On Presenting One' Case: Embraced Trauma And The Dialogue Between Analysts

When the issue of a paper for the Ferenczi conference came up, I knew that I would set my mind on presentation, trauma, and dialogue—so I had no problem with the name of my paper. I even had some thoughts about the “what,” but I had only a vague idea about the “how.” I just knew that Ferenczi-wise the “how” is very important, and I had a feeling that it would be difficult; I did not know “how” difficult. So I put it aside, letting it ferment somewhere inside me, and worked on another paper, a review essay of the Freud-Ferenczi correspondence. I enjoyed writing about the correspondence very much; I wrote it in a form of a conversation between me and the reader, observing-reading-reacting to the Freud-Ferenczi dialogue. It was “the longed-for difficult presence of the other” that was in the heart of reading the correspondence, the guideline for writing the correspondence essay, and the implicit essential issue of the as-not-written-yet conference paper.

For all that was involved in it, my initial feeling came true: I did have a difficult time writing that conference paper (which is another important substory), but I didn't realize how complicated it was until I discovered—at the conference morning panel, about two hours before I had to talk—that I did not have the paper with me.

What follows is my talk, and some afterthoughts. Taking “it” from its being “a talk” within the immediate presence of dialogued-others