page 2 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

cal“ was clearly meant to distance Erikson from the criticisms of his former allies at the Frankfurt Fromm, and the very designation of being a so- Institute for Social Research; Herbert Marcuse’s ciologist (rather than an analyst) Erikson had ill-founded charges against Fromm and other feared being used about himself by his own ana- „revisionists“ like Horney and Harry Stack Sulli- lyst, Anna Freud. (This was part of a tradition in van were to gain notoriety starting in the mid- which on Dec. 19, 1934, Jones had written to 1950s.) Anna Freud: „Like [Franz] Alexander and many others she [Karen Horney] seems to be replacing Fromm’s organizational problems within psy- Psychoanalysis by a pseudo-sociology.“) Karl choanalysis, which wound up in him being fi- Menninger’s harsh 1942 critique of Fromm’s Es- nally excluded from the IPA in the early 1950s, cape From Freedom helped establish the party really got their start with the coming to power line which Erikson was dutifully following; for of the Nazis in Germany in early 1933. It is es- Menninger had maintained in a review in The sential to start out by providing the full specifics Nation: „Erich Fromm was in Germany a distin- of Fromm’s official standing as an analyst in guished sociologist. His book is written as if he Germany. On June 18, 1927 Fromm, who was considered himself a psychoanalyst.“16 Otto Fen- then living in Heidelberg, delivered his first pa- ichel had also been thoroughly severe, and per, as a „guest“ of the Germany Psychoanalytic pointedly described his review as „psychoana- Society -- the „DPG“ -- in Berlin. (The name of lytic remarks“ on Fromm’s book.17 Freud had the old Berlin Psychoanalytic Society had been himself set the unfortunate pattern, in arguing changed in 1926 to become the German Psy- against Alfred Adler and Jung, of polemically choanalytic Society, and it continues to be depriving free-thinkers, who then got catego- known there as the „DPG.“) Some five years rized as „mavericks“ if not „heretics“, of the earlier Fromm had received his doctorate in so- right to call themselves analysts. ciology, working under MaxWeber’s younger Erikson continued to steer clear of the „con- brother Alfred, at Heidelberg. It is also histori- troversial“ status of Fromm’s name, even though cally significant that in early 1927 Fromm’s first so much of what Erikson was trying to accom- wife Frieda Fromm-Reichmann had been elected plish through more positively re-naming early li- an associate member of the German Society; she bidinal phases, and by bringing ethics and psy- became a full member in 1929. choanalysis together, had in reality been antici- The first „sub-section“ of the German Psy- pated by Fromm. For Escape From Freedom, choanalytic Society (DPG) was located in Frank- through Fromm’s powerful concept of „social furt and started in October 1926; Fromm, character“, really put the social environment on Fromm-Reichmann, along with Clara Happel, the map for all future analytic thinkers. By the Karl Landauer, and Heinrich Meng were listed as time of Young Man Luther Fromm was training members. (Landauer, who had been analyzed his own school of candidates in Mexico, a „he- by Freud but died in the concentration camp at retical“ offense to the organizational powers- Bergen-Belsen, was one of Fromm’s analysts, that-be within psychoanalysis that Erikson never along with Fromm-Reichmann herself, Sachs, risked duplicating. (And in New York City Wilhelm Wittenberg, and Theodor Reik.) In Fromm, once allied with Karen Horney, had no- February 1929 the South-West German Psycho- tably continued to teach at the William Alanson analytic Society in Frankfurt created an Institute White Institute, also outside of the IPA.) But of its own, mainly directed to giving public lec- everything Fromm had done to incorporate the tures. This Institute, with Landauer as Director, social perspective within psychoanalytic think- was associated with the Institute for Social Re- ing, including an interest in matters of identity search, a Marxist group which was headed by and conformity, got swamped by the immense, Max Horkheimer and linked to the University of if perhaps transitory, success of Erikson’s own Frankfurt. teachings.18 (To be fair to psychoanalysis’s intra- Fromm, along with Landauer, Meng, and mural feuding, Marxists had their own brand of Fromm-Reichmann, was one of the original four sectarianism, and Fromm had to struggle against lecturers at the Frankfurt Psychoanalytic Insti-

page 3 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

tute. (S. H. Fuchs, who later emigrated to Eng- analyst, and Karl Boehm); and the number of land where he changed his name to Foulkes and people attending lectures had fallen from 164 (in became prominent especially in group analysis, 1932) to 3420. was to be another early notable figure at the The German Psychoanalytic Society (DPG) Frankfurt Psychoanalytic Institute.) Fromm gave was decimated in terms of its training abilities. another paper in Berlin at the German Psycho- Even before Hitler had come to power, Alexan- analytic Society, where he was elected an associ- der (Chicago), Sandor Rado (New York), Hor- ate member on Oct. 7, 1930. Finally Fromm ney (Chicago) and Sachs (Boston) had already was moved up to being a full member on Octo- resigned to go to the States. Among the Train- ber 8, 1932; he was fully entitled to IPA mem- ing-analysts who subsequently left Germany bership. Besides the study group in Frankfurt, were Siegfried Bernfeld, Eitingon, Fenichel, Jenö the German Society (DPG) had ones in Leipzig, Harnick, Reik, and Ernst Simmel. Of the old Hamburg, and later Stuttgart. Fromm had been teaching staff who also departed were Steff ill with tuberculosis since1931, and was therefore Bornstein, Jeanne Lampl-de Groot, Wilhelm in Switzerland until the autumn of 193319, when Reich, and Hugo Staub. The Training-analysts he moved to the United States as a lecturer at who remained included, besides Boehm and the Chicago Institute of Psychoanalysis, where Müller-Braunschweig, Therese Benedeck, Edith Franz Alexander and Horney (both from the Jacobson, Werner Kemper, and Edith Vow- German Psychoanalytic Society, the DPG) had inckel-Weigert (who shortly left). But the two preceded him. internationally most well-known figures of the Once the Nazis had come to power at the German Society (DPG) within the IPA were end of January 1933, a well-known series of po- clearly Boehm (who became President and Di- litical events followed. The Reichstag Fire took rector of the Institute) and Müller-Braunschweig place in the night of Feb. 27. A further parlia- (who functioned as Secretary, Treasurer, as well mentary election was held in early March, the as Director of the Training Committee). Nazis getting 43.9% of the vote and a bare Eitingon had been among the first to decide working majority in the new Reichstag. Finally to leave; he had officially resigned as Abraham’s the Enabling Act was passed on March 23rd, af- successor as head of the Germany Society (DPG) ter which the government had the dictatorial at a General Meeting on May 6, 1933, although powers in its hands that we now know of as he did not finally emigrate to Palestine until the characteristic of Hitler’s regime. Virtually the end of the year. Here the narrative of events whole of the Frankfurt study-group promptly gets obfuscated by Jones’s characteristic narra- emigrated abroad – Marxist Jewish analysts did tive statecraft. He wrote, for example, of the not need to find it hard to read the writing on spring of 1933 that „around that time a decree the wall, although Landauer’s going only as far was passed that no foreigner was to function in as the Netherlands meant that he eventually got the central executive committee of any medical caught in the net of the Holocaust. (The Nazis society in Germany. Eitingon had Polish nation- had closed down the Frankfurt Institute of Social ality….“21 But the truth was more troubling. The Research in March, and in April Horkheimer was Nazis had declared on April 7th that „non- formally dismissed by the University. The Frank- Aryans“ (Jews) were ineligible, and that was de- furt „school“ already had its money abroad; it cree precluding Eitingon’s remaining on any first moved to Switzerland, then wound up governing board of the German Society (DPG). linked to Columbia University in New York Jews had suddenly lost essential rights. (It should City, and finally returned to Frankfurt after the be notorious that a „non-Aryan“ was defined as war in 1949.) By the time of the official IPA re- someone with one „non-Aryan“ grandparent, port of the German Psychoanalytic Society and soon this was extended to anyone married (DPG) in August 1934, twenty-four of the thirty- to a „non-Aryan“.) six full members had already left Germany. The Jones was following Freud’s lead in describ- teaching staff of the DPG’s Institute had been ing Eitingon as now a „foreigner,“ except that reduced to two (Carl Müller-Braunschweig, a lay Jones had left out Freud’s pointed use of „etc.“

