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.
Little Hans (Freud, 1909) was not then nor can it be considered today as an account of a child analysis, at least not from the viewpoint of technique. It is nevertheless a landmark, allowing us to say that child psychoanalysis is one hundred years old. It is therefore felicitous that the planners of the Oral History Workshop (OHW) proximal to the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA) and International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA) Centennials have chosen to explore the two main traditions of child psychoanalysis, the Anna Freudian and the Kleinian.1 In looking at selected aspects of the Anna Freudian tradition, I hope to demonstrate that child psychoanalysis has matured but still needs to be nurtured and developed. Its beginnings are complex, fluid, and developed originally in different loci: Vienna, Budapest, Berlin, Prague, London, and later the American Diaspora. The problems of method in treating children analytically emerged as soon as analysis was attempted.
After reconstructing the oedipal child in the analyses of adults, Sigmund Freud hoped to corroborate his reconstruction by observing the direct application of psychoanalytic conceptions to the treatment of young children, and he encouraged colleagues and students to do so. The observations of Little Hans by his father yielded a “positive confirmation.” Freud recognized, however, the drawbacks of having the father conduct the treatment: “It was only because the authority of a father and of a physician were united in a single person, and because in him both affectionate care and scientific interest were combined, that it was