Too Rankian for the Freudians, or too Freudian for the Rankians: Otto Rank's Contributions to Psychoanalysis in the 1920s

Rank's critical, but fruitful discussion of Freudian psychoanalysis covers the period from about 1924 until 1927, and can be called Rank's “anni mirabiles” (Rudnytsky, 1991, p. 47). It is precisely these years in Rank's life that have been most neglected in scientific discussions about his work (cf. Rudnytsky, 1991, pp. xiii, 47). In my opinion, one explanation for this may well be that at that time Rank's work was too Rankian for the Freudians, and too Freudian for the (later) Rankians. At that time, Rank still defined himself as an analyst and regarded his new concepts as a further development of psychoanalytic theory and practice. This was when he developed ideas that came later on to dominate psychoanalysis — though couched in a different terminology. Although there has been a growing literature on Otto Rank and his role in psychoanalysis (e.g., Kramer, 1995a, 1995b; Lieberman, 1985; Menaker, 1982; Rudnytsky, 1991; Taft, 1958), this role has not yet been assessed in systematic detail. Kramer, Lieberman, and Rudnytsky in particular show Rank's influence on certain authors and areas of research (e.g., object relations. theory); a comprehensive study of Rank's impact on contemporary psychoanalysis is, however, still missing. Moreover, some crucial works of Rank have never been translated into English, and a wealth of pivotal unpublished material has only very recently become accessible to researchers. Rudnytsky rightly claims that Rank is “the unacknowledged precursor of contemporary object relations theory” (Rudnytsky, 1991, p. 48); the present article wants to prove this in detail, in drawing on and assessing the above-mentioned