page 4 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

after the word „foreigner“; for Freud had sent though there seems no evidence for that propo- the following advice to Eitingon on March 21, sition.23 At the May 6th General Meeting the So- 1933: ciety (DPG) would reject the proposal put for- 1. Let us assume psychoanalysis is prohib- ward by Boehm and Müller-Braunschweig that ited, the [training] Institute closed by the the Board of the Society be changed to exclude authorities. In that case there is least of all Jews. From Anna Freud’s perspective, expressed to be said or done about it. You will then in a June 1, 1933 letter to Jones, the problem have held out until the last moment before was a personal one: „Of course Boehm’s ambi- the ship is sunk. tion was at the bottom of that trouble in the 2. Let us assume nothing happens to the In- Berlin Society!“ stitute, but you, as a foreigner etc. [my ital- But before Eitingon finally left Germany in ics] are removed from the directorship. But late 1933, Eitingon (who had already, in 1929 you stay in Berlin and can go on using your and 1932, presided as President at two con- influence unofficially. In this case, I think, gresses of the IPA) proposed that „direct mem- you cannot close the Institute. True, you bership“ in the IPA be accorded to Clara Happel founded it [Freud was referring to Eitin- and „to any other ex-member of the German gon’s money] and stayed in charge the group who is for the time being unable to join longest, but then you handed it over to the any other existing group….“24 Eitingon wrote Berlin group, to which it now belongs. You that he did not think that this proposal needed cannot do it legally, but it is also in the „to be discussed at the Congress [scheduled for general interest that it remains open, so that Lucerne in late August, 1934], although it does it may survive these unfavorable times. not appear in the statutes, because the question Meanwhile, someone like Boehm, who has will have been settled by then. In my opinion no particular allegiance, can carry it on. such things can be decided by the Board itself in Probably it will not be much attended, ei- such unforeseen situations, in questions which ther by Germans or foreigners [my italics], because of their peculiarities do not need to be- as long as the restrictions continue. come a precedent.“25 (Eitingon went on to 3. Again, let us assume nothing happens to found a Psychoanalytic Society in Palestine. It is the Institute, but you leave Berlin, either not necessary to discuss here the controversy voluntarily or under duress. This situation that arose in 1988 about whether Eitingon had leads to the same considerations as the one once been a Soviet secret agent for Joseph Sta- I have just mentioned, except that your in- lin.26) fluence vanishes, and the risk grows that opponents within such as Schultz-Hencke Although Germans early on played a numerical- could take over the Institute and use it to ly important role in the IPA, both before Hitler further their plans. There is only one thing as well as after World War II, the history of psy- to be done about that: the Executive of the choanalysis in Germany is rather less studied IPA disqualifies the Institute misused in this than is the case in other countries. It is known way, expelling it, as it were, until it can be that the original Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute absolved. But of course there must be a became a model for the subsequent training in- warning first. stitutes, even in Vienna, that got set up. Ne- What a miserable discussion!22 vertheless for Germans themselves it has been obviously terribly painful to have to look closely Jones reported that in April 1933 Freud had at what happened starting in the 1930s. But again warned that „any concessions made to even for outsiders it is extremely emotionally other forms of psychotherapy [such as Schultz- difficult to follow the ins-and-outs of events Hencke’s] would be followed by exclusion of which took place then. The Nazis publicly de- the Berlin Society from the International Associa- famed psychoanalysis as an aspect of Jewish so- tion….“ Jones added that that was „something called parasitism within Christian culture. Freud, that actually happened some years later,“ al- for example, was accused of having had a „filthy

page 5 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

imagination,“ and his teachings got reduced give the government any „handle“ for doing so, down to the „Asiatic ideology“ of eat, drink and and therefore he agreed with changing the pre- be merry, for tomorrow we die.27 Larmarck’s sent Board as the government’s decree required. conviction about the inheritance of acquired This decision of Freud’s would prove the begin- characteristics (which Freud happened to share) ning of a dangerously slippery slope. (By Oct. 2, got associated with characteristically Jewish thin- 1933, Jones could write Anna Freud that Boehm king. Supporters of homosexuality, and the de- had „saved psychoanalysis.“) According to struction of the family, were also intimately lin- Boehm, Freud had proposed Boehm as Eitin- ked in Nazi propaganda to psychoanalytic thin- gon’s successor; Boehm’s report of the interview king. also declared: Now Wilhelm Reich, a psychoanalytic psy- Before we left, Freud expressed two wishes chiatrist originally trained in Vienna who had for the leadership of the Society: firstly, that moved to Berlin, became an obvious liability to Schultz-Hencke should never be elected to the German Psychoanalytic Society (DPG). Reich the Board of our Society. I gave my word had been a leader in, among other things, brin- that I would never sit on a Board together ging together Marxism and psychoanalysis; with Sch.-H. And secondly, he said: „Free Fromm’s early work had clearly benefited from me of Reich.“30 some of Reich’s ideas relating individual character to „bourgeois“ social patterns. But Reich was Now Reich was a long-standing personal and also proposing to abolish the „patriarchal“ ideological irritant to Freud. In 1932 Freud had middle class family as a way of nipping neuroses been as blunt as he ever was in his old age in the bud, and he advocated the therapeutic about a „dissenter,“ without giving any of them significance of orgastic sexual satisfaction. any more publicity by mentioning their names. (Reich’s important contributions to clinical So he described what he called the „secessionist“ technque and characterology were less obvious- movements in the history of psychoanalysis, ly noteworthy, and are too often forgotten in which had seized hold of only a fragment of the today’s psychoanalytic literature.) But after truth; Freud then listed „selecting the instinct for Reich’s late 1920s lecturing in the Soviet Union mastery“ [meaning Adler], for instance, or ethi- the psychoanalytic movement seemed especially cal conflict [Jung], or the mother [Rank], or ge- threatened there. Freud had long been unhappy nitality [Reich]….“31 By March 1933 Freud told with some of the implications of Reich’s ideas, Reich that the contract between Reich and and Freud’s 1930 Civilization and Its Discontents Freud’s publishing firm in Vienna for a book on was specifically directed against Reich’s sort of character analysis had been cancelled.32 In the thinking. On Jan. 17, 1932 Freud had written to summer of 1933 Ernst Simmel would propose Jeanne Lampl-de Groot: „I have begun the batt- that Reich no longer be listed as a member of le against the Bolshevistic aggressors Reich, Feni- the German Society (DPG). Evidently Eitingon chel.“28 And „immediately after“ the Nazis sei- agreed in principle, but wanted the decision for zed power, Eitingon had „informed Reich that the „purge“ of Reich to be postponed until after he might no longer enter the premises“ of the Eitingon had resigned from the Society.33 Reich Psychoanalytic Institute, „so that in case he were was practicing then in Copenhagen, but it arrested, this could not happen on our premi- would not have been unique to have analysts ses.“29 listed as members of more than one analytical Boehm had a personal meeting with Freud group. (In his Sigmund Freud’s Mission Fromm in April of 1933 (Paul Federn from the Vienna had italicized one word in a significant 1919 let- Psychoanalytic Society was also present). On the ter of Freud’s to Jones: „Your intention to purge issue of the Nazis’ determination to remove the London Society of the Jungian members is „non-Aryan’s“ from the Board of the German excellent.“34) Society, Freud was pessimistic that there was any way of preventing psychoanalysis’s being ban- On August 1st, 1934 Müller-Braunschweig, Secre- ned. But Freud did not think it made sense to tary of the German Society (GPG), accordingly

page 6 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

wrote Reich : written up in the official proceedings; but Jones Circumstances seem to require the elimina- would not allow Reich to participate in the bu- tion of your name from the register of the siness meeting. Reich’s name never got listed as German Psychoanalytic Society. I would either a member of the Danish-Norwegian Psy- greatly appreciate it if you would regard choanalytic Society nor the Finnish-Swedish Psy- our request with understanding, relegating choanalytic Society; the two groups were „sepa- to the background any possible personal rated officially“ in order to keep the Swedish feelings in the interest of our psychoanalytic group „out of Reich’s hands.“38 Although the cause in Germany and expressing your Norwegian group offered membership to Reich, agreement with this step. As a scholar and „after long deliberation Reich decided to stay author you are too well known to the in- outside the psychoanalytic organizations entire- ternational world of psychoanalysis for this ly.“39 (Reich had unhappy experiences, around omission to cause you the slightest harm, as the same time, staying in Marxists groups too.) it might, for example, affect a newcomer in Yet Jones only reported of the IPA Congress in the field. Furthermore, the whole problem Lucerne that this was the „occasion that Wilhelm will be academic once the Scandinavian Reich resigned from the Association. Freud had group is recognized at the Congress, thus as- thought highly of him in his early days, but suring your inclusion in future membership Reich’s political fanaticism had led to both per- lists of this new group.35 sonal and scientific estrangement.“40 It is, however, fairer to conclude that at Lucerne Reich did Reich was having serious professional and politi- not resign, but that he „had very definitely been cal troubles practicing in Denmark; although an in effect expelled from the International Psycho- analytic student of Reich’s wrote to Freud for analytic Aassociation.“41 help, Freud „acknowledged Reich’s stature as an analyst but stated that his political ideology in- This discussion about Reich may seem a terfered with his scientific work. He refused to digression, but I think it bears directly on join…[an] appeal to the Minister of Justice.“ Boehm’s report of his meeting with Freud in Once Reich settled temporarily in Sweden the Vienna in the spring of 1933 and how Müller- police authorities were also suspicious of him; Braunschweig as well as Jones, and much later his permit to be there was revoked. Although Ruth Eissler (in behalf of the IPA), would deal someone like the great Polish anthropologist with Fromm. In Vienna (1933) Freud had asked Bronislaw Malinowski, then living in England, Boehm not only to „free him“ of Reich, but to sent a letter supporting Reich in his troubles, steer clear of Harald Schultz-Hencke within the Freud himself remained negative, and wrote on- DPG. Now Schultz-Hencke had been analyzed in ly: „I cannot join your protest in the affair of Dr. Berlin (like Reich) by Rado, but had early on Wilhelm Reich.“36 started to criticize Freud’s libido theory. In 1927- Reich protested to Anna Freud (then IPA Secre- 28 he had taught at the German Psychoanalytic tary) against what became the engineering of his Society (DPG), but was „banned from teaching expulsion from the IPA; she in turn referred because of his criticism of the sexual theory and Reich to Jones, the incoming President. Behind on account of his interest in making Adler’s in- the scenes Jones had been campaigning against dividual psychology and Jung’s theories compa- Reich; in May 1933 he had written Anna Freud: tible with his concept of psychoanalysis.“42 Any „My own opinion is that Reich should come to sort of rapprochment with Adler and Jung was a definite conclusion about which is more im- always seen by Freud as fundamentally imper- portant to him, psychoanalysis or politics.“ And missible, and those two names of pre-World the next month Reich was described by Jones in War I „renegades“ are still capable of sounding a letter as one of the trouble-making „madmen“ unacceptable within orthodox psychoanalytic in psychoanalysis.37 Reich (as a „guest“) was al- circles. Groups can be held together by their so- lowed to present a paper at the Lucerne Cong- called enemies, and Freud was insistent on the ress on Aug. 31, 1934, which was perfunctorily validity of the myths he built up about the dan-

