‘Jung and Ferenczi - the emergent conversation’ Introduction

To study history one must know in advance that one is attempting something fundamentally impossible, yet necessary and highly important. To study history means submitting to chaos and nevertheless retaining faith in order and meaning.

The papers in this section were presented as a panel at the Second History of Analytical Psychology Symposium held at the Tiburon Lodge, north of San Francisco, California and co-sponsored by the C. G. Jung Institute of San Francisco and the Journal of Analytical Psychology. They offer an opportunity to begin an exploration of a sparsely studied area at the interface of the history of analytical psychology and psychoanalysis, i.e., a comparison of the theories, practices and personalities of C. G. Jung and Sandor Ferenczi along with the implications of this for contemporary analysis. Though their contact was limited, it was of historical importance. Jung introduced Ferenczi to Freud and apparently served as his first analyst in what would have been the very first training analysis (Falzeder 1994, pp. 171-2 & n.2). Over time their relationship was marred by hostility, for example when Ferenczi attacked Waldlungen und Symbole der Libido in a review at Freud's behest. Nevertheless, the two men shared a host of interests, from the psychology of mediums and anomalous phenomena to the analyst's use of his/her own personality, including various aspects of countertransference reactions, as a key element in analysis (in its most extreme form, their experiments in mutual analysis). These papers are particularly timely as both figures and their contributions have been marginalized traditionally and disregarded in the psychoanalytic literature, but recently Ferenczi's work has found revitalization through the relational school of psychoanalysis, while Jung's work still suffers minimization.

The growing recognition and valuing of the relational dimensions to the analytic process, together with the role of the analyst's su