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.
In contrast to the management of erotic boundaries, the institutional and clinical management of transactions across narcissistic boundaries can have far-reaching implications for how and in what ways power is wielded within our organizations. This is especially true in regard to analysts who are, or are perceived to be, in leadership positions within their psychoanalytic groups, organizations, and institutes. This paper illustrates some of the difficulties in the management of narcissistic boundaries by exploring Freud's narcissistic investment in defining the field of psychoanalysis and determining the directions of its development, his attitudes towards dissent – for example, Jung, Adler, Ferenczi, etc. – and his clinical behavior with certain analysands. The institutional consequences of Freud's failure to successfully negotiate narcissistic boundaries – and our reluctance to recognize this aspect of his leadership – have become intertwined with defenses against the epistemic anxiety that follows from the inevitably subjective nature of the analytic enterprise. Together, they have tended toward the creation of a culture of rigidity and control within organized psychoanalysis. This is a legacy – the sins of our fathers – with which our field continues to struggle.