page 7 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

ger of heretics in psychoanalysis. those others who had „continued and develo- Schultz-Hencke was prolific as an author, ped Freud’s work,“ at various points in her va- and successful as a speaker and organizer.43 But rious writings she referred with approval specifi- in those days Freud made it known that he was cally to Schultz-Hencke’s ideas.50 adamantly opposed to the idea of a psychoana- Horney knew how German analysts under lyst making what Freud saw as concessions to- Hitler were already moving toward being inclu- ward the ideas of Adler or Jung. In writing to Ei- sive when it came to Adler and Jung, and that tingon Freud had referred to Schultz-Hencke as this could be viewed as the path of „saving“ the an „opponent within“ psychoanalysis, and practice of psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. threatened disqualifying and expelling the DPG Now Schultz-Hencke had already been punished if Schultz-Hencke were to play a governing role after 1927-28, within the DPG, for his beliefs. in the Institute. Otto Fenichel and Schultz- But IPA bureaucratic concessions about organi- Hencke had led a seminar at the DPG where zational structures excluding Jews seem to me as Schultz-Hencke had supposedly „often presented striking as any possible ideological ones, for in deviating views which led to vehement argu- the long run it might prove highly desirable to ments.“44 „Deviation“ was another word for he- move away from phobias about the ideas of Ad- resy. When Freud saw Boehm, I believe Schultz- ler and Jung; the exclusion of Jews from the Hencke was truly almost an equal danger (in Board of the German Society (DPG) was, as we Freud’s eyes) to Reich. And then in 1934 Schultz- have seen, considered acceptable by Freud, Hencke would help found an organization with although a direct and compromising response to the aim of „teaching a psychotherapy in con- immediate political pressure. formity with the National Socialist ideology.“45 Jung’s own role in Central Europe in the One reliable observer has maintained of 1930s has tarred his own future historical stan- Schultz-Hencke that „in his political views he ding, since he was outspoken after the Nazis was no National Socialist, and did possess per- came to power in identifying various flaws in sonal courage.“ Schultz-Hencke was trying „to Freud’s thinking with his Jewish origins51. These develop a universal, generally intelligible termi- public stands of Jung would justifiably be consi- nology,“46 and this would also be in keeping dered sins of his, whereas the behind-the-scenes with what became Nazi objectives within Ger- maneuvering of someone like Jones (or Freud many. Schultz-Hencke was evidently advocating and the IPA itself) would remain harder to de- shorter forms of treatment, and he has been cri- tect. Collaboration with totalitarianism, or au- ticized for „the rhetorical concession to Nazi thoritarianism for that matter, can take place aims“ by an „opportunistic paen to the human under many different guises. The lord-mayor of ‘fitness’ produced by psychoanalytic treat- Hamburg was eloquent about the dangers of ment.“47 Yet some like Karen Horney in 1939 expediency in the face of Hitlerism when he ad- acknowledged „the influence of Harald Schultz- dressed the 34th IPA Congress in 1985: „Every Hencke and Wilhelm Reich, analysts whom she step rational and yet in a false direction. Here a knew from her days in Berlin.“48 In 1945 Horney compromise with individuals, there with sub- wrote about the significance of „a character neu- stance; always in the vain hope of preserving rosis“: the whole – which had ceased to exist….In most Actually, Freud’s great pioneering work inc- cases freedom is lost in tiny steps.“52 reasingly converged on this concept – though his As we shall see, I do not think that the IPA genetic approach did not allow him to arrive at comes out of this story looking heroic, and its explicit formulation. But others who have Freud had to know more of what was going on continued and developed Freud’s work – no- than most have been willing to admit. (Jones’s tably Franz Alexander, Otto Rank, Wilhelm writing to Anna Freud about problems in the Reich, and Harald Schultz-Hencke – have defi- DPG sometimes gave Freud what is now known ned it more clearly.49 as plausible deniability.) For someone like Fromm and his colleagues in Frankfurt, emigra- Although differentiating her own ideas from tion (never an easy lot) from Germany turned

page 8 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

out to be more straight-forward than the alter- unfortunately been given a permanent position native of being a fellow-traveller with the Nazis as representing psychoanalysis“ on a new com- or committing domestic treason. mission of the Government conducted by „a Starting in 1933 Jung had chosen a form of psychotherapist named Göring…who is a cousin opportunism which someone like Reich was of the famous addict.“ And later Jones wrote to quick publicly to denounce; also Fromm’s friend Anna about Göring on July 20, 1936: „It was the analyst Gustav Bally in print criticized Jung easy to get on excellent terms with Göring, who then. For the German Society for Psychotherapy is a very sympathetic personality. We can easily (founded in 1926) got reorganized under the bend him our way, but unfortunately so can Nazis, and Jung became President of the Inter- other people.“ national General Medical Society for Psychothe- Even more striking I think is Jones’s 1957 rapy, and editor of its journal. (Jones wrote judgment that he found Matthias Göring „a fair- how „in June, 1933 the German Society for Psy- ly amiable and amenable person….“ Jones wro- chotherapy had come under Nazi control“ and te with a qualification about Göring: „it turned he claimed that it „masqueraded under the aegis out later [after 1936] that he was not in a posi- of an ‘International German Medical Society for tion to fulfill the promises he made me about Psychotherapy,’ which in turn was ‘readjusted’ the degree of freedom that was to be allowed in terms of the ‘German National Revoluti- the psychoanalytic group [within Göring’s Insti- on.’“53 But in later years Jung defended what he tute].“ Jones (like Jung) was continuing to put had done on the grounds that he had been ac- psychoanalysis ahead of politics, and he wrote ting to protect the profession, and the Jews who in 1957 of Göring’s being disappointing: „No practiced it, from needless suffering. As Jung ar- doubt in the meantime the Jewish origins of gued, „the cast out Jewish doctors“ were able psychoanalysis had been fully explained to „to become immediate members of the Interna- him.“56 But that explanation of Jones’s was tional Society….“54 (Jones, following Eitingon’s implausible; for not only was Matthias Göring a original idea, would work out a similar arran- committed Nazi party member, but he would gement for Fromm and others within the IPA.) make Hitler’s Mein Kampf required reading at At the same time Jung -- like Jones -- did help Göring’s Institute. Göring went to his death in many Jewish refugees from Germany to 1945 defending Berlin against the advance of the establish themselves abroad. Allied forces. To jump ahead a bit, in 1936 the Nazis then picked a psychiatrist distant-cousin of Hermann To get finally to the specifics of what happened Göring’s, Dr. Matthias H. Göring, who had since to Fromm in connection with the IPA, while he 1933 headed the German Society for Psychothe- was already in the States Müller-Braunschweig rapy, as Jung’s co-editor. (Jung resigned in was on January 10th, 1935 writing Fromm about 1940). Matthias Göring had been analyzed by the various dues he still owed to the German an Adlerian, Leonard Seif; Göring was to play a Psychoanalytic Society. (It was tendentious for central part in the history of psychoanalysis un- Jones to have maintained in his biography of der Hitler since in 1938 his new Institute would Freud about the date 1934: „This year saw the completely absorb the old German Psychoanaly- flight of the remaining analysts from Germany tic Society (GPG) as a special subsection. It is and the ‘liquidation’ of psychoanalysis in Ger- worth remembering that in November 1933 many.“57 Consciously or not Jones knew there Jung had written of Matthias Göring: he „is a was plenty to be covered up after 1934.) It took very amiable and reasonable man, so I have the awhile for the Jan. 10, 1935 letter to get for- best hopes for our cooperation.“55 On October warded to Fromm’s correct address in America. 2, 1933 Jones had written to Anna Freud that he Müller-Braunschweig explained exactly what thought better of the actions of Boehm and proportion of those dues of each member were Müller-Braunschweig now: „Schultz-Hencke, owed in turn by the German Society (DPG) to whom they do not regard as sufficiently reliable the IPA, and Müller-Braunschweig made it it an in his psychoanalytic work for this purpose, has „ultimatum“ to Fromm to pay the accumulated

page 9 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

dues of 211 Marks before March 1st.58 Fromm of- it is expected that all Jewish members will re- fered, due to straightened circumstances, to pay sign; and that they will suffer no disadvantage if by installments. they transfer to other groups or take up free floating membership…60 Then on March 3, 1936, Fromm sent Müller- Braunschweig a stiff letter: Two outside events had taken place in the fall of I am extremely sorry that I have up to now 1935 which are directly relevant here. First, in not been able to send you as promised the September the infamous Nuremberg Laws were last installment of my debt. I am now in a enacted by a special session of the Reichstag: position to do this, and would have sent Germans of Jewish blood lost their citizenship, the check within a few days had I not heard marriages between Germans and Jews were for- from various quarters that the German Psy- bidden, and Jews could no longer employ „Ary- choanalytic Society [DGP] had excluded its an“ servants. And entirely aside from this formal Jewish members. That you should have do- heightening of Nazi anti-Semitism, making it ne this without even telling me about it harder for Jews and „Aryans“ to be in social (quite apart from the justification of this contact, in October a Berlin Training Analyst, step, about which I do not want to speak Edith Jacobson, was arrested by the Gestapo. here) seems to me so incredible that I am She had belonged to some sort of underground first asking you to enlighten me as to resistance group, but had somehow tried to whether this rumor corresponds to the dump at a public Berlin lake a trunk-full of anti- facts.59 Nazi literature.61 One would have thought that a pretty inept way of getting rid of subversive ma- Müller-Braunschweig wrote back to Fromm on terial, since a fireplace or a stove would have March 21st, explaining that the Jewish members been more secure. Anyway, the international of the German Society – at a meeting with Jones analysts were alarmed about the consequences in the Chair -- had voted to resign in the late fall for the woman as well as the German Society; of 1935. And also Müller-Braunschweig on the Jones’s efforts to help her stopped after an „ur- 22nd wrote to Jones rather helplessly: gent telegram“62 from Boehm. (She was senten- I am sorry to have to approach you over so ced to two years in prison.) Already Jones had unpleasant an affair. As far as I remember, been also „quite critical of what he described as when you kindly visited us in Berlin, you ‘ultra-Jewish’ attitudes on the part of some of undertook to see that the Jewish members the analysts.“63 of the German Society [DPG] living abroad should be informed by the Central Executi- It is worth nothing that earlier on July 28, 1934 ve [of the IPA] of the voluntary decision of Jones had written to Boehm before the Lucerne the Jewish members living in Germany to Congress: resign from the Society, and that at the sa- I will ask you to keep this letter strictly con- me time they should either be helped to fidential except to Dr. Müller-Braunschweig. transfer to another group or should be offe- It is to prepare you for difficulties you may red free-floating membership, have to encounter at the Congress. You are not likely to know the strength of A few days ago I had the enclosed letter from the storm of indignation and opposition Dr. Fromm, which is very disturbing for us, as it which is at present agitating certain circles, raises the doubt whether you have informed all especially among the exiles from Germany. the Jewish members abroad and asked them to This may easily take the form of a personal resign, as I recall we discussed. vote of censure against yourself or even a It is so important for us here that everything resolution to exclude the German Society should be clearly and unambiguously communi- [DPG] from the International Association. cated to all concerned, and that everyone You will know that I myself regard these should know that nobody is excluded, but that emotions and ultra-Jewish attitude very un-

