Propriety of the Document Center. For personal use only. Citation or publication of material prohibited without express written permission of the copyright holder. Eigentum des Erich Fromm Dokumentationszentrums. Nutzung nur für persönliche Zwecke. Ver- öffentlichungen – auch von Teilen – bedürfen der schriftlichen Erlaubnis des Rechteinhabers.

Rudnytsky_P_L_2015

Freud, Ferenczi, Fromm: The Authoritarian Character as Magic Helper

Peter L. Rudnytsky

“Freud, Ferenczi, Fromm: The Authoritarian Character as Magic Helper,” first pub- lished in: Fromm Forum (English Edition – ISBN 1437-1189), 19 / 2015, Tuebin- gen (Selbstverlag), pp. 5-10. Copyright © 2015 by Professor Peter L. Rudnytsky, Ph.D., LCSW, 408 W. Uni- versity Ave., Suite 408, Gainesville, FL 32601/USA; E-Mail: plr[at-symbol]ufl.edu.

“The example of Ferenczi shows, however, that the Freudian attitude need not be that of all analysts.” (Erich Fromm, The Social Determinants of Psychoanalytic Therapy, 1935)

To contemporary students of Ferenczi Erich more apparent to us today than it was to Fromm is likely to be best known for having him. spearheaded the rebuttal to Ernest Jones’s Only one year after coming to the defense of (1957) preposterous accusation, in the third Ferenczi and Rank, Fromm published Sig- volume of his Freud biography, that both he mund Freud’s Mission (1959), a compact and Rank toward the end of their lives “de- classic of revisionist thinking in which he veloped psychotic manifestations that re- sought to provide an alternative to “the idol- vealed themselves in, among other ways, a izing and unanalytic approach of Jones’s bi- turning away from Freud and his doctrines” ography” (p. 20). Focusing on Freud’s rela- (p. 45). In his refutation on the basis of tes- tionship to his mother, Fromm argues that timony from an array of eyewitnesses, in- “dependency and insecurity are central ele- cluding Clara Thompson and Izette de For- ments in the structure of Freud’s character, est in the case of Ferenczi, Fromm (1958) and of his neurosis” (p. 23), a structure that went so far as to contend that Jones’s “‘re- manifested itself in his relationships with writing’ of history introduces into science a men by causing Freud to “repress the awa- method which we so far have been accus- reness of dependency” as long as his emo- tomed to find only in Stalinist ‘history,’” tional needs were being met and then to where those who deviate from officially “negate it completely when the friend failed sanctioned doctrines are condemned as in the complete fulfillment of the motherly ro- “‘traitors’ and ‘spies’ of capitalism” (p. 11). In le” (p. 43). As Fromm points out, it made lit- his rejoinder to Fromm, Jacob Arlow (1958) tle difference whether Freud was in the posi- asserted on behalf of orthodoxy not only that tion of pupil, equal, or mentor, since there is “in psychoanalysis there is no monolithic in all these relationships not only the “obvi- structure with a ‘party line,’” but also that ous and conscious dependence in which a Ferenczi’s technical innovations “went be- person is dependent on a father figure, a yond psychoanalytic concepts,” and indeed ‘magic helper,’ a superior, etc.,” but also “an he had no hesitation in proscribing them as unconscious dependence in which a domi- “not psychoanalysis” (p. 14). That Arlow en- nant person is dependent on those who are dorses Jones’s proscription of Ferenczi even dependent on him” (p. 52), as Freud was on while maintaining that psychoanalysis has no “party line” is an irony that is doubtless

page/Seite 1 of/von 7 Rudnytsky, P. L., 2015 Freud, Ferenczi, Fromm Propriety of the Erich Fromm Document Center. For personal use only. Citation or publication of material prohibited without express written permission of the copyright holder. Eigentum des Erich Fromm Dokumentationszentrums. Nutzung nur für persönliche Zwecke. Ver- öffentlichungen – auch von Teilen – bedürfen der schriftlichen Erlaubnis des Rechteinhabers.

