Sincerity and Freedom in Psychoanalysis 1: Analysts, Scholars, Detectives and Patients: Who is who in the Clinical Diary?

Summary: Panel 1: Analysts, Scholars, Detectives and Patients: Who is who in the Clinical Diary?Sincerity and Freedom in Psychoanalysis: a studio conference inspired by Sándor Ferenczi's Clinical Diary18-20 October 2013Christopher Fortune - The Diary’s “RN”: Reflections of the Legacy Twenty years onB. William Brennan - Decoding Ferenczi’s Clinical Diary: Biographical Notes on Identities Concealed and RevealedEmanuel Berman - Ferenczi and his analysands: A virtual therapy groupFacilitators: Tom Keve and Judit SzekacsChristopher Fortune - The Diary’s “RN”: Reflections of the Legacy Twenty years onTwenty years ago, the first collection of papers on Ferenczi’s contributions was published as The Legacy of Sandor Ferenczi (Aron & Harris, 1993). One of the chapters in the book shed light on the background, life and work of “RN”, Ferenczi’s code-name in the Clinical Diary for his critical patient, Elizabeth Severn. The publication of the Diary had earlier revealed the profound importance of her case for Ferenczi’s developing ideas and practice. The chapter in the Legacy book titled: The Case of “RN”: Sandor Ferenczi’s Radical Experiment in Psychoanalysis (Fortune), presented biographical material and research, supporting and adding to, the rich clinical material already revealed in the Diary. Now, two decades later, RN has continued to secure her place as “one of the most important patients in the history of psychoanalysis.” In our first studio conference, I would like to revisit, reflect and bring forward new material and insights on the relationship between Sándor Ferenczi and Elizabeth Severn.B. William Brennan - Decoding Ferenczi’s Clinical Diary: Biographical Notes on Identities Concealed and RevealedIn The Clinical Diary of Sándor Ferenczi (1988) certain codes are used to refer to particular patients. The identity of some of these patients are known to us, notably, Dm (Clara Thompson) and RN (Elizabeth Severn), but the others have remained a mystery. We have the biographical data of many of Freud’s famous cases (the Wolf Man, Anna O, Little Hans etc) which contextualizes and enlarges our understanding. I propose a hypothesis of the code Ferenczi used to conceal his patient’s identities—revealing the identities and life stories. I will provide additional biographical notes to expand and contextualize our understanding of the lives of these patients—who were they? what kind of families did they came from? and what happened to them after their analysis? Included in their stories are tales of bobbed hair in the Amazon; ϋber wealth and aristocracy; parents who survived the Titantic; and FBI investigations for espionage. I will also address my own process in uncovering their identities and the ethics of writing about historical patients.Emanuel Berman - Ferenczi and his analysands: A virtual therapy groupFerenczi writes in the Clinical Diary, when dealing with the dilemmas of confidentiality in mutual analysis, of a “‘polygamous’ analysis, which roughly corresponds to the group analysis of American colleagues (even if it is not carried out in groups” (16 February, 1932; p. 34). In such a group there are no secrets among the participants. Although the setting of Ferenczi’s work in 1932 was of numerous individual analyses (some of them mutual), the process was actually also a group process. Many of the analysands knew each other and discussed their analyses with each other, making comparisons, competing with each other, reporting on one another, trying to influence Ferenczi in one direction or another, etc. This is clear from the text of the Diary, and becomes even clearer with the help of Brennan’s biographical explorations. I will demonstrate this emotional reality through several examples, and discuss its profound impact on some of the analyses described in the Diary. I will relate this situation to a common pattern in analytic training, when several candidates who know each other see the same analyst. In such situations we witness the emergence of “the reverse case conference” in which patients discuss their common analyst, often secretly. Such discussions never appear in print, but may have a strong and unacknowledged influence on the seemingly “individual” treatments.