page 10 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

sympathetically, and it is plain to me that in the dignity and self-esteem of his Jewish you and your colleagues are being made a colleagues or in the conditions that are ne- dumping ground for much emotion and re- cessary for psychoanalysis to function as a sentment which belongs elsewhere and has clinical therapy…It is painful and mortifying been displaced in your direction. My only to read the record of how the leaders of an concern is for the good of Psychoanalysis it- honored institution, in order to save the self, and I shall defend the view, which I organization and promote the careers of confidently hold, that your actions have the new successors to leadership, humiliated been actuated only by the same motive.64 and cast out a large majority of its members to accommodate to a totalitarian state. On Nov. 21, 1935 Boehm telephoned Jones that That a „scientific,“ or for that matter a the DGP was „in a serious crisis and its dissoluti- „humanistic,“ society would exclude quali- on was imminent.“65 Fenichel ineffectually pro- fied members for ethnic, racial, religious, or tested on Nov. 26, 1935 that the DPG was ca- other extrinsic grounds for the sake of the ving in to the Nazis, for example replacing existence of the institution, defies the auto- Freud’s photograph with one of Hitler.66 (Jones nomy of science from political ideology and had written to Anna Freud on Nov. 11th: „I pre- the morality of valuing individuals which is fer Psychoanalysis to be practiced by Gentiles in the humane liberal essence of psychoanaly- Germany than not at all.“ Anna Freud had sis itself.71 thought that „from a factual standpoint“67 she thought Fenichel was correct.) After thinking Jones was to claim, in writing to Anna Freud on about Boehm’s Nov. 21st, telephone call, Jones Dec. 2, 1935, that he had been opposed to „ex- sent a „brief telegram informing Boehm of a de- pelling the Jews.“ Jones also told Anna in gene- lay in his visit“; Jones had „sanctioned that the ral what Jones thought: „Müller-Braunschweig is Jews voluntarily resign.“ Then Jones went him- busy coquetting with the idea of combining a self to Berlin where he presided at the Dec. 1st philosophy of Psychoanalysis with a quasi- meeting of the DPG. Both Boehm and Edith Ja- theological conception of National-Socialist ide- cobson’s supporters thought that the difficulties ology, and you can imagine that this is a very of the DPG came mainly from the new Nurem- busy occupation. No doubt he will proceed berg Laws.68 further along these lines, and he is definitely an- The issue arose of whether to dissolve the ti-semitic, which Boehm is certainly not.“72 (The DPG, and/or to sever the affiliation with the Dutch IPA official van Ophuijsen had on Sept. IPA. Since 1933 there had been demands coming 21, 1933 written Jones that both Boehm and from the Nazis that the Jewish analysts resign, Müller Braunschweig were confirmed Nazis.73) and by December 1935 „if the Jewish analysts Jones thought that Schultz-Hencke „curiously did not resign, it was possible that the DPG enough, is often on the right side.“74 Boehm re- would be dissolved.“69 A new member like Eva ported that Schultz-Hencke had proposed that Rosenfeld took what I consider an attractive po- „the Society [DPG] should leave the IPA and dis- sition among the Jewish members themselves: solve, while each one of us should secretly re- „In her view the colleagues were in a predica- main a member of the IPA, and carry on his or ment, which inwardly she could only reject, her psychoanalytic practice in secret.“75 where they could not resign voluntarily because But Boehm, like Müller-Braunschweig and too high a degree of masochism would be in- completely at odds with what Jones had written volved, as though they had voluntarily to be- Anna Freud, insisted that Jones was in favor of come their own executioners.“70 As the historian the Jews leaving the Society; evidently Jones and analyst Peter Loewenberg has recently so had also telegrammed Therese Benedeck, who well put it, had been a leader against the idea of having the Freud was clearly more interested in preser- Jews exclude themselves: „Urgently advise vo- ving the organization and presence of psy- luntary resignation.“76 (The Dutch analysts choanalysis in the Third Reich than he was would later, under similar circumstances, choose

page 11 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

instead to all resign in protest.) Still, Boehm was enough to notify me about this.“77 („The ‘Nan- sufficiently in good graces within the IPA for him sen’ membership was established similar to the to spend three hours in 1937 describing the situ- ‘Nansen’ passport for political refugees that F. ation of psychoanalysis in Germany before a Nansen introduced for Russian refugees without small group of Viennese analysts. citizenship.“78 On March 26, 1936 Jones had written to Because of a postal error Fromm said he did Fromm, in response to the letter of Fromm’s not hear of Jones’s March letter for a couple of that Müller-Branschweig had sent: months; Fromm then indicated: Dr, Müller-Branschweig forwarded to me Since there is no alternative, I accept the your letter of complaint considering the re- fact of giving up my membership in the signation of the Jewish members. It is not li- German Psychoanalytic Society. Though I terally true that they have been excluded…, am in close connection with the Washing- but after a considerable discussion in Berlin ton-Baltimore Psychoanalytic Society where between them and their colleagues, a dis- I gave a course of lectures last year, it cussion at which I also was present, they would be against their principles to accept a subsequently decided it would be in every- non-physician as a member, and I would ra- one’s interest for them to send in their re- ther not press the matter. This being the ca- signation. It was plain to me that there was se, I would prefer to become a „Nansen“ no alternative, and indeed I may tell you member of the International Association that I am daily expecting to hear the whole and would be very grateful to you if you German-Society itself being dissolved. would take the necessary steps to arrange it.

The idea of any imminent dissolution might (In April Fromm had sent Müller-Braunschweig a sound dramatic but was one of Jones’s rhetori- check for $50., or 124 Marks.) In June Jones cal fabrications; he went on to Fromm: confirmed Fromm’s standing as a direct member As regards the question of communicating of the IPA, and hoped he would come to the with you you will doubtless understand that forthcoming Congress in Marienbad. Fromm in- it is far from easy to write from Berlin. The- dicated he would not be able to attend the re also appears to be a misunderstanding in Congress, but was grateful for Jones’s writing the matter for which I am more to blame and wondered to whom he should send his than Dr. Müller-Braunschweig. They assu- membership fee. (No correspondence exists fur- med that I would notify the Germany [sic] ther on this point, and I am assuming that no members living abroad, whereas this was agreed-upon fees for such direct members ex- not-quite clear in my mind. I notified those isted. In any event it is striking that Fromm, who in England and evidently thought this for the sake of privacy destroyed so much of his would suffice. You are the only other correspondence, still saved these letters between member in this category, and I had thought himself and Jones, Müller-Braunschweig, and, as that you were now a member of the New we shall see, Eissler.) York Society. The DPG went on existing; as a result of a July 1936 agreement between between Jones, But A. A. Brill was in regular contact with Jones Brill, Boehm, Müller-Braunschweig, and M. H. about any new members of the New York Göring, the DPG (still part of the IPA) became group from abroad, and Jones would have part of the newly established so-called Göring heard from Brill any such news. Lay analysts like Institute. The DPG celebrated Freud’s 80th Fromm were frowned upon all over American birthday, but no Jews were allowed.79 But the psychoanalysis. Nevertheless, Jones added: „If DGP, founded originally by Abraham in 1910, there is any difficulty in the way of your being finally dissolved in November 1938; Jones first accepted there [in New York], then I can offer offered its members „direct membership“ in the you the direct ‘Nansen’ membership of the In- IPA, but Boehm rejected that proposal. The ternational Association. Will you be good death-knell of the DPG, as it had become „Wor-