his followers in the psychoanalytic move- freedom” and the retreat into “new depend- ment. encies and submission” faced by “modern man, freed from the bonds of pre- ’s Mission is another land- individualistic society” (p. viii) since the Ren- mark in Fromm’s championing of Ferenczi aissance. Although Fromm does not men- because, in his chapter “Freud’s Authoritari- tion Ferenczi, and his critique of Freud is anism,” Fromm singles out Freud’s relation- confined to a demonstration of why an ad- ship to Ferenczi as “the most drastic exam- herence to drive theory caused him to view ple of Freud’s intolerance and authoritarian- man as a “closed system” who is “primarily ism” (p. 68). Fromm cites a personal com- self-sufficient and only secondarily in need munication from de Forest relaying Fer- of others to satisfy his instinctual needs,” in- enczi’s account of his final visit to Freud in stead of understanding that “man is primarily Vienna, prior to the Wiesbaden Congress a social being,” so that “the needs and de- where he presented his now-classic paper sires that center about the individual’s rela- “Confusion of Tongues,” at the conclusion of tions to others, such as love, hatred, tender- which, in Ferenczi’s words, “I reached ness, symbiosis, are the fundamental psy-

chological phenomena” (pp. 317-18), Es- A shorter version of this paper was presented at cape from Freedom can nonetheless be a panel on trauma sponsored by the Committee read as an incisive commentary on the on Psychoanalysis and the University at the 49th Freud-Ferenczi relationship, in its personal Congress of the International Psychoanalytic As- as well as its theoretical dimensions. sociation, Boston, July 2015. As Lawrence Friedman (2013) recounts in out my hand in affectionate adieu,” but “the his biography, although Fromm had been a Professor turned his back on me and walked member of the Frankfurt Institute for Social out of the room” (p. 70). While acknowledg- Research since 1929, and “played a central ing that “the faithful worshipers of Freud,” role” (p. 46) in negotiating its relocation to such as Jones, “make it a point to deny any Columbia University in 1934, by the end of authoritarian tendency in Freud,” Fromm the decade his emphasis on the concept of counters that such denials exhibit a “psycho- social character led to a break with Max logical naïveté” because they fail to reckon Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, who con- with the fact that Freud was “kind and toler- tinued to adhere to Freud’s “biologically roo- ant” only “to people who idolized him and ted instinct theory” (p. 61), and Escape from never disagreed.” Precisely because he Freedom emerged from the inspiration and “was so dependent on unconditional affirma- solidarity Fromm derived increasingly from tion and agreement by others,” Fromm ela- the cultural and interpersonal visions of psy- borates, Freud could be “a loving father to choanalysis espoused by and submissive sons,” but when he encountered . A linchpin of the book any opposition, Freud became “a stern, au- is Fromm’s thesis that both sadism and ma- thoritarian one to those who dared to dis- sochism spring from “the inability to bear the agree” (p. 71). isolation and weakness of one’s own self,” That Fromm compares Jones’s questioning and thus have as their aim what he terms the sanity of psychoanalytic dissidents to a symbiosis, or “the union of one individual Stalinist approach to history becomes all the self with another self (or any other power more comprehensible when one recognizes outside of the own self) in such a way as to that both his indictment of Freud’s “authori- make each lose the integrity of the own self tarianism” and his use of the term “magic and to make them completely dependent on helper” draw on the conceptual framework each other” (p. 180). set forth by Fromm in his 1941 masterwork, As Fromm elaborates, such a “sado- Escape from Freedom, a profound analysis masochistic character” is not limited to those of the allure of fascism to so many middle- with sexual perversions but can be found in class Germans, which Fromm traces back to otherwise “normal” people, and might better the existential choice between “positive

page/Seite 2 of/von 7 Rudnytsky, P. L., 2015 Freud, Ferenczi, Fromm Propriety of the Erich Fromm Document Center. For personal use only. Citation or publication of material prohibited without express written permission of the copyright holder. Eigentum des Erich Fromm Dokumentationszentrums. Nutzung nur für persönliche Zwecke. Ver- öffentlichungen – auch von Teilen – bedürfen der schriftlichen Erlaubnis des Rechteinhabers.

