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.
This book is a collection of papers and reviews by Michael Fordham, affectionately collected together by Roger Hobdell. Sadly, Michael Fordham died on 14 April this year, shortly after its publication.
Its title makes you think, not only about internal fences, but about the perimeter of the field as well: how inward our field may be, for instance. How does it relate to the neighbouring fields of neuropsychology and philosophy, or Artificial Intelligence, which pay analysts scant regard? What have we contributed to those fields? How high are fences that separate us from them? Within our field, as Fordham shows, there is enormous continuity of ideas between those mentioned in the title — Freud, Klein and Jung. Yet there are also profound divisions theoretically, not only between Klein and Fordham following Jung, which inhere in Klein's subscription to instinct theory in general and her insistence on the death instinct in particular, but also within psychoanalysis and analytical psychology.
There are the political barriers, both within and between the various analytical and psychotherapy institutions, and though the quality of grass may be fairly uniform, and there be no actual fences, there are certainly ghettos within the field, more or less in-turned, more or less visited by or welcoming to outsiders. Fordham describes in various of the papers collected in this book, how it became apparent to him that Klein's concept of innate unconscious fantasy had obvious kinship to a Jung concept of archetype and was an important bridge in forming a model for applying Jung's psychology to child analysis and in suggesting a genetic or developmental dimension hitherto lacking in Jung's thought. He acknowledges many more examples of such enrichment by psychoanalysts. But, as he suggests in his ‘Comment on Clifford Scott's paper, “Common problems concerning the views of Freud and Jung’” (p. 211), the traffic has been largely one-way, there being few psychoanalytic visitors to the Jung