page 12 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

king group A“ of the Göring Institute, had really Jones had come to the city right after the come only with Müller-Braunschweig’s trip to occupation of Austria, and he took part in the Vienna after the Nazis marched in on March 12, deliberations by which Müller-Braunschweig ac- 1938. (Working group B was Schultz-Hencke’s cepted in behalf of the DGP becoming trustee neo-analysts, and Working group C meant the for the Vienna Psychoanalytic Association. There Jungians.) were too few non-Jewish analysts in Vienna for Once the Nazis had seized the Vienna Psychoa- the project to succeed; therefore Jones had wan- nalytic Association, its Clinic, and Freud’s Press, ted the Gentile Richard Sterba to stay in Austria. his eldest son Martin – in charge then of Freud’s Anna Freud got questioned about finances by finances – telegrammed for help to Müller- the Gestapo after her brother Martin had left Braunschweig in Berlin. (Once again Jones disgu- incriminating documentary evidence about mo- ised in his Freud biography the extent of the ney abroad; she then showed them a letter to IPA’s having initiated this cooperation by wri- her from Müller-Branschweig, and the Gestapo ting only that „Müller-Braunschweig, accompa- also questioned Müller-Branschweig.83 Evidently nied by a Nazi Commissar, arrived from Berlin Müller-Braunschweig (along with many others with the purpose of liquidating the psychoanaly- who had acted to protect Freud) may have been tic situation.“80) The idea evidently was to hand some help to the Freuds in getting permission to over to Müller-Braunschweig, and through him leave Austria (Freud left Vienna on June 4, to the DGP, whatever assets that the analysts in 1938.) Vienna then had. It seems to me scarcely self- But the attempt at an Aryanized Vienna respecting for Freud and the Vienna Psychoana- analytic group proved a fiasco, and the Press, lytic Association to be turning their official selves the Psychoanalytic Association, and the Clinic over to the Aryanized German Society, as they were liquidated on Sept. 1, 1938. Meanwhile appealed to Müller-Braunschweig to come to Müller-Braunschweig’s reputation was tarnished Vienna. back in Berlin; his letter to Anna Freud had con- But then Freud’s all authoritarian political soled her, and advocated the future autonomy leanings in the last decade of his life in Vienna of the Vienna Institute from both National Soci- have gone unrecognized, although at the time it alism and the Göring Institute.84 This was the oc- was heart-breaking to his politically idealistic fol- casion when the DPG also was dissolved. Not lowers from America who knew what was hap- until the end of September 1938 did the Nazis pening in Vienna. Ruth Mack Brunswick wept revoke the licenses of all Jewish physicians and over Freud’s politics, and Freud’s analysis of her attorneys, almost three years after the Jewish husband Mark was interrupted because of analysts had themselves resigned from the DPG. Freud’s having „betrayed“ the local socialists. The activites of the Göring Institute, and „Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss had already, in what role the analysts there played, is an entire- the early part of 1934, put down a Marxist re- ly separate story. We have been told that it volt in Vienna by suspending Parliament and could be „a refuge for most.“85 All the records of bombarding the huge socialist housing project in the Institute got destroyed in fighting at the end the city until it surrendered.“81 Yet Martin Freud of the war. We do know now, however, that strikingly hung Dollfuss picture in the office of Müller-Branschweig passed along to Fascist Freud’s psychoanalytic Press. Further, Freud’s at- authorities, in code, the names of Jewish mem- tempts to flatter Mussolini (who had been a bers of the Italian Psychoanalytic Society.86 He protector of Austrian independence) and no declined to join the Nazi Party, which would doubt also to help psychoanalysis in Italy, does have saved him from being prohibited from tea- not withstand scrutiny.82 Freud’s decision to re- ching and publishing; he was not allowed to en- main in Vienna so long got all sorts of people ter the Göring Institute, and Boehm could not into hot water, since they felt they could not conduct training analyses. But Müller- leave earlier without appearing to desert a sin- Branschweig did remain „responsible for lecture king ship. (Four of his sisters later perished in organization even after 1938“87; he continued Nazi concentration camps.) his private practice. And Boehm, who had ear-

page 13 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

lier opposed the Nazi approach to homosexuali- Branschweig was anti-Semitic, in the end Müller- ty --“sterilization, hormone treatment, operati- Braunschweig (who went to a Jungian analyst ons, prison, concentration camps and the death after World War II) successfully led the post- penalty“88 -- by December 1944 had come to World War II German group back into the IPA. agree with these practices. The issue of complici- Although Freud liked to castigate those who led ty in mass murder comes up, since soldiers with „secessions“ in the history of psychoanalysis, it „battle fatigue“ were to be exterminated too. It has always been considered acceptable for a might go without saying that it was illegal to group to secede in the guise of psychoanalytic treat Jews at the Göring Institute; patients who orthodoxy. Müller-Braunschweig was able to were found to be untreatable were bound to thrive as a leader within the IPA; orthodoxy was wind up in the Nazi euthanasia program, and a „way of dissociating himself from the Nazi put to death. The fact that one German member past.“91 Freud, as we have seen, had been ada- of Working-group A – John Rittmeister, a mantly against Schultz-Hencke and the ideas he Communist who had once been a student of represented. (I suspect that Schultz-Hencke’s use Jung’s – was guillotined for treason in 1943 does of the term „neo-analysis“ may have later put not do much to brighten a terribly shabby epi- Fromm off any such designation for his own sode in Western history. point of view.) After the DPG with Müller- According to a malignant irony, the Nazis Braunschweig as President was reconstituted fol- were convinced that „mental disorder within lowing the end of the war in 1945, the question the master race could not be genetic or essential- then arose of its affiliation with the IPA. ly organic,“ and therefore thought applied Müller-Braunschweig was able to emphasize depth psychology had a special role to play in that Schultz-Hencke’s view was that „the theo- the Third Reich.89 I think that true psychothera- ries of psychoanalysis, particularly the libido py itself was destroyed under the Nazis. The theory, …[were] essentially antiquated and out Göring Institute’s success in giving help to the of date.“92 By May 1946 Anna Freud would be Luftwaffe and promoting the war effort itself writing Müller-Braunschweig: „I have always besmirches the whole tradition of so-called been very sorry that your visit to Vienna and German psychotherapy. All of us should be wa- your relationship with me in 1938 had such un- ry of the implications of any system of ideas happy consequences for you. You know that which ever aims to „harmonize“ the individual was not my intention.“93 Psychoanalytic ortho- and the social order. Anyone who tries to argue doxy has always been blood thicker than politi- that psychoanalysis was „preserved through the cal water. During the early 1930s a patient in departure of the Jewish analysts and by the co- training with Anna Freud, Esther Menaker, indi- ver of the Göring name“90 has missed the boat. cated that she was troubled by there being „‘so Jones might have thought he had tried to „save“ many splinter movements: Jung, Adler, Rank. If psychoanalysis in Germany, but by the end of you are all searching for the truth about human the war he acknowledged the failure of such a personality, why can’t you work together?’“ project. (But his rationalizations in the form of Anna Freud „replied without hesitation“: the narrative he constructed in his Freud bi- „‘Nothing is as important to us as the psychoa- ography are harder to detect than Jung’s own nalytic movement.’“94 forms of apology.) To the extent that German By December 1947 Anna Freud would be, culture once presented some of the best parts of as acting IPA Treasurer, also writing to Müller- the Western tradition, the tale of „psychothera- Braunschweig to „attend to the question of the py“ under the Third Reich has to be more ethi- payment of arrears of annual subscriptions since cally worrisome to me than the various abuses 1939….“95 And that year, Anna Freud, as IPA of psychiatry under the old Soviet regime. Secretary, listed the DPG’s activities as of 1945- 1947 within the Bulletin of the IPA. Some of the worst aspects of this story remain to be told. For even though Jones had years ear- When the DPG tried to be re-admitted to the lier written to Anna Freud that Müller- IPA at the Zurich Congress in 1949, Jones in the

page 14 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

Chair held that years of „amalgamating different training candidates during the war. As a result of forms of psychotherapy – Jung, Adler, Freud, Müller-Braunschweig’s tactical position, he and Neo-Analysis“ had had their ill effect, but that five others (one now known to have been a Müller-Brauschweig had remained one of the Nazi party member) organized a new German „true, real, genuine analysts.“96 Provisional ac- Psychoanalytic Association – (the „DPV“), which ceptance of the Germans was therefore in order. alone secured admission to the IPA at the Ams- The English analyst John Rickman, although terdam Congress in 1951. As the Goggins have supposedly working in behalf of the British go- recently observed: „By supporting the admission vernment, had turned over to the IPA analysts of the DPV into the IPA, the leadership of the in London a report which described Müller- world psychoanalytic community had chosen to Braunschweig’s „incompetence as an analyst and place theoretical orthodoxy as a more significant his Nazis leanings.“97 factor in readmission than the Nazification of Following the Zurich Congress there were the members being admitted.“99 some unpleasant exchanges between Müller- In the meantime Fromm, living in Mexico Braunschweig and Schultz-Hencke; Müller- since 1950, discovered that he had somehow Braunschweig thought that Schultz-Hencke was been dropped from being a direct members of merely giving „the impression that you are a the IPA. (Throughout the difficult conditions of psychoanalyst.“ Schultz-Hencke protested that World War II not even the general membership Müller-Braunschweig had misquoted him, giving roster was maintained any longer in the Bulletin the audience in Zurich „a catastrophic picture of appearing in The International Journal of Psy- my heresy.“ Schultz-Hencke maintained: choanalysis.) In 1952 the sole direct member You, and others from one side,…think that listed was Dr.Werner Kemper, who had coope- you can break the gentleman’s agreement which rated with Boehm in supporting the „extermina- has held up to now…If you go on asserting that tion of both homosexuals and soldiers experien- I have abandoned 90% of psychoanalysis, I shall cing ‘battle fatigue.’“ Kemper was to be a signi- have to tell you most vehemently that younger ficant source of disinformation about what had psychoanalysts will find this opinion simply ridi- happened to psychoanalysis under the Nazis.100 culous…if we are going to talk numbers…my (He had also analyzed M. H. Göring’s wife.) findings confirm 75% of the empirical discove- Further, Kemper had written on eugenics laws in ries of psychoanalysis, to which Freud attached Germany. Jones had evidently encouraged Kem- decisive importance. I only criticize a metapho- per to go to Brazil, where Kemper got involved, rical and theoretical superstructure which in ad- before returning to Germany, in accusations of dition, as Freud himself has explained, is partly sanctioning torture.101 hypothetical. I criticize the attempt, made in the On May 28th, 1953 Fromm wrote to Ruth spirit of the 90s, of naïve libido-energetic theory S. Eissler, IPA Secretary, % of the Institute of – again of a speculative nature. I think I am as Psychoanalysis in London: Jones was by then completely justified in describing myself as a Honorary President of the IPA. psychoanalyst as I ever was, at any rate exactly I would greatly appreciate it if you would as the Americans in question call themselves be kind enough to inform me on the follo- Neo-Psychoanalysts. wing question: I have been a member-at- Müller-Braunschweig found this letter of large of the International Psychoanalytic As- Schultz-Hencke’s was „bristling with slanders, sociation since about 1934, when I had to misrepresentations and insults.“ To Müller- resign from the German Psychoanalytic As- Branschweig „your view of metapsychology as sociation [sic]. I find that my name does not an unnecessary and outdated set of hypotheses“ appear any more on the [IPA] Association’s meant that Schultz-Hencke „held a different list of members-at-large, although I never theory of the Unconscious from Freud’s.“98 Mül- resigned, nor was I ever notified of a termi- ler-Braunschweig held a minority position within nation of my membership. Could you be the DGP, and it will be remembered that kind enough to let me know what my sta- Schultz-Hencke had been allowed to continue tus as a member is?

