Login
Aguayo, J. (2000). Patronage in the Dispute Over Child Analysis Between Melanie Klein and... Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 81:733-752.

Welcome to PEP Web!

Viewing the full text of this document requires a subscription to PEP Web.

If you are coming in from a university from a registered IP address or secure referral page you should not need to log in. Contact your university librarian in the event of problems.

If you have a personal subscription on your own account or through a Society or Institute please put your username and password in the box below. Any difficulties should be reported to your group administrator.

Username:
Password:

Can't remember your username and/or password? If you have forgotten your username and/or password please click here and log in to the PaDS database. Once there you need to fill in your email address (this must be the email address that PEP has on record for you) and click "Send." Your username and password will be sent to this email address within a few minutes. If this does not work for you please contact your group organizer.

Athens user? Login here.

Not already a subscriber? Order a subscription today.

(2000). International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 81:733-752

Patronage in the Dispute Over Child Analysis Between Melanie Klein and Anna Freud—1927-1932

Joseph Aguayo Author Information

The author investigates the role of patrons and advocates for Melanie Klein's clinical ideas at the British Psycho-Analytical Society against the backdrop of her theoretical and technical differences with Anna Freud from 1927 to 1932. He also outlines the development of Klein and Anna Freud's theories and techniques within the nascent discipline of child psychoanalysis. The London and Viennese patrons/advocates contributed to polarising what initially were clinical differences about how to analyse pre-latency and latency-age children and which technical processes might best facilitate successful treatment. While the author speculates that a diversity of motivations and agendas may have driven the London group's support for Klein—personal and politicised enthusiasm (Jones), genuine conviction (Riviere) and attempts at theoretical rapprochement between the London and Vienna schools (Glover)—he also argues that Freud's diagnosis with cancer in 1923 and suspicion of patricidal son-successors necessitated the choice of a female successor with unquestioning loyalty to his doctrines. From 1932, when Klein's clinical authority was established, her first group of English supporters began to splinter, as she went on to become a training analyst, mentor and patron in her own right to a succeeding generation of adherents who defended her views during the Controversial Discussions.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2013, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing. Help | About | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Problem

WARNING! This text is printed for the personal use of the subscriber to PEP Web and is copyright to the Journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to copy, distribute or circulate it in any form whatsoever.