Thanks for this! From what you are saying of Ferenczi, he sounds like the pioneer of trauma theory. And what a bravery to stand against Freud's fantasy theory which many contemporary feminist theorists see as an unfortunate twist Freudian theory took at the time leading to covering up child sexual abuse cases in Freud's time. I wonder how Freud reacted to the Ferenczi's challenge at the time. I wonder if his view on the aggressor trying to save the child is linked to his fear of negative criticism he might be getting from the psychoanalytic circles and the society at the time regarding his specific views in this article. I had read some views claiming that Freud had to back down on his view of incest as a real experience commonly experienced by children in Viennese society and turn it into a incestuous fantasy model due to his fear of backlash from upper class Viennese society. Another comment about your view that kids today are able to experience better childhoods compared to our forefathers. In Freud's time, kids were seen as miniature adults, even dressed as miniature adults with no recognition for their infantile subjectivities. The same was true on this side of the globe. I have recently met an elderly man who told me that he did not have one single toy to play with when he was growing up. I was saddened to think of a young boy with no toy to play which means no recognition for his childhood. I thought of all the emptiness this must have created in him. It is comforting to see that at least now there is a recognition for childhood.
Thank you for your comment. Ferenczi was indeed one of the very first analysts to tackle the external trauma. Ifmy understanding is correct Freud was quite unhappy about Ferenczi's paper as it 'undermined' his fantasy model. I think it after this paper that Ferenczi was sided lined by Freud ( and attacked by Jones). I think he would have been fully excluded of psychoanalytic circles if he wasn't ill and dying from a pernicious anemia. I agree that Ferenczi view on the aggressor is perhaps a way to 'soften' the blow but I also think that he would have seen the abusers as victims as well. In regards to Freud an the question of Trauma I made a video explaining this topic : ruclips.net/video/ffZORzJk3R4/видео.htmlsi=ko1LcP73BLZ-LO3a Sorry for the self promotion. Also I do agree that Freud backed out of his Neurotica for many reasons and one of them might have been the dread of realising that incest was more common even in bourgeois and upper class families. In regards to children we are more humane with them and the old man's story is heart breaking thankfully we have changed on this point. Thanks again and have a great day!
Hello! Great talk, thank you. Do you have any advice on where to begin learning more about psychoanalytic ideas? I've been seeing a psychodynamic therapist myself for about two years, once a week but I find myself very curious about psychoanalysis in general and the ideas. I work in mental health here in the UK but sadly there's hardly any doctoral clinical psychology programmes that have a strong focus on psychoanalysis. There are a few but nowhere near me. I'm not ready to do a doctorate or anything of the kind but it would be nice to begin learning about psychoanalysis, even if casually. Any introductory texts or information you'd recommend I check out? Sorry for over explaining!
@@CH-yk2bg Yes absolutely I can recommend : A clinical introduction to Freud by Bruce Fink. This is for a general introduction but if you want more specific topics please feel free to ask. Thank you for your engagement and it is great to see a fellow mental health professional interested in psychoanalysis!
For psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy as a whole: Freud and Beyond by Stephen A. Mitchell and Margaret J Black, Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalytic Therapies by Jeremy D Safran and Jennifer Hunter and I found that two more books helped my understanding on particular topics: the The Klein-Winnicott Dialectic: Transformative New Metapsychology and Interactive Clinical Theory by Susan Kavaler-Adler, and Psychoanalyis and Buddhism: an Unfolding Dialogue edited by Jeremy D Safran (this is niche but very informative)
I was wondering what if the abusive adult, because of their own childhood trauma, has a very weak and fragmented ego. Is it possible that they have no awareness of their abusiveness? Seeing it say through projective identification as located in someone else. Then when the abusive situations with the child arise, the abuser cannot recognise this disowned part of themselves and reframes the incidents as them being a victim of an abusive child? With all the poor contact with reality that this implies. Like how a borderline personality in the midst of a rage will only see their disowned aggression in the other person.
@@curieux1789 it very certainly possible yes I have observed in my clinical experience often there is a split in their personality and they might be unable to reunite the different parts. And this split extends to after the events. Thanks again for your engagement and interesting questions!
Do you think that in these cases, as in so many where there is severe psychopathology, that it's the shear extent of the person's inner world/fantasy life that contributes to the pathology in relating?
@@curieux1789 yes I do believe it to be the case that these abusive people have themselves being the victims of abuse. Trauma that has come to define their inner world ( ex: it's dog eat dog, kill or be killed...) but it has also become inaccessible in many ways perhaps to 'safe guard' the fragile self from breaking down completely. However this inner world still exerts effects and prevents them from relating to others as 'whole objects' ie as other people/humans. Instead they project on others their inner world and bad objects. Hope I was claire in my explanation any have a great day!
