At the heart of psychoanalysis is a brilliant, though paradoxical, mystery built deep into the character of language and speech. Through the apparently unplanned exchange of communication and through dialogue, the internal mental landscape of at least one of the speakers shifts and reorders. Psychoanalysis depends on the mutative power of language and speech; it is “the talking therapy,” and thus its power and potential for healing relies on the instability of the distinction between words and action (Freud, 1904).

Much has been made of Sándor Ferenczi's fascination with technique, his involvement with clinical theory, and the phenomena in the consulting room. He is often considered as a practice-driven, as opposed to theory-driven, analyst (in contrast to Freud, so the stereotype goes).1 In this paper we argue that Ferenczi's clinical work is