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.
In recent years the concept of “infantile neurosis” has slowly been displaced from its central position in psychoanalytic thinking. In some cases, as in Melanie Klein's formulations, it has disappeared altogether; if it is referred to at all, the infantile neurosis is considered to be a defensive structure. I believe that the concept should remain a central one in “psychoanalytic psychology.”
Some of the reasons for this gradual displacement were discussed at a special meeting devoted to “Problems of Infantile Neurosis” (see Kris et al., 1954). On this occasion Hartmann stated his belief “that most of what Freud said about infantile neurosis long ago remains true today” (p. 32). However, he added: “It is actually not so easy to say what we call an infantile neurosis” (p. 33). He reminded us that when Freud first approached this problem, he found that what he regarded a neurosis was frequently taken to be naughtiness and bad upbringing by teachers and parents. Hartmann pointed to the swing in the opposite direction today when “every naughtiness, actually every behavior of the child that does not conform to the textbook model, every developmental step that is not according to plan, is considered as ‘neurotic’” (p. 33). He considered the implications of such a swing, answering in the following way: “It means that the broad range of normal