be called “the ‘authoritarian character’” (p. the largest part of one’s own self, in order to 186). “Authority,” Fromm notes, “refers to an carry out the will of that higher power to the interpersonal relationship in which one per- end (as though it were my own)” (p. 212). son looks upon another as somebody supe- A further extended passage from Escape rior to him,” but whereas in rational versions from Freedom (1941) highlights the perti- of such relationships—between a teacher nence of Fromm’s ideas to grasping the per- and student, for example—the aim is to fos- versely “symbiotic” quality of the Freud- ter the development of the one in the subor- Ferenczi relationship: dinate position so that “the authority rela- tionship tends to dissolve itself” as the The intensity of the relatedness to the power differential diminishes over time and magic helper is in reverse proportion to the student “becomes more and more like the ability to express spontaneously the teacher himself,” in irrational or perverse one’s own intellectual, emotional, and versions of this structure—prototypically, be- sensuous potentialities. In other words, tween a master and slave—the “superiority one hopes to get everything one ex- serves as a basis for exploitation” so that the pects from life, from the magic helper, power differential is maintained, and indeed instead of by one’s own actions. The the distance between the two parties “be- more this is the case, the more the cen- comes intensified through its long duration” ter of life is shifted from one’s own per- (pp. 186-87). Fromm introduces the term son to the magic helper and his personi- “magic helper” to describe the largely un- fications. The question is then no longer conscious dependence exhibited by people how to live oneself, but how to manipu- on a source of power outside of themselves, late “him” in order not to lose him and the essential function of which is “to protect, how to make him do what one wants, help, and develop the individual, to be with even to make him responsible for what him and never leave him alone,” a function one is responsible oneself. (pp. 198-99) that can be attributed to someone who is then “endowed with magic qualities” (p. A crucial component of Fromm’s analysis is 197), whether that seemingly godlike other the ambivalence that is bound to arise in the be a political leader, a partner in a romantic subordinate member of a sado-masochistic relationship, or a psychoanalyst to a patient dyad. As he remarks, “this dependency, in the throes of transference. springing from and at the same time leading to a blockage of spontaneity, not only gives Fromm’s analysis of the authoritarian char- a certain amount of security but also results acter precisely captures the essential dy- in a feeling of weakness and bondage” (p. namics of Ferenczi’s relationship to Freud. 199). Because of the inhibition of his authen- Thus, when Fromm writes, “the reasons why tic being, “the very person who is dependent a person is bound to a magic helper are, in on the magic helper also feels, though often principle, the same that we have found at unconsciously, enslaved by ‘him’ and, to a the root of the symbiotic drives: an inability greater or lesser degree, rebels against to stand alone and to fully express his own ‘him,’ This rebelliousness against the very individual potentialities” (p. 198), this uncan- person on whom one has put one’s hopes nily echoes the final entry of Ferenczi’s Cli- for security and happiness,” Fromm contin- nical Diary (1985), where he confesses, “I ues, “creates new conflicts. It has to be sup- was brave (and productive) only as long as I pressed if one is not to lose ‘him,’ but the (unconsciously) relied for support on another underlying antagonism constantly threatens power, that is, I had never really become the security sought for in the relationship” (p. ‘grown up’” (p. 212). Because Ferenczi in- 109). Since “any actual person is bound to terprets his pernicious anemia as a punish- be disappointing” if burdened with the ex- ment for his attempt at emancipation from pectations of being the magic helper, the di- Freud, he feels he must face the bleak pros- senchantment that must ensue upon waking pect that “the only possibility for my contin- up from one’s dream augments “the resent- ued existence” lies in “the renunciation of ment resulting from one’s own enslavement

page/Seite 3 of/von 7 Rudnytsky, P. L., 2015 Freud, Ferenczi, Fromm Propriety of the Erich Fromm Document Center. For personal use only. Citation or publication of material prohibited without express written permission of the copyright holder. Eigentum des Erich Fromm Dokumentationszentrums. Nutzung nur für persönliche Zwecke. Ver- öffentlichungen – auch von Teilen – bedürfen der schriftlichen Erlaubnis des Rechteinhabers.

