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.
The year 1985 ought to be considered a major turning point in the history of psychoanalysis. On the one hand, it coincides with the apex of the increasing criticism towards the scientific status of psychoanalytic theory known as the “crisis of metapsychology”. The distinguished scholar Robert Holt declared: “At present, I think it is fair to say that metapsychology is virtually dead” (1:326). On the other hand, it was the year when the publication of the Clinical Diary, written five decades earlier by Sándor Ferenczi, finally became possible (2). This event was followed by the publication of an increasing number of articles, special issues of psychoanalytic journals, collective volumes and books, which were devoted to the reappraisal of Ferenczi's legacy and his latest work. As put by Aron & Harris, after having been dismissed and ostracised by mainstream psychoanalysis, Ferenczi has been acknowledged as “the prescient innovator of all modern trends” (3:1). This new atmosphere has been well captured by the title of one of the collective volumes dedicated to him, Ferenczi's Turn in Psychoanalysis, a title meant “to evoke both the radical innovations introduced by Ferenczi into psychoanalytic theory and practice and the renewed interest in his work that makes this his time” (4:3). Is there any connection between this Ferenczian effervescence and the fall of the classical metapsychology?
Ferenczi was very critical towards the theoretical development of psychoanalysis in the twenties, which was based on ego-psychology, and the analysis conducted from the ego-metapsychological standpoint, which he viewed as an intrusive teaching (5:98; 6:113). Indeed, Ferenczi wrote the Clinical Diary as a consequence of his disappointment with this pedagogical turn of psychoanalysis and as a testimony of his search for alternative psychoanalytic theory and practice. Its publication was continuously postponed because of its incompatibility with mainstream psychoanalysis. The point is that