Really interesting. Yes, I agree that where there has been a traumatizing parent, so much of the persons ego is impoverished through projection or indeed projective indentification. Does this result in a somewhat unconscious person who can't differentiate between what's internal and external? Sadly, I think the child of such a person may become the bad object and the abuse - in this warping of reality by inner fantasy - becomes some sort of defensive reaction. I can remember a case in the news here, some years ago where a couple were found guilty of gross abusiveness. The thing that struck me was the female guardian was crying tears of what seemed like shock... as if she'd only just realised what she'd been doing.
@@curieux1789 yes the child becomes both a representation of vulnerability in the adult and the child they used to be. In regards reality test these people might lose it during acute emotional experiences. Thus inner and external world merge. And to cope with that split and dissociated themselves. The case you gave isn't rare as the justice system forces those split parts to reunite and often creates a breakdown in these people has there mental system isn't equipped to handle the reunification of the splitting.
It’s interesting though he choose to forgoes the accountability of the aggressor. Maybe his thinking was still very much caught up in the “drives” that Freud followed so vociferously? Another really interesting and fab review. Thank you 🙏
Hi thanks for your comments so quick answers: As a clinical psychologist I can't really answer the neurological underpinnings of this theory. But it has a lot of clinical merit and explaining power. It could be the shutting down of shame but I would go a step further and say it is the child's tentative to cleanse the abuser of their 'badness' and make them all good by 'absorbing' the bad. Thus they become bad and unconsciously hope to be save by the 'cleanse' aggressor. And finally I think your explanation for why Ferenczi didn't insist on the accountability of the abusers is quite interesting and maybe one of the major reasons. I also personally believe that he saw these aggressors as victims as well ( which isn't technically wrong but is only a partial understanding). Thanks again and have a great day!
@@talkingpsychology yes the opposing forces again, making the child not only identify, but take responsibility for & then placing “hope” within the child, now they’ve taken on the projective identification? Thank you for your answer. That made so much sense!
Yes indeed the child take the projective identification of the aggressor and it unfortunately becames part of their identity. Thanks again and have a great day!
Bravo! Love your content, thank you
Thanks!
Thanks for this! From what you are saying of Ferenczi, he sounds like the pioneer of trauma theory. And what a bravery to stand against Freud's fantasy theory which many contemporary feminist theorists see as an unfortunate twist Freudian theory took at the time leading to covering up child sexual abuse cases in Freud's time. I wonder how Freud reacted to the Ferenczi's challenge at the time. I wonder if his view on the aggressor trying to save the child is linked to his fear of negative criticism he might be getting from the psychoanalytic circles and the society at the time regarding his specific views in this article. I had read some views claiming that Freud had to back down on his view of incest as a real experience commonly experienced by children in Viennese society and turn it into a incestuous fantasy model due to his fear of backlash from upper class Viennese society.
Another comment about your view that kids today are able to experience better childhoods compared to our forefathers. In Freud's time, kids were seen as miniature adults, even dressed as miniature adults with no recognition for their infantile subjectivities. The same was true on this side of the globe. I have recently met an elderly man who told me that he did not have one single toy to play with when he was growing up. I was saddened to think of a young boy with no toy to play which means no recognition for his childhood. I thought of all the emptiness this must have created in him. It is comforting to see that at least now there is a recognition for childhood.
Thank you for your comment. Ferenczi was indeed one of the very first analysts to tackle the external trauma. Ifmy understanding is correct Freud was quite unhappy about Ferenczi's paper as it 'undermined' his fantasy model. I think it after this paper that Ferenczi was sided lined by Freud ( and attacked by Jones). I think he would have been fully excluded of psychoanalytic circles if he wasn't ill and dying from a pernicious anemia. I agree that Ferenczi view on the aggressor is perhaps a way to 'soften' the blow but I also think that he would have seen the abusers as victims as well.
In regards to Freud an the question of Trauma I made a video explaining this topic : ruclips.net/video/ffZORzJk3R4/видео.htmlsi=ko1LcP73BLZ-LO3a
Sorry for the self promotion.
Also I do agree that Freud backed out of his Neurotica for many reasons and one of them might have been the dread of realising that incest was more common even in bourgeois and upper class families.
In regards to children we are more humane with them and the old man's story is heart breaking thankfully we have changed on this point.
Thanks again and have a great day!
Hello! Great talk, thank you. Do you have any advice on where to begin learning more about psychoanalytic ideas? I've been seeing a psychodynamic therapist myself for about two years, once a week but I find myself very curious about psychoanalysis in general and the ideas. I work in mental health here in the UK but sadly there's hardly any doctoral clinical psychology programmes that have a strong focus on psychoanalysis. There are a few but nowhere near me. I'm not ready to do a doctorate or anything of the kind but it would be nice to begin learning about psychoanalysis, even if casually. Any introductory texts or information you'd recommend I check out? Sorry for over explaining!