to that person,” and once again “leads to by taking them to “absurd” conclusions, continuous conflicts” (pp. 109-10). Thompson underscores what Ferenczi him- self had privately acknowledged in the Clini- Having been in analysis not only with Fer- cal Diary (1985) concerning his “total inhibi- enczi in Budapest but also with Fromm in tion about speaking in [Freud’s] presence New York, Clara Thompson was in a unique until he broached a subject, and then the position to draw on what she had learned burning desire to win his approval by show- from Fromm in pondering Ferenczi’s charac- ing I had understood him completely, and by ter. Thompson renders her verdict in “Fer- immediately going further in the direction he enczi’s Contributions to Psychoanalysis” had recommended,” all of which “reveals me (1944): to have been a blindly dependent son” (p. Despite Ferenczi’s obviously lovable 185). Beneath this feeling of being “dazzled qualities, he suffered during life from a and amazed,” however, there always lurked need to be accepted and loved. Be- a “hidden doubt” because “it was only adora- cause of this need, his personal rela- tion and not independent judgment that tionship to Freud was more important to made me follow him” (p. 185). Ferenczi, too, him than his own independent thinking. retrospectively deems Thalassa to be a text He was the type of man who is happy in that, despite its “many good points,” none- working for a strong person; Freud was theless “clings too closely to the words of that strong person in his life. (p. 73) the master,” a “new edition” of which “would mean complete rewriting” (p. 187). Although Without using the term “magic helper,” ultimately grounded in Ferenczi’s own self- Thompson makes it clear that Freud served understanding, Thompson’s analysis of the this psychological function for Ferenczi. She ambivalence stemming from the conflict be- continues: tween Ferenczi’s “struggle to be himself” Had Ferenczi had nothing original of his and his fear of “incurring the disapproval of own to contribute, the relationship might Freud” is directly indebted to Fromm’s expli- have been a completely satisfactory cation of the “blockage of spontaneity” that one; but his was an original mind, and, affords an intimidated individual a “certain beneath his devotion to Freud, there ra- amount of security,” while simultaneously ged a constant struggle to be himself. At exacting “a feeling of weakness and bond- the same time, he feared incurring the age,” and of the ensuing tug of war between disapproval of Freud. This made his atti- the impulses to submission and rebellion tude toward Freud definitely ambivalent; that is the hallmark of someone who sub- and this ambivalence can be seen, I be- jects himself to the irrational authority of an- lieve, in his writings. (p. 73) other person. Thompson specifies that many of Ferenczi’s Ferenczi’s entire career constitutes an en- papers “give one the impression of an ap- actment of his unconscious ambivalence to- peasing quality,” and that he evinced a ten- ward Freud. In his key paper, “Belief, Disbe- dency to be “more Freudian than Freud.” lief, and Conviction” (1913), for example, With great acuity, Thompson discerns that when Ferenczi describes how many of his Ferenczi’s ambivalence “manifested itself patients who “were not really convinced of despite all his efforts for he would often de- the correctness of the psychoanalytic expla- velop an idea of Freud’s to a fantastic de- nations, but had believed them blindly gree, thus, in the end, making the situation (dogmatically, as a matter of doctrine) ... absurd,” as he did in Thalassa, where Fer- successfully repressed all their suspicions enczi “traces the stages of libido develop- and objections only in order to keep secure ment to the Ice Age, thus making the whole the filial love they had transferred to the doc- idea pure fantasy” (p. 73). tor” (p. 438), he voices in displaced fashion his own “suspicions and objections” con- By calling attention to Ferenczi’s penchant cerning Freud. The same is true of “The for unconsciously parodying Freud’s ideas Symbolic Representation of the Pleasure

page/Seite 4 of/von 7 Rudnytsky, P. L., 2015 Freud, Ferenczi, Fromm Propriety of the Erich Fromm Document Center. For personal use only. Citation or publication of material prohibited without express written permission of the copyright holder. Eigentum des Erich Fromm Dokumentationszentrums. Nutzung nur für persönliche Zwecke. Ver- öffentlichungen – auch von Teilen – bedürfen der schriftlichen Erlaubnis des Rechteinhabers.

