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 true that whenever a crisis broke out Freud invariably showed himself what he really was, a truly great man, who was always accessible and tolerant to new ideas, who was always willing to stop, think anew, even if it meant re-examining even his most basic concepts, in order to find a possibility for understanding what might be valuable in any new idea. It has never been asked whether something in Freud has or has not contributed to a critical increase of tension during the period preceeding a crisis. Still less has any analyst bothered to find out what happened in the minds of those who came into conflict with Freud and what in their relationship to him and to psychoanalysis led to the exacerbation. We have been content to describe them as the villains of the piece (…) Maybe Rank's case is less suitable for this examination but I am quite certain in Ferenczi's case one could follow the development which, prompted by the characters of the two protagonists, led to the tragic conflict (…)”, Brief von Michael Balint an Ernest Jones, 31. 5. 571.
Die Psychoanalyse tut sich mit der Beziehung zwischen Freud und Ferenczi bis auf den heutigen Tag schwer. Das ist einerseits verständlich, weil diese selbst sich schwer taten, in wichtigen theoretischen und praktischen Fragen zu einer Verständigung zu kommen - z. B. in Fragen nach der Natur des Traumas, der Beziehung zwischen innerer und äußerer Realität, nach Gewähren und Versagen von Befriedigungen in der Therapie, Übertragung und Gegenübertragung, dem Wesen der infantilen Sexualität; andererseits hat der Widerstand, diese Beziehung und diese Fragen unvoreingenommen zu untersuchen, die Weiterentwicklung von