@@CH-yk2bg Yes absolutely I can recommend : A clinical introduction to Freud by Bruce Fink. This is for a general introduction but if you want more specific topics please feel free to ask.
Thank you for your engagement and it is great to see a fellow mental health professional interested in psychoanalysis!
For psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy as a whole: Freud and Beyond by Stephen A. Mitchell and Margaret J Black, Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalytic Therapies by Jeremy D Safran and Jennifer Hunter
and I found that two more books helped my understanding on particular topics: the The Klein-Winnicott Dialectic: Transformative New Metapsychology and Interactive Clinical Theory by Susan Kavaler-Adler, and Psychoanalyis and Buddhism: an Unfolding Dialogue edited by Jeremy D Safran (this is niche but very informative)
Thank you for your answer and recommendations!
@@talkingpsychology thanks so much for this recommendation ❤️ sorry I take forever to reply
@@Kingofcrocs1 awesome!! I will check these out too!! Thank you Kingofcrocs (am loving the name 😂)
I was wondering what if the abusive adult, because of their own childhood trauma, has a very weak and fragmented ego. Is it possible that they have no awareness of their abusiveness? Seeing it say through projective identification as located in someone else. Then when the abusive situations with the child arise, the abuser cannot recognise this disowned part of themselves and reframes the incidents as them being a victim of an abusive child? With all the poor contact with reality that this implies. Like how a borderline personality in the midst of a rage will only see their disowned aggression in the other person.
@@curieux1789 it very certainly possible yes I have observed in my clinical experience often there is a split in their personality and they might be unable to reunite the different parts. And this split extends to after the events. Thanks again for your engagement and interesting questions!
Do you think that in these cases, as in so many where there is severe psychopathology, that it's the shear extent of the person's inner world/fantasy life that contributes to the pathology in relating?
@@curieux1789 yes I do believe it to be the case that these abusive people have themselves being the victims of abuse. Trauma that has come to define their inner world ( ex: it's dog eat dog, kill or be killed...) but it has also become inaccessible in many ways perhaps to 'safe guard' the fragile self from breaking down completely. However this inner world still exerts effects and prevents them from relating to others as 'whole objects' ie as other people/humans. Instead they project on others their inner world and bad objects. Hope I was claire in my explanation any have a great day!
Really interesting. Yes, I agree that where there has been a traumatizing parent, so much of the persons ego is impoverished through projection or indeed projective indentification. Does this result in a somewhat unconscious person who can't differentiate between what's internal and external? Sadly, I think the child of such a person may become the bad object and the abuse - in this warping of reality by inner fantasy - becomes some sort of defensive reaction. I can remember a case in the news here, some years ago where a couple were found guilty of gross abusiveness. The thing that struck me was the female guardian was crying tears of what seemed like shock... as if she'd only just realised what she'd been doing.
@@curieux1789 yes the child becomes both a representation of vulnerability in the adult and the child they used to be. In regards reality test these people might lose it during acute emotional experiences. Thus inner and external world merge. And to cope with that split and dissociated themselves. The case you gave isn't rare as the justice system forces those split parts to reunite and often creates a breakdown in these people has there mental system isn't equipped to handle the reunification of the splitting.
Affectively a collapse of the right brain & creating an unconscious pattern of identification of themselves, within the aggressor?
Could this be the shutting down of “shame” developmentally?
It’s interesting though he choose to forgoes the accountability of the aggressor. Maybe his thinking was still very much caught up in the “drives” that Freud followed so vociferously? Another really interesting and fab review. Thank you 🙏
Hi thanks for your comments so quick answers:
As a clinical psychologist I can't really answer the neurological underpinnings of this theory. But it has a lot of clinical merit and explaining power.
It could be the shutting down of shame but I would go a step further and say it is the child's tentative to cleanse the abuser of their 'badness' and make them all good by 'absorbing' the bad. Thus they become bad and unconsciously hope to be save by the 'cleanse' aggressor. And finally I think your explanation for why Ferenczi didn't insist on the accountability of the abusers is quite interesting and maybe one of the major reasons. I also personally believe that he saw these aggressors as victims as well ( which isn't technically wrong but is only a partial understanding).
Thanks again and have a great day!
@@talkingpsychology yes the opposing forces again, making the child not only identify, but take responsibility for & then placing “hope” within the child, now they’ve taken on the projective identification? Thank you for your answer. That made so much sense!
Yes indeed the child take the projective identification of the aggressor and it unfortunately becames part of their identity. Thanks again and have a great day!