and Reality Principles in the Oedipus Myth” elective affinity with Winnicott. Although to (1912), in which Ferenczi interprets Scho- my knowledge Fromm never refers to Winni- penhauer’s reference to the Oedipus myth in cott, nor does Winnicott to Fromm, Fromm is a seemingly worshipful letter to Goethe as a crucial “missing link” in the tradition of In- showing the young philosopher’s “uncon- dependent psychoanalysis that runs from scious reaction against this—perhaps rather Ferenczi to Winnicott and beyond. Thus, extravagant—expression of gratitude” to- when Fromm traces the “root of the symbi- ward the sage of Weimar, “a reaction that al- otic drives” to a person’s “inability to stand lowed some display of the hostile tendencies alone and to fully express his individual po- that go to make up the fundamentally am- tentialities,” he not only looks back to Fer- bivalent feeling-attitude of a son towards his enczi but also looks ahead to Winnicott father” (p. 220). Even as Ferenczi seeks to (1965) and his studies of the interaction be- pay tribute to Freud and uphold the univer- tween “maturational processes and the fa- sality of the Oedipus complex, his commen- cilitating environment.” Like Winnicott, tary on the “hostile tendencies” that lurked Fromm (1941) traces what happens when beneath Schopenhauer’s professions of gra- “the parents, acting as the agents of society, titude toward Goethe again reflects his own start to suppress the child’s spontaneity and disavowed resentment toward Freud, al- independence” (p. 201), and he captures the though, as Ferenczi observes of Schopen- essence of Winnicott’s dichotomy between hauer, while writing this paper “he was him- creativity and compliance when he writes self dominated (…) by affects that would ha- that “every neurosis (...) is essentially an ve debarred this insight” (p. 219). No less adaptation to such early conditions (particu- ironic in light of subsequent events is Fer- larly those of early childhood) as are them- enczi’s role as the founder of the Interna- selves irrational and, generally speaking, un- tional Psychoanalytic Association; his pro- favorable to the growth and development of posal for the formation of the Secret Com- the child” (pp. 30-31). Winnicott’s antithesis mittee by “a small group of men” who would between creativity and compliance is itself be “thoroughly analyzed” by Freud, “so that an outgrowth of his core distinction between they could represent the pure theory unadul- the True Self and the False Self, and Fromm terated by personal complexes” again arrives at the same destination nearly (Paskauskas, 1993, p. 146); his insistence two decades earlier when he affirms: that “mutual analysis is nonsense,” while This substitution of pseudo acts for ori- Freud is the “only one who can permit him- ginal acts of thinking, feeling, and willing self to do without an analyst” and “right in leads eventually to the replacement of everything” (Brabant, Falzeder, and Giam- the original self by a pseudo self. The pieri-Deutsch, 1993, p. 449); and his leading original self is the self which is the origi- of the charge against the defections of both nator of mental activities. The pseudo Jung and Rank by authoring critical reviews self is only an agent who actually repre- of their dissident books. In all these in- sents the role a person is supposed to stances, we see Ferenczi having “success- play but who does so under the name of fully repressed all [his] suspicions and objec- the self. (p. 229) tions only in order to keep secure the filial love [he] had transferred” to Freud, though When it is recognized that Karen Horney in the end the straitjacket of orthodoxy he (1942) likewise postulates an antimony be- sought to impose on others succeeded only tween the “real self” and “phony self” (p. 22), in pinioning his own wings. then it becomes clear how close is the kin- ship between the “Middle Group” of British A review of Fromm’s contributions to the re- object relations theorists and the American habilitation of Ferenczi’s reputation also ser- “neo-Freudians,” and how both schools have ves to enhance our appreciation of his indis- carried forward Ferenczi’s psychoanalytic pensability to the history of psychoanalysis. legacy. Of greater consequence than his overt af- filiation with Horney and Sullivan is Fromm’s

page/Seite 5 of/von 7 Rudnytsky, P. L., 2015 Freud, Ferenczi, Fromm Propriety of the Erich Fromm Document Center. For personal use only. Citation or publication of material prohibited without express written permission of the copyright holder. Eigentum des Erich Fromm Dokumentationszentrums. Nutzung nur für persönliche Zwecke. Ver- öffentlichungen – auch von Teilen – bedürfen der schriftlichen Erlaubnis des Rechteinhabers.

