The close relationships among Ferenczi’s analysands at the time the Clinical Diary was written are explored, and their potential influences on their analyses are discussed. It is suggested that the fact that “a virtual group” emerged in this context may have sabotaged to some extent Ferenczi’s clinical work, because this setting did not allow the open joint exploration possible in an actual analytic group, and at the same time stood in the way of achieving “a background of safety” fostered by the privacy and confidentiality of a fully individual analysis. Several examples are given of situations that may have made analysands feel betrayed or abandoned by the divided loyalties of their analyst, and may have created painful splits in Ferenczi’s own countertransferences.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. Balint, M. (1969). The basic fault. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Berman, E. (1988). Communal upbringing in the Kibbutz: The allure and risks of psychoanalytic utopianism. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 43, 319–335.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Berman, E. (2002). The other’s failures and one’s own. In J. Reppen & M. A. Schulman (Eds.) Failures in psychoanalytic treatment (pp. 263–288). Madison, CT: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Berman, E. (2003). Ferenczi, rescue and utopia. American Imago, 60 (4), 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berman, E. (2004). Psychoanalytic training and the utopian fantasy of the new person. In Impossible training: A relational view of psychoanalytic education, Chapter 3 (pp. 93–122). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brennan, B. W. (2010). Ferenczi’s forgotten messenger: The life and work of Izette de Forest. American Imago, 66 (4), 427–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brennan, B. W. (2015). Decoding Ferenczi’s clinical diary: Biographical notes. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 75, 5–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dupont, J. (2003). Introduction. In The life and work of Michael Balint: Second Special Issue. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 63(3), 203–206.

  9. Ferenczi, S. (1932). The Clinical Diary. J. Dupont (Ed.), M. Balint & N. Z. Jackson (Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1988.

  10. Freud, S. & Ferenczi, S. (1908–1914). The correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Sándor Ferenczi, Vol. 1. Edited by E. Brabant, E. Falzeder & P. Giampieri-Deutch, Transcribed by I. Meyer-Palmedo, Translated by P. T. Hoffer. Cambridge, MA and London, UK: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1993.

  11. Mendoza, C. A. (2012). Mutuality: Clinical and metapsychological potentials of a failed experiment. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 72 (1), 16–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sandler, J. (1960). The background of safety. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 41 (2), 352–356.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shapiro, S. A. (1993). Clara Thompson: Ferenczi’s messenger with half a message. In L. Aron & A. Harris (Eds.) The legacy of Sàndor Ferenczi (pp. 159–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press [Routledge].

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emanuel Berman.

Additional information

A version of this paper was presented at the “Sincerity and Freedom in Psychoanalysis” conference at the Freud Museum 2013.

1Emanuel Berman, Ph.D., Training and Supervising Analyst, Israel Psychoanalytic Society; Professor Emeritus, University of Haifa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berman, E. ON “POLYGAMOUS ANALYSIS”. Am J Psychoanal 75, 29–36 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/ajp.2014.52

Download citation


  • Ferenczi
  • Severn
  • Thompson
  • virtual group
  • incest
  • confidentiality