The sins of the fathers: Freud, narcissistic boundary violations, and their effects on the politics of psychoanalysis

Abstract

In contrast to the management of erotic boundaries, the institutional and clinical management of transactions across narcissistic boundaries can have far-reaching implications for how and in what ways power is wielded within our organizations. This is especially true in regard to analysts who are, or are perceived to be, in leadership positions within their psychoanalytic groups, organizations, and institutes. This paper illustrates some of the difficulties in the management of narcissistic boundaries by exploring Freud's narcissistic investment in defining the field of psychoanalysis and determining the directions of its development, his attitudes towards dissent – for example, Jung, Adler, Ferenczi, etc. – and his clinical behavior with certain analysands. The institutional consequences of Freud's failure to successfully negotiate narcissistic boundaries – and our reluctance to recognize this aspect of his leadership – have become intertwined with defenses against the epistemic anxiety that follows from the inevitably subjective nature of the analytic enterprise. Together, they have tended toward the creation of a culture of rigidity and control within organized psychoanalysis. This is a legacy – the sins of our fathers – with which our field continues to struggle.

Keywords:

• boundaries
• epistemic anxiety
• ethics
• filiation
• leadership
• narcissistic boundaries
• power
• organizational culture

Notes

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the International Psychoanalytic Association Congress in New Orleans in March 2004 and the Winter Meetings of the American Psychoanalytic Association in January 2005.

²Reactions to the discovery of Freud's cancer and fears of his impending death were significant factors in the IPA's approval at the 1925 Homburg congress of the Berlin model as the universal training standard for all of the IPA's component institutes (Roazen, 2002). This model established the category of “training analyst,” created training committees at each local level, and mandated the required training analysis (Schroter, 2002). In so doing, the IPA not only codified a model of training but introduced an official hierarchy into psychoanalysis around which unintended authoritarian and dogmatic aims and responses would later inhere.