page 15 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

screened by the Joint Screening Committee of This letter bore an uncanny similarity to the International and the American Associations. Fromm’s equally poignant letter to Müller- This Committee was established at the Congress Braunschweig in 1936. at Amsterdam [1951] in order to help in the ap- Ruth Eissler replied from New York City on June praisal of foreign lay analysts for reinstatement 11th, 1953: of their membership in the I.P.A. It consists of I have received your letter of May 28th. three ex officio members: The President of the Since 1946, the American Psychoanalytic As- American Psychoanalytic Association; the sociation [APA] is the only component So- Chairman of the Board on Professional Stan- ciety of the International Psychoanalytic As- dards of the American Psychoanalytic Associati- sociation in this country. on; and a member of the Central Executive of As of 1946 the earlier automatic members- the International Psychoanalytic Association hip in the APA of people in various branch who is a member of the American Psychoanaly- groups was replaced by a special routine tic Association. requiring APA acknowledgement before At present applications for reinstatement prescribed analysts of branch societies au- should be sent to me, as Chairman of the Joint tomatically became members of the APA; Screening Committee, and should include a de- lay analysts had a special hurdle in America. tailed curriculum vitae, including present activities. Ruth Eissler’s letter went on: I hope that this give you the information which you requested. Membership in the I.P.A. depends on membership in a Component Society of the Fromm replied on June 29th: I.P.A. You are listed as a member of the Thank you very much for your answer to Washington Psychoanalytic Society, which is my letter. not in itself a Component Society of the I take it that if I want to continue my status I.P.A. but is an Affiliate Society of the as a member-at-large of the International American. The old German Psychoanalytic Psychoanalytic Association, I would have to Society no longer exists. present the application for re-instatement. Before I make a decision, I would very That was not true, and Ruth Eissler had to know much like to understand the situation a little it since the DPG’s „provisional“ 1949 IPA admis- better, and I would greatly appreciate it if sion had not been extended in 1951. And the you could enlighten me on the question of DPG (still outside the IPA) functions in the year what is meant by a „screening“ of previous 2000. Or was she also meaning to say that the members-at-large. Does it mean that it is DPG no longer existed as far the IPA was con- considered that they lost their status as cerned? Such thinking would have been in kee- members-at-large, and that the screening ping with the old prejudice that to be outside amounts practically to a new application the IPA was to render one not an analyst. Eissler for membership? Or if not, according to continued: what principles is such a screening carried A new Society was organized under the out? Would, for instance, the fact that my Chairmanship of Dr. Carl Müller- psychoanalytic views do not correspond to Braunschweig [DPV]…. the views of the majority be one of the fac- Membership-at-Large in the I.P.A. may be acqui- tors to be taken into consideration at the red in exceptional cases, by those who were screening, and a reason for denial of mem- previously members of a Component Society of bership? the I.P.A. A number of lay analysts in this I have to confess even to an ignorance country, who are not members of the American concerning the principles governing the Psychoanalytic Association but who reapplied American Psychoanalytic Association with for membership in the I.P.A. were willing to be regard to the acceptance of members. Is

page 16 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

there any rule that as a matter of principle Screening Committee. Most of the former the American Association excludes all non- lay-members at large have done so. The medical analysts? reinstatement depends on the recommen- Hoping that I am not imposing on dation of the committee, which consists of your time too much by raising these questi- three ex-officio members; the President of ons, and thanking you for the trouble you the American Psychoanalytic Association; might take in answering them, the Chairman of the Board of Standards of Sincerely yours, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and a member of the Central Executive of Ruth Eissler wrote back on July 27th, 1953; she the I.P.A., who is also a member of the had said as yet absolutely nothing about A.P.A. Fromm’s many books, articles, or other well- known contributions to psychoanalysis. Nor After repeating her earlier legalisms, Ruth Eissler could she possibly readily admit the truth that then put in a zinger of a paragraph: some lay analysts had been accepted as mem- I am, of course, not in the position of anti- bers of the American Psychoanalytic Association. cipating the recommendations of the Joint The resolution at the Amsterdam Congress bea- Screening Committee. Personally, though, I ring on direct members had sounded like it was would assume that anyone who does not supposed to facilitate lay analysts, especially in stand on the basic principles of psychoana- America, becoming „direct“ members of the lysis would anyway not be greatly inte- IPA. Although „the status of Members-at-Large“ rested in becoming a member of the Inter- was supposed to be granted after „careful eva- national Psychoanalytic Association. luation of their qualifications,“ no hint was rai- sed that this process could mean disqualifying Fromm answered her one more time on August people already accepted as direct members.102 26th, and evidently that was the end of their Eissler continued in her earlier bureaucratic correspondence: vein: Thank you very much for your informative I am sorry that my answer to your letter of letter of July 27th. June 29th was delayed; however, the prepa- I appreciate your comment that perso- rations of the 18th International Psychoana- nally you assume that anyone who does lytic Congress kept me quite busy. not stand on the basic principles of psycho- In answer to your questions: At the 17th analysis would not be interested in beco- International Psychoanalytic Congress in ming a member of the International Psy- Amsterdam, 1951 [where Müller- choanalytic Association. I am sure you reali- Braunschweig’s new group -- the DPV -- ze that the main issue is just what we mean won admittance], the Joint Screening by „basic principles“ of psychoanalysis. I Committee of the I.P.A. and the A.P.A. was consider myself as sharing these principles, established for the purpose of giving those but the question is, how broadly or how lay analysts in North America who are not narrowly the International Psychoanalytic members of the A.P.A., and who had lost Association interprets them. It is also not membership in the I.P.A. through the quite the question of wanting to become a change of statutes of the International, the member of the International Psychoanalytic opportunity to be reinstated to member- Association, but rather, of the reasons for ship. The American Psychoanalytic Associa- being dropped from membership. tion does not recognize lay analysts as I shall give some more thought to he members except those who had been problem, and shall let you know in case I members before 1939. All those lay analysts want to reopen the issue. who used to be members at large in the I.P.A. and reside in North America have to The logic of her argument might just as well reapply for membership through the Joint imply that anyone who applied would automa-

page 17 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

tically be accepted, but Fromm knew she was Fromm had obviously been deeply hurt at not saying that. Clearly he wanted to remain – his 1953 ostracism from the IPA, and he would not „become“ – an IPA members. One might have been entitled to have been both resentful naively have thought she would be interested in and offended in his pride. (The IPA continues bringing in his Mexican group to the IPA. But I today to have „direct“ members, but none has doubt that Ruth Eissler would have responding ever matched Fromm’s own singular contributi- the way she did entirely on her own hook; it ons.) Fromm was unlike Reich in that he did not remains to be seen, for example, whether the publicize his being persecuted. If Fromm had then IPA President, Heinz Hartmann, also living been a better bureaucratic infighter, he might in New York City, or anyone in London, took have known the character of Müller- part behind-the-scenes in this series of letters. Braunschweig’s crew that had just been accepted as the DPV at the IPA, and Fromm could have Perhaps now it makes more sense how Fromm disputed Ruth Eissler’s contention that the DPG could legitimately defend himself against Marcu- no longer existed. se-like charges that he was some sort of confor- Book-writing was probably a better way of mist. He had, for example, been risking his stan- Fromm’s proceeding. It would be in the spirit of ding in the Washington Psychoanalytic Society the ideals of the 18th century Enlightenment to by carrying on training not authorized by the believe that concepts are more important that APA. In 1971he wrote protesting to Martin Jay, analytic lineage, or a family tree. Fromm had a a historian, the whole line of Marcuse’s thinking genuinely radical spirit within psychoanalysis, that held that Fromm had ever given up essenti- which has been ignored by the partisans in be- al Freudianism. Fromm argued that he conside- half of Marcuse’s point of view. red Jay’s manuscript’s thesis „a very drastic sta- It had to complicate Fromm’s position that tement only possible from the standpoint of or- he did not share Schultz-Hencke’s „neo- thodox Freudianism.“103 Fromm was also Freudianism,“ and Fromm distanced himself unknowingly echoing Schultz-Hencke against ideologically from Adler and Jung as well – they Müller-Braunschweig, although politically are the arch-heretics in IPA reasoning, but Fromm was unlike them untarnished by any col- Fromm was still somehow caught in that traditi- laborative politics. Like Lacan in France Fromm on of thought. Fromm’s own struggle was unlike had to protest: „I have never wanted to found a theirs, because it could not be considered in any school of my own.“ way as a personal problem that he had had with I was removed by the International Psycho- Freud. In 1961, after Schultz-Hencke’s death, analytic Association from membership in this As- Fromm would join with the DPG and other sociation to which I had belonged, and am still a non-IPA groups (like the White Institute) to set member of the Washington Psychoanalytic As- up the International Federation of Psychoanaly- sociation, which is Freudian. I have always criti- tic Societies. cized the Freudian orthodoxy and the bureauc- Marcuse’s idea that Fromm was a confor- ratic methods of the Freudian international or- mist is repudiated by this whole tale of the steps ganization, but my whole theoretical work is ba- in his exclusion from the IPA. Fromm could rea- sed on what I consider Freud’s most important dily acknowledge having given up his orthodox findings, with the exception of his metapsycho- psychoanalytic views after about ten years of logical findings. (This, incidentally, is the reverse clinical practicing, and he was – unlike most of Marcuse’s position, who bases his thinking others – willing to stand alone. That he someti- entirely on Freud’s metapsychology and ignores mes had allies like Horney, Clara Thompson, completely his clinical findings, that is to say, the and Harry Stack Sullivan, as well as others, unconscious, character, resistance, etc.)104 should not detract from the singularity of Marcuse and his allies at the Frankfurt Fromm’s achievement. The unique success of school had become unconsciously authoritarian Fromm’s books meant that he could appeal in identifying with the powers-that-be in ortho- over the heads of the IPA leaders. And in chal- dox psychoanalytic thinking. lenging Jones about Ferenczi (and Rank), as well

