The kinship between Ferenczi and Lacan can be compared with the phases of an eclipse. Throughout the first period of his teaching, Lacan presents Ferenczi as the most relevant analyst among the first pioneers. It is clear that he hopes to develop Ferenczi’s subversive reflections about clinical practice. Surprisingly, in the second period references to Ferenczi seem to disappear, even when he takes on the question of trauma in light of what he calls the register of the Real; he does not cite Ferenczi at all. In a third period, after Lacan’s death, certain Lacanians are very critical about Ferenczi, often excessively. Today, analysts open to Lacan’s teaching are discovering Ferenczi and the richness of his work, in which Lacan found numerous springheads for his own work.

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


  1. 1.

    “It is a fact that I am fairly generally regarded as a restless spirit, or, as someone recently said to me at Oxford, the enfant terrible of psychoanalysis” (Ferenczi, 1931 [1994], p. 127).

  2. 2.

    This relative marginalization has taken place, through different forms and for a long time, in all French psychoanalytic associations whose membership includes both ardent supporters and resolute detractors. Given the potential danger of—unpardonable—psychoanalytic scandal, is Ferenczi fated to be an obstacle to the reconciliation of analysts?

  3. 3.

    And a Freud, of course.

  4. 4.

    “Passionnel” in French.

  5. 5.

    Can we understand the meaning of authenticity as freedom and sincerity?

  6. 6.

    This conflict of the Hundred Years’ War took place prior to the excellent editorial work Judith Dupont at Le Coq-Héron, who continued Michael Balint’s work on behalf of Sandor Ferenczi, brought out the Clinical Diary as well as facilitated the publishing of the Freud-Ferenczi correspondence (Dupont, 2013).

  7. 7.

    Lacan, the founder of “short sessions” probably didn’t have clear knowledge of Ferenczi’s risky attempts at mutual analysis and of the “long sessions” involved in those experiments.

  8. 8.

    In 1961, the sixth issue of the SFP’s journal, Psychanalyse, contains works by representatives of the Society’s different psychoanalytic tendencies. One can find here a “Ferenczian” landmark: a French translation of the English version of “Confusion of Tongues”.

  9. 9.

    “Alone”, according to him.

  10. 10.

    Its name, given by Lacan.

  11. 11.

    It’s worth noting that the first volume of the Complete Works had not yet been published at this point. Lacan could not have been unaware of the existence of The Clinical Diary, translated into English in 1969, but he seems not to have consulted it; the French translation would not be published until 1985, four years after his death.

  12. 12.

    The journal of the Ecole de la Cause Freudienne.

  13. 13.

    “Acte manqué” in French.

  14. 14.

    Let us reiterate: although overtly present from 1953 to 1955, he is thenceforth, we might say, surprisingly left by Lacan in the shadows, only to return to the limelight at the end of Lacan’s last advances.

  15. 15.

    The proceedings from this event have been published in Ferenczi après Lacan (Gorog et al., 2009).


  1. Balint, M. (1954). Analytic training and training analysis. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 35 (2), 157–162.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chauvelot, D., Julien, P. & Petitot-Cocorda, J. (1978). Freud et Ferenczi. Analytica volume 9, supplément au numéro 14 d’Ornicar? Revue du Champ Freudien.

  3. Dupont, J. (2013). Ferenczi at Maresfield Gardens. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 73 (1), 1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ferenczi, S. (1911). On obscene words. Contribution to the psychology of the latent period. In First contributions to psycho-analysis (pp. 132–153). London: Karnac.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ferenczi, S. (1928). The elasticity of psychoanalytic technique. In Final contributions to the problems and methods of psychoanalysis (pp. 87–101). London: Karnac, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ferenczi, S. (1931). Child analysis in the analysis of adults. In Final contributions to the problems and methods of psychoanalysis (pp. 126–142). London: Karnac.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ferenczi, S. (1932). The clinical diary. J. Dupont (Ed.), M. Balint & N.Z. Jackson (Trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ferenczi, S. (1933). Confusion of tongues between adults and the child. In Final contributions to the problems and methods of psychoanalysis (pp. 156–167). London: Karnac.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gondar, J. (2011). Things in words: Ferenczi and language. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 71 (4), 329–337.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gorog, J-J. et al. (2009). Ferenczi après Lacan [Ferenczi after Lacan]. Paris: Hermann.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Granoff, W. (1958). Ferenczi: faux-problème ou vrai malentendu? [Ferenczi: false problem or true misunderstanding?]. In Lacan, Ferenczi et Freud (pp. 73–114). Paris: Gallimard 2001. (Original work published in 1961, Psychanalyse: revue de la société française de psychanalyse, 6, 255–282).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jiménez Avello, J. (2013). L’île des rêves de Sandor Ferenczi, ‘rien que la pulsion de vie’. Paris: Campagne-Première.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Klotz, J-P., Merlet, A. & Soler, C. (1985). Ferenczi et Reich. Ornicar (35).

  14. Lacan, J. (1967). Proposition du 9 Octobre 1967 sur le psychanalyste de l’école. In Autres écrits. Paris: Seuil 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lacan, J. (2006a). Variations on the standard treatment. In B. Fink (Trans.), Écrits: The first complete edition in English (269–302). New York: Norton, 2006. (Original work published: ‘Variantes de la cure-type [1955]’. In Ecrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966).

  16. Lacan, J. (2006b). The direction of the treatment and the principles of its power. In B. Fink (Trans.), Écrits: the first complete edition in English (489–542). New York: Norton, 2006. (Original work published: ‘La direction de la cure et les principes de son pouvoir [1958]’. In Ecrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966).

  17. Lugrin, Y. (2012). Impardonnable Ferenczi, Malaise dans la transmission. [The inexcusable Ferenczi: The difficulty in transmission.]. Paris: Campagne-Première.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Miller, J-A. (1976). (Documents édités par), La scission de 1953. Supplément au numéro 7 d’Ornicar? Paris: Navarin éditeur.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Oppenheim-Gluckman, H. (2010). Lire Sandor Ferenczi: Un disciple turbulent. Paris: Campagne-Première.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Roudinesco, E. (1986). Histoire de la psychanalyse en France: la bataille de cent ans [The hundred years battle of psychoanalysis in France]. Paris: Seuil. [Jacques Lacan & Co.: A history of psychoanalysis in France, 1925–1985. J. Mehlman (Trans.). Chicago: University Chicago Press. 1990].

  21. Sabourin, P. (2011). Sandor Ferenczi, un pionnier de la clinique. Paris: Campagne-Première.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Safouan, M. (2013). La psychanalyse, science, thérapie - et cause. Paris: Éditions Thierry Marchaisse.

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yves Lugrin.

Additional information

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

1Yves Lugrin Ph.D., is an Associate Member of the Société Freudienne de Psychanalyse (SPF), Paris, France.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lugrin, Y. LACAN AND FERENCZI: PARADOXICAL KINSHIP?. Am J Psychoanal 75, 86–93 (2015).

Download citation


  • Lacan and Ferenczi
  • turbulent years in French psychoanalysis
  • training-analysis
  • trauma
  • Lacan’s “pass”
  • “real” and “jouissance”