During Fromm’s lifetime, the most serious bellwether of this shift is Daniel Shaw’s bril- damage to his reputation was inflicted by his liant book Traumatic Narcissism (2014), as erstwhile Frankfurt school colleague, Her- evidenced by Shaw’s delineation of how “the bert Marcuse, in a polemical exchange in traumatizing narcissist recruits others (...) in- the pages of Dissent, the centerpiece of to a relationship that seductively offers the which Marcuse included as the epilogue to promise of the bestowal of special gifts”—as (1955). Although Mar- Freud did with his followers—only soon to cuse was widely perceived as having gotten “find cause to accuse the other of insufficient the best of it, a rereading of his “Critique of concern and of selfishness” (p. 13). As we Neo-Freudian Revisionism” shows it to be a have seen, a key point in Fromm’s analysis surprisingly lame effort. Like Adorno and of the authoritarian character is that the Horkheimer decades earlier, Marcuse sta- “dominant person is dependent on those ked everything on Freud’s instinct theory, who are dependent on him,” only the de- claiming absurdly that because of Freud’s pendency needs of the oppressors in such emphasis on early infancy “the decisive rela- symbiotic bonds must remain unconscious tions are thus those which are least inter- because, in Shaw’s words, “they have lear- personal” (p. 231). Indeed, according to ned to defend against their history of being Marcuse, only Freud’s “hypothesis of the shamed and subjugated by putting others in death instinct,” and not any environmental or the situation they were in—by becoming the social factors, can explain “the hidden un- shamer and the subjugator” (p. 138). To bor- conscious tie which binds the oppressed to row Shaw’s terminology, and meld it with their oppressors” (p. 247). In a further reflec- that of Bernard Brandchaft (Brandchaft, tion of the prevailing Zeitgeist, Lionel Trilling, Doctors, Sorter, 2010), who has contributed too, hailed “the idea of the reality principle no less signally from a self psychological and the idea of the death instinct” as forming and intersubjective perspective to our un- “the crown of Freud’s broader speculation derstanding of “relational systems of subju- on the life of man” (1940, p. 53), and he cas- gation,” whereas Freud played the part of tigated “the tendency of our educated liberal the traumatizing narcissist in his relationship classes to reject the tough, complex psy- with Ferenczi, Ferenczi exhibited the defor- chology of Freud for the easy rationalistic mations resulting from his attempts at patho- optimism of Horney and Fromm” (1946, p. logical accommodation, though in the end 95). he sought to cast off the shackles of Freud’s authoritarianism and to promulgate a truly In a letter to Martin Jay, the historian of the emancipatory psychoanalysis. Frankfurt School, Fromm commented, “my whole theoretical work is based on what I If, in the memorable pronouncement of Mi- consider Freud’s most important findings, chael Balint (1968), “the historic event of the with the exception of his metapsychological disagreement between Freud and Ferenczi findings,” which is “the reverse of Marcuse’s acted as a trauma on the psychoanalytic position, who bases his thinking entirely on world” (p. 152), I hope to have shown that Freud’s metapsychology, and ignores com- Erich Fromm, in addition to being Ferenczi’s pletely his clinical findings, that is to say, the stalwart champion, has with his concepts of unconscious, character, resistance, etc.” the authoritarian character and the magic (qtd. in Roazen, 2001, p. 36). The passage helper given us invaluable scalpels with of time has vindicated Fromm in his debate which to dissect both the psychic roots and with Marcuse. Freud’s assumption that in- interpersonal dynamics of this immensely fants exist in a cocoon of primary narcissism generative but ultimately tragic encounter. has been discredited by empirical research- But it must not be forgotten that Fromm was ers, and it would be difficult today to find an not only the analyst but the victim of trauma, analyst who is influenced by Marcuse. having by 1953 been stripped of the “Nan- Fromm, by contrast, after decades of mar- sen” or direct membership in the Interna- ginalization, is increasingly gaining recogni- tional Psychoanalytic Association that tion as a seminal psychoanalytic thinker. A Ernest Jones had bestowed on him in 1936

page/Seite 6 of/von 7 Rudnytsky, P. L., 2015 Freud, Ferenczi, Fromm Propriety of the Erich Fromm Document Center. For personal use only. Citation or publication of material prohibited without express written permission of the copyright holder. Eigentum des Erich Fromm Dokumentationszentrums. Nutzung nur für persönliche Zwecke. Ver- öffentlichungen – auch von Teilen – bedürfen der schriftlichen Erlaubnis des Rechteinhabers.