page 18 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

as in writing Sigmund Freud’s Mission, Fromm at ties of Machiavellianism. After all, analysts were least settled a score there. (According to almost uniquely equipped to practice their pro- Fromm’s literary executor, Rainer Funk, Fromm fession abroad. On the other hand, all of us are felt uncomfortable enough about a critique he inevitably enmeshed in the life of the ideologies had published of Rank in the late 1930s so as of our times. We today merely have to deal not to want to have it reprinted.105) with charges associated with „political correct- And then the future rewarded Fromm in an ness“, as opposed to the question of whether unexpected way. As we saw, he had been able neo-Freudianism could be considered fascistic. to be cut out of the IPA because he was not, as a Still, as clear-sighted a view of the past as possi- lay analyst, entitled to be a member of the ble still seems to me desirable, and in keeping American Psychoanalytic Association, at that with Fromm’s teachings. time the only constituent body of the IPA in It has to be striking that the story of America. Yet for years he had been prominently Fromm’s exclusion from the IPA, with all its associated with the White Institute, and it would ramifications, has so far remained untold. It is be members from that group who in the 1980s not easy to follow things when someone as tal- would play a substantial role in successfully ented as Jones was capable of getting narrative launching a restraint-of-trade anti-trust law-suit rabbits out of a hat. For example, in the Paris against the training restrictions of the IPA and Congress in 1938 he had maintained: the American Psychoanalytic Institute.106 Ironi- The German Society continues to live a some- cally, Ruth Eissler’s husband Kurt had in 1965 what delicate existence. The new German Insti- written a long book defending non-medical tute for Psychological Research and Psychother- analysis.107 With all the examples of accommo- apy [the Göring Institute], of which the Psycho- dation, adaptation, cowardice, and opportun- analytic Society is a separate department, was ism in the course of recounting how Fromm founded in May, 1936. The department has en- came to be dropped from the IPA, he himself joyed considerable autonomy, many candidates comes across thoroughly self-respecting. have been trained and the total membership list It is hard to see how Fromm could have increased. done other in 1936 than to accept Jones’s offer And Jones reported that as of November of becoming a „direct“ IPA member; but having 1938 the German Psychoanalytic Society (DPG), done so he was left, as a lay analyst in America, transformed into Working Group A, had re- in an exposed position. In hindsight it should be signed its membership of the IPA. 108 Unless one a truism that what an IPA President grants can had followed the whole story with closest scru- just as easily be taken away, even by the Secre- tiny, it would be impossible to understand what tary. Fromm was not, as when the DPG ex- had actually happened. By 1957 Jones could, as cluded its Jewish members in late 1935, even in- we have seen, make the somersault of authorita- formed after the fact of what had happened to tively writing in his Freud biography that psy- his status as a direct member. Meanwhile it will choanalysis in German had been „liquidated“ as be up to the reader to evaluate whether Ruth of 1934. And it has taken almost fifty years Eissler’s edict was right that Fromm had become Jones wrote those words to untangle the trick- at odds with the „basic principles“ of psycho- ery behind his reasoning. analysis. Freud was himself a great writer, and en- A more important matter may be the gen- duringly important enough as a thinker for us to eral problem of how human beings accommo- be able to understand how his flaws could be date themselves in social crises. For those of us partly those of the times. When he died in Lon- who have never had to live through the experi- don in 1939, he was eighty-three years old; I be- ences of such trying times as in Central Europe lieve that he partly stayed in Vienna because of during the 1930s and the War itself, it is tempt- the doctors familiar with his case, and in London ing to suppose that human beings might have his health went downhill rapidly. He does not behaved with more honor in the face of Nazi need any more of our mythologizing, and his tyranny, rather than to engage in so many varie- life can sustain the closest scrutiny. We have

page 19 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

been told of a meeting that Freud had with brary); Escape From Freedom (New York, Holt, Boehm in November 1936; Freud had ended Rinehart & Winston, 1941). See Paul Roazen, the meeting with an admonition to Boehm „Fromm’s Escape From Freedom and His Stand- which was „in a reality a tactful indirect con- ing Today,“ International Forum for Psycho- analysis, in press. demnation. He said: ‘You may make all kinds of 5. Erich Fromm, Man For Himself: An Inquiry into sacrifices, but you are not to make any conces- the Psychology of Ethics (New York, Holt, 109 sions.’“ Old World charm should not ever Rinehart & Winston, 1947), Erich Fromm, Psy- take us in; Freud and the IPA had already made choanalysis and Religion (New Haven, Yale Uni- abundant concessions, and would continue to versity Press, 1950), Erich Fromm, The Forgotten do so, even though we in the New World can Language: An Introduction to the Understanding be gullible in mistaking hypocrisy for the truth. of Dreams, Fairy Tales and Myths (New York, A central theme in Henry James’s novels was Grove Press, 1957), Erich Fromm, The Sane Soci- how European manners and American sincerity ety (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1956). 6. Erich Fromm and Michael Maccoby, Social Char- keep colliding with one another. acter in a Mexican Village: A Sociopsychoanalytic Even when we try to admit all the faults we Study (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, are apt to have in North America, it does not 1970; new edition, with an Introduction by Mi- mean that one need turn a blind eye to the du- chael Maccoby, New Brunswick, N.J., Transac- bious means it took, under the guidance of tion, 1996). Freud, Jones, and others, for the IPA to become 7. Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving ((London, the powerful institution it was to become. Luck- George Allen & Unwin, 1957), Erich Fromm, To ily Fromm’s own form of resistance did not Have Or To Be? (New York, Harper & Row, have to take the tragic shape of Rittmeister’s in 1976), and Erich Fromm, The Anatomy of Hu- man Destructiveness (New York, Holt, Rinehart Germany during the war. The choice is not, as & Winston, 1973). Jones would have had it, between psychoanaly- 8. Ernest Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund sis and politics, but what the proper relationship Freud, Vols. 1-3 (New York, Basic Books, 1953- should be between those inevitably different 57), Erich Fromm, Sigmund Freud’s Mission: An sorts of inquiries. Analysis of His Personality and Influence (New York, Harper & Brothers, 1959). 9. Fromm, Sigmund Freud’s Mission, op. cit., pp. Notes 105-06. 10. Erich Fromm, „Psychoanalysis – Science or Party 1. Paul Roazen, Oedipus in Britain: Edward Glover Line,“ reprinted in The Dogma of Christ and and the Struggle Over Klein (New York, Other Other Essays on Religion, Psychology and Culture Press, 2000). (New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963), 2. Paul Roazen, „The Problem of Silence: Training pp. 131-44. Analyses,“ forthcoming 11. Neil McLaughlin, „How to Become a Forgotten 3. Ernst Falzeder, „Family Tree Matters,“ Journal of Intellectual: Intellectual Movements and the Rise Analytical Psychology, Vol. 43 (1998), pp. 127- and Fall of Erich Fromm,“ Sociological Forum, 54, and Ernst Falzeder, „The Threads of Psycho- Vol. 13 (1998), pp. 215-48; Neil McLaughlin, analytic Filiations or Psychoanalysis Taking Ef- „Why Do Schools of Thought Fail? Neo- fect,“ in 100 Years of Psychoanalysis, Contribu- Freudianism as a Case Study in the Sociology of tions to the History of Psychoanalysis, ed. Andre Knowledge,“ Journal of the History of the Be- Haynal & Ernst Falzeder (Geneva, Cahiers Psy- havioral Sciences, Vol. 34 (1998), pp. 113-34. See chiatriques Genevois, Special Issue, 1994), pp. also Daniel Burston, The Legacy of Erich Fromm 169-94. (Cambridge, Mass.. Harvard University Press, 4. See, for example, Erich Fromm, „The Method 1991). and Function of an Analytic Social Psychology“ 12. See Erich Fromm, „The Dogma of Christ,“ in The and „Psychoanalytic Characterology and Its Rele- Dogma of Christ, op. cit. vance for Social Psychology,“ in The Crisis of 13. Lawrence J. Friedman, Identity’s Architect: A Bi- Psychoanalysis (N.Y., Holt Rinehart, 1970), as ography of Erik H. Erikson (New York, Scribner, well as a 1935 paper; Erich Fromm, „The Social 1999), p. 162. Erik H. Erikson, Childhood and Background of Psychoanalytic Therapy,“ trans- Society (New York, Norton, 1950). lated by Caroline Newton (New York Public Li- 14. See Paul Roazen, Erik H. Erikson: the Power and

