Understanding dissidence and controversy in the history of psychoanalysis Martin S. Bergmann (Ed.). Understanding dissidence and controversy in the history of psychoanalysis. 2004  Other Press, New York.

At first glance, the idea of dissidence in science seems rather improbable, since it implies a political or ideological layer of a system of thought. However, this is an important issue in psychoanalysis, which was haunted by dissidence since its very inception and was denied the status of a science countless times. Understanding dissidence and controversy in the history of psychoanalysis, a volume edited by Martin S. Bergman, represents a rare effort at better understanding this aspect of psychoanalysis, and therefore deserves careful reading. The book is a result of conference held in New York in February 2003, with quite a unique stimulus: it was held on the day of Bergmann's 90^th birthday.

The book consists of three parts. The first one is Martin Bergmann's introductory essay, which reviews many instances of dissidence throughout the history of psychoanalysis and tries to provide explanations for its occurrence. The essay, with its 111 pages, is of monographic length and could stand as a separate publication. The reader can enjoy Bergmann's knowledgeable treatment of different psychoanalytic theories, his reminiscences of Wilhelm Reich, Karen Horney, and Erich Fromm, as well as his discussion of the spirit of psychoanalysis from the years following the World War II to the beginning of the new millennium. Furthermore, it is, as far as I know, unique in its attempt to cover the larger part of psychoanalytic history.

The major part of this essay consists of accounts, several pages each, of the most important psychoanalytic dissidents, ranging from the earliest ones— Adler, Jung, Rank, and Ferenczi—to the dissidence that occurred in the second part of the 20^th century. Bergmann claims that the dissidents who were Freud's contemporaries had a different character from those who appeared after his death. The former were personally close to Freud, usually gave significant contributions to classical psychoanalysis, then turned against Freud, and, in some cases, founded the