Meeting of the Psychoanalytic Association of New York

DISCUSSION: Dr. Stuart Feder offered the opinion that Professor Smith's report was charmingly written but was "pre-analytic," in that it organized only what was well known and did not add to the audience's understanding. He found it difficult to locate the author's position either intellectually or methodologically. Stokowski's mental life remains unknown because of the absence of reliable data in the form of an artist's associations or derivatives (e.g., a painting or a work of literature). While this is understandable, given the nature of Stokowski and of the art of conducting, it nevertheless contributed to the limitations of Professor Smith's presentation, as did the third-party reports. Dr. Feder noted that the literature on the family romance is surprisingly small. If, however, one would single out a common factor in the literature, it would be in regard to the artist's narcissism. With this in mind, Dr. Feder turned his attention to the Maestro. He saw little evidence of guilt as a motivating factor in the elaboration of Stokowski's grandiose fantasies. Shame and embarrassment were much more likely involved. Regretting the lack of data about Stokowski's parents and a sister who died, Dr. Feder raised the question of parental contributions to the family romance, particularly with one who as a child was so extraordinarily gifted. Such exceptional abilities impose a burden on the development of a child, especially with regard to the laudatory responses of the external world as they contribute to mental representations. Dr. Jules Glenn felt that Professor Smith successfully attempted to understand Stokowski's fabrications through the concept of the family romance, but that he failed to explain why the great conductor did not, as do most people, hide the fantasy more effectively. Referring to the various permutations of the family romance outlined originally, Dr. Glenn noted adaptive and defensive functions in addition to the erotic and ambitious one