You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
My interest in the paradoxical place of rescue fantasies in the vocational motivation and countertransference of analysts and therapists (1997), and in the way these fantasies can become a springboard for utopian wishes to rescue humanity (1993), has led me to contemplate the relevance of this topic for our understanding of Ferenczi's work and its impact today (; ).
The history of thinking about rescue fantasies teaches us something about the potential of professional and intellectual traditions to imagine themselves immune from the blind spots they observe in the outside world. When Freud (1910a) first discussed the phenomenon of the rescue fantasy, he attributed it to certain male patients whose emotional life centers around the rescue of “fallen women.” His interpretation was along oedipal lines: the woman is unconsciously seen as mother, and her rescue from sexual exploitation signifies having her for oneself, in defiance of the oedipal father.
Theodor Reik (1911), Wilhelm Stekel (1911), and other early analysts pursued this line of thought, supplying intriguing clinical and literary examples. Karl Abraham (1922) added fantasies of rescuing the father, and interpreted them as a reaction formation to murderous oedipal wishes. But none of these prominent authors appeared to realize that these rescue fantasies may be relevant to our own profession.
The roots of this insight, like the roots of our understanding of many other aspects of countertransference, appear in Ferenczi's work, though he did not utilize the term rescue fantasies directly in this context. In “On the Technique of Psychoanalysis,” Ferenczi described situations when “the doctor has unconsciously made himself his patient's patron or knight” (1919, 188). The context of this insight is important