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.
From a historical point of view Jungian analysis does belong to the history of psychoanalysis, and so Christian Gaillard, Tom Kirsch and I were invited to this conference. That does not mean however that there is any real interest in Jungian analysis. There was a discussion - the only one along these lines that I had heard - about ‘defectors’ which I found remarkable: it was stated that within psychoanalysis thereis a tendency first to idealize outstanding colleagues and finally to condemn them, with no attention being given to what exactly they might have to offer; the person under discussion was Kohut. A demand was made that this process of idealization and denigration should cease; it was then reflected that this pernicious sidelining of defectors itself had a history, and Jung himself was finally mentioned.
I found the overview given by Kernberg of the developments in English- speaking analysis interesting: his unifying theme was that the three English groups, the ego-psychologists who follow Anna Freud, the adherents of Melanie Klein with their concepts of internal object relations, and the ‘Middle Group’ who are linked with the names of Balint and Winnicott, are moving ever closer together theoretically; this is partly due to the fact that other issues have become central, such as the question of memory which today plays an important part in relation to the neuro-sciences. It was suggested that rapprochement via the preservation of individual differences might be the direction for further development.
I was invited to give a short talk in the German-speaking programme as a member of a panel consisting of myself and three Freudian speakers, two men and a woman, on ‘Thedevelopment of clinical work in psychoanalysis’. There it became clear how very much of an ‘outsider’ I was; I was received in a friendly manner, but clearly not as a representative of the ‘true teaching’. The differentiation began withthe fact that I did not - as was clearly assumed - describe the