as an émigré in New York (Roazen, 2001). Friedman, L. (2013). The Lives of Erich Fromm. Having himself been purged from the New York: Columbia University Press. “party,” Fromm knew whereof he spoke Fromm, E. (1935). The Social Determinants of when he took Jones to task for the “Stalin- Psychoanalytic Therapy. Trans. E. Falzeder with C. Schwarzacher. Int. Forum Psycho- ism” in his account of the fates of Ferenczi anal., 9(2000):149-65. and Rank in his biography of Freud. Now Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from Freedom. New that Ferenczi, if not Rank, has at last been York: Avon Books, 1969. accorded his full measure of recognition by Fromm, E. (1958). Freud, friends, and feuds. 1. posterity, let us hope that in 2015—this Scientism or fanaticism? The Saturday Re- landmark year in which the William Alanson view, June 14, pp. 11-13 & 55. White Institute, cofounded by Fromm in Fromm, E. (1959). Sigmund Freud’s Mission: An 1946, has become a component of the Analysis of His Personality and Influence. American, and thereby also of the Interna- New York: Grove Press, 1963. Horney, K. (1942). Self-Analysis. New York: Nor- tional Psychoanalytic Association—Fromm ton, 1970. may in his turn undergo a similar rehabilita- Jones, E. (1957). The Life and Work of Sigmund tion. Freud: Vol. 3, The Last Phase, 1919—1939. New York: Basic Books. References Marcuse, H. (1955). Eros and Civilization: A Phi- losophical Inquiry into Freud. New York: Arlow, J. A. (1958). Freud, friends, and feuds. 2. Vintage, 1961. Truth or motivations? Toward a definition of Paskauskas, A., ed. (1993). The Complete Cor- psychoanalysis. The Saturday Review, Ju- respondence of Sigmund Freud and Ernest ne 14, pp. 14 and 54. Jones, 1908-1939. Cambridge, MA: Har- Balint, M. (1968). The Basic Fault: Therapeutic vard University Press. Aspects of Regression. New York: Brun- Roazen, P. (2001). The Exclusion of Erich ner/Mazel, 1979. Fromm from the IPA. Contemp. Psycho- Brabant, E., Falzeder, E., and Giampieri-Deutsch, anal., 37:5-42. P., eds. (1993). The Correspondence of Shaw, D. (2014). Traumatic Narcissism: Rela- Sigmund Freud and Sándor Ferenczi. Vol. tional Systems of Subjugation. New York: 1, 1908-1914. Trans. P. T. Hoffer. Cam- Routledge. bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thompson, C. (1944). Ferenczi’s Contributions to Brandchaft, B., Doctors, S., and Sorter, D. Psychoanalysis. In Interpersonal Psycho- (2010). Toward an Emancipatory Psycho- analysis: The Selected Papers of Clara M. analysis: Brandchaft’s Intersubjective Vi- Thompson. Ed. M. R. Green. New York: sion. New York: Routledge. Basic Books, 1964, pp. 72-82. Ferenczi, S. (1912). The Symbolic Representa- Trilling, L. (1940). Freud and Literature. In Trilling tion of the Pleasure and Reality Principles in 1950, pp. 32-54. the Oedipus Myth. In Sex in Psycho- Trilling, L. (1946). The Function of the Little Ma- Analysis. Trans. E, Jones. New York: Do- gazine. In Trilling 1950, pp. 89-99. ver, 1956, pp. 214-27. Trilling, L. (1950). The Liberal Imagination: Es- Ferenczi, S. (1913). Belief, Disbelief, and Convic- says on Literature and Society. Garden Ci- tion. In Further Contributions to the Theory ty, NY: Anchor Books, 1953. and Technique of Psycho-Analysis. Ed. J. Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The Maturational Proc- Rickman. Trans. J. I. Suttie et al. New York: esses and the Facilitating Environment: Brunner/Mazel, 1980, pp. 437-50. Studies in the Theory of Emotional Devel- Ferenczi, S. (1985). The Clinical Diary of Sándor opment. New York: International Universi- Ferenczi. Ed. J. Dupont. Trans. M. Balint ties Press, 1966. and N. Z. Jackson. Cambridge, MA: Har- vard University Press, 1988.

page/Seite 7 of/von 7 Rudnytsky, P. L., 2015 Freud, Ferenczi, Fromm