page 20 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

Limits of a Vision (N.Y., The Free Press, 1976; 37. Paul Roazen, Freud and His Followers (New Northvale, N.J., Aronson, 1997). York, Knopf, 1975; reprinted, New York, Da Ca- 15. Erik H. Erikson, Young Man Luther: A Study in po, 1992), pp. 370, 503-06. Psychoanalysis and History (New York, Norton, 38. Ilse Ollendorf Reich, Wilhelm Reich: A Personal 1958), p. 239. Biography (N.Y., St. Martin’s, 1969), p. 31. 16. Karl Menninger, „Loneliness in the Modern 39. Ibid., p. 31 World,“ The Nation, Vol. 154 (March 14, 1942), 40. Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, Vol. p. 317. 3, op. cit., p. 191. 17. Otto Fenichel, „Psychoanalytic Remarks on 41. Ilse Reich, op. cit., p. 31. Fromm’s Book Escape From Freedom,“ in The 42. Brecht, op. cit., p. 172. Collected Papers of Otto Fenichel, second series 43. See Henri F. Ellenberger, The Discovery of the (N.Y., Norton, 1954), Ch. 19, pp. 260-77; see Unconscious (New York, Basic Books, 1970), pp. also Otto Fenichel, 119 Rundbriefe, Vol. 2 640-41. (Frankfurt, Stroemfeld, 1998), ed Elke Mühleitner 44. Quoted in James E. Goggin and Eileen Brockman & Johannes Reichmayr, pp. 1559-89. Goggin, From the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute 18. See Paul Roazen, „Book Review of Ideas and to the Göring Institute: The Metamorphosis of Identities: the Life and Work of Erik H. Erikson, Psychoanalysis During the Third Reich and Be- ed. Wallerstein & Goldberger, Psychoanalytic yond (manuscript), p. 87. Psychology, Summer 2000. 45. Brecht, op. cit., p. 172. 19. Rainer Funk, Erich Fromm: His Life and Ideas, 46. Käthe Drager, „Psychoanalysis in Hitler’s Ger- translated by Ian Portman and Manuela Kunkel many, American Imago, Vol. 29 (1972), pp. 199- (New York, Continuum, 2000), pp. 74-77. 214. 20. Karen Brecht, Volker Friedrich, Ludger Her- 47. Geoffrey Cocks, „Book Review,“ Psychohistory manns, Isidor Kaminer, Dierk Juelich (editors), Review, Vol. 24 (1996), p. 211. „Here Life Goes On In a Most Peculiar Way…“, 48. Bernard J. Paris, Karen Horney: A Psychoana- translated by Christine Trollope (London, Kell- lyst’s Search for Self-Understanding (New Haven, ner-Goethe Institute, 1993), p. 72. Yale University Press, 1994), p. 118. 21. Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, 49. Karen Horney, Our Inner Conflicts: A Construc- Vol. 3, op. cit., p. 182. tive Theory of Neurosis (New York, Norton, 22. Brecht, op. cit., p. 112. 1945), p. 11. 23. Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 50. Karen Horney, The Neurotic Personality of Our 3, op. cit., p. 183. Time (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1937), 24. Brecht, op. cit., p. 83. p. 38; Karen Horney, New Ways in Psychoanaly- 25. Ibid. sis (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1939), p. 26. See Paul Roazen, Meeting Freud’s Family (Am- 95; Karen Horney, Neurosis and Human herst, University of Massachusetts Press, 1993), p. Growth: The Struggle Toward Self-Realization 80. (New York, Norton, 1950), p. 369; Karen Hor- 27. Brecht, op. cit., p. 101. ney, Feminine Psychology, ed. Harold Kelman 28. I am indebted here to Han Israels. (New York, Norton, 1967), p. 228. 29. Brecht, op. cit., p. 118. 51. Paul Roazen, „Jung and Anti-Semitism,“ in Lin- 30. Ibid., p. 119. gering Shadows, ed. Aryah Maidenbaum (Bos- 31. „New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis,“ ton, Shambahla, 1991), pp.211-21. Standard Edition, Vol. 22, p. 144. 52. Quoted in Fritz Stern, „Fink Shrinks,“ The New 32. Reich Speaks of Freud: Wilhelm Reich Discusses York Review of Books (Dec. 19, 1985), p. 48, His Work and His Relationship with Sigmund n.3. Freud (New York, Noonday Press, 1968), p. 159. 53. Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 33. Brecht, op. cit., p. 121. 3, op. cit., p. 186. 34. Fromm, Sigmund Freud’s Mission, op. cit., p. 65. 54. Roazen, Freud and His Followers, op. cit., p. See also The Complete Correspondence of Sig- 293. mund Freud and Ernest Jones 1908-1939, ed. R. 55. Geoffrey Cocks, Psychotherapy in the Third Reich Andrew Paskauskas (Cambridge, Harvard Univer- (N.Y., Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 127. sity Press, 1993), p. 335. 56. Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 35. Reich Speaks of Freud, op. cit., p. 189. 3, op. cit., p. 187. 36. Myron Sharaf, Fury on Earth: A Biography of 57. Ibid., p. 185. Wilhelm Reich (New York, St. Martin’s Press, 58. Rainer Funk, „Erich Fromm’s Role in the Founda- 1983), p. 185. tion of the IFPS,“ Fromm Forum (International

page 21 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA

Erich Fromm Society), Vol. 3 (1999), p. 22. (1985), pp. 521-36. 59. Brecht, op. cit., p. 139. 86. Goggin, op. cit., p. 221. 60. Ibid. 87. Brecht, op. cit., p. 154. 61. Ibid., p. 126; Goggin, op. cit., p. 151. 88. Ibid., p. 168. 62. Brecht, op. cit., p. 126. 89. Cocks, Psychotherapy in the Third Reich, op. cit., 63. Goggin, op. cit., p.90. p. 12. See Paul Roazen, Encountering Freud: the 64. Brecht, op. cit., p. 78. Politics and Histories of Psychoanalysis (New 65. Brecht, op. cit., p. 126. Brunswick, N.J., 1990), pp. 34-37. 66. Ibid., p. 181. 90. Cocks, op. cit., p. 9. 67. Goggin, op. cit., p. 152. 91. Goggin, op. cit., p. 224. 68. Goggin, op. cit., p. 154; Brecht, op. cit., p. 129. 92. Brecht, op. cit., p. 199. 69. Goggin, op. cit., p. 133. 93. Ibid., p. 201. 70. Brecht, op. cit., p. 137. 94. Esther Menaker, Appointment in Vienna (New 71. Peter J. Loewenberg, „Foreward,“ Geoffrey York, St. Martin’s Press, 1989), p. 40. Reprinted Cocks, Treating Mind and Body: Essays in the as Misplaced Loyalties (New Brunswick, N.J., History of Science, Professions, and Society Un- Transaction, 1995). der Extreme Conditions (New Brunswick, N.J., 95. Brecht, op. cit., p. 217. Transaction, 1998), pp.ix-x. 96. Ibid., p. 202. 72. Brecht, op. cit., p. 134. 97. Goggin, op. cit., p. 262. 73. Goggin, op. cit., p. 149. 98. Brecht, op. cit., pp.204-207. 74. Brecht, op. cit., pp. 130-31. 99. Goggin, op. cit., p. 265. 75. Ibid., p. 134. 100. Ibid., pp. 192, 305. 76. Ibid., p. 136. 101. Helena Besserman Vianna, Politique de la Psy- 77. Ibid., p. 138. I am indebted to Rainer Funk for chanalyse Face à la Dictature et à la Torture (Pa- having allowed me to make copies from his ris, Harmattan, 1999). Fromm Archives of the correspondence between 102. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 33 Müller-Braunschweig and Fromm, the letters be- (1952), p. 256. tween Jones and Fromm, and the later exchanges 103. Erich Fromm, in Michael Kessler/Rainer Funk, between Ruth Eissler and Fromm. Erich Fromm und die Frankfurter Schule, Francke 78. Funk, op. cit., p.23. Verlag, 1991, p. 251. See Martin Jay, The Dialec- 79. Goggin, op. cit., p. 163. tical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt 80. Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, Vol. School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923- 3, op. cit., p. 221. 1950 (Boston, Little Brown, 1973). 81. Goggin, op. cit., p. 53. 104. Fromm, Ibid., p. 151. 82. See Paul Roazen, „Psychoanalytic Ethics: Freud, 105. Erich Fromm, „The Social Philosophy of ‘Will Mussolini, and Edoardo Weiss,“ Journal of the Therapy,’“ Psychiatry, Vol. 2 (1939), pp. 229- History of the Behavioral Sciences, October 1991. 237, 83. Goggin, op. cit., p. 213. 106. Robert S. Wallerstein, Lay Analysis: Life Inside the 84. Ibid., p. 205. Controversy (New York, The Analytic Press, 85. Drager, op. cit., p. 212. See also, Rose Spiegel, 1998). Gerard Chrzanowski, Arthur Feiner, „On Psycho- 107. Kurt R. Eissler, Medical Orthodoxy and the Fu- analysis in the Third Reich,“ Contemporary Psy- ture of Psychoanalysis (New York, International choanalysis, Vol. 11 (1975), pp. 477-510; Feiner, Universities Press, 1965). „Psychoanalysis During the Nazis,“ Journal of the 108. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 20 American Academy of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 13 (1939), p. 123. (1985), pp. 537-45; Rose Spiegel, „Survival, Psy- 109. Richard F. Sterba, Reminiscences of a Viennese choanalysis and the Third Reich,“ Journal of the Psychoanalyst (Detroit, Wayne State University American Academy of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 13 Press, 1982), pp. 157.

page 22 of 22 Roazen, P., 2001 The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA