Abstract
Freud’s Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920) brought a lot of new possibilities to psychoanalytic theory, but also a series of losses. While I recognize the importance of the death drive as a metapsychological construct, I argue that the first thing that went missing with the arrival of this groundbreaking Freudian text is the theorization of the ego instincts or the self-preservative drives. Freud never articulated some plausible inheritors of the ego instincts. I follow the Budapest School, and especially the voice of Sándor Ferenczi, for addressing this loss. The second thing that went missing after Beyond the Pleasure Principle is our openness in thinking through repetition. With the seductive formulation of the “daemonic” repetition in this 1920 text, our theoretical imagination around repetition seems to have been affected. I draw on the work of Sándor Ferenczi for exploring new forms of repetition. Finally, I offer a Ferenczian re-reading of the Freudian Nachträglichkeit, which I see as crucial in the process of pluralizing our thinking on repetition.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Avello, J. J. (1998). Metapsychology in Ferenczi: Death instinct or death passion? International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 7, 229–234.
Balint, M. (1937). Early developmental states of the ego: Primary object love. In Primary love and psychoanalytic technique (pp. 90–108). London: Karnac, 1994.
Birksted-Breen, D. (2003). Time and the après-coup. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 84, 1501–1515.
Borossa, J. (2014). Ferenczi’s ethics of our time: The possibility of being alongside. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 74, 349–356.
Dahl, G. (2010). The two time vectors of Nachträglichkeit in the development of ego organization: Significance of the concept for the symbolization of nameless traumas and anxieties. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 91, 727–744.
De Masi, F. (2015). Is the concept of the death drive still useful in the clinical field? The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 96, 445–458.
Erős, F. (2014). Freedom and authority in the Clinical Diary. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 74, 367–380.
Faimberg, H. (2007). A plea for a broader concept of Nachträglichkeit. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 76, 1221–1240.
Ferenczi, S. (1909). Introjection and transference. In First contributions to psycho-analysis (pp. 35–93). London: Karnac, 1994.
Ferenczi, S. (1913). Stages in the development of the sense of reality. In First contributions to psycho-analysis (pp. 213–239). London: Karnac, 1994.
Ferenczi, S. (1921). The symbolism of the bridge. In Further contributions to the theory and technique of psycho-analysis