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.
It is not Bernfeld's intention either to give an objective survey of bio-analysis—psycho-analysis applied to biology—or to criticise it, but to contribute to the revision of its fundamental principles. By this he means discussion of meaning, nature and scope of those analogies that are to be found in all bio-analytical papers.
In two examples from the literature he demonstrates two different kinds of analogies which play a part in bio-analysis. In the first instance it is the similarity between animals (i.e., bees in a paper by Broughton) and man on the basis of a man more or less undefined and physiognomical impression. In the second instance it is a common procedure to compare laws of various branches of science by means of abstract models of relations or structures. An example of the latter is Brun's investigation on ants. Bernfeld does not deny similarities found so frequently in organic nature, but gives reasons for his doubting the usefulness of the physiognomical method in science. In using this kind of analogies Ferenczi's bio-analysis is closely related to the German philosophy of nature from Herder to Fechner. In spite of all this one need not take bio-analysis as a romantic line of psycho-analysis as particularly Alexander has done; there are indications that it will find a place in modern theoretical biology. The latter does not, however, use physiognomical interpretations but models of structure. From the abundance of Ferenczi's ideas one is described in detail: the application of psycho-analytical knowledge to organs, to parts of organs, and to tissues. The investigation of the logic of thinking, by means of which Ferenczi arrived at his psycho-analysis of organs, shows that it is exclusively based on a physiognomical outlook. Ferenczi's contribution is therefore a physiognomy of organs. It is linked up with explanations of energetics, but Ferenczi's conception of energy is not clear and it is not identical with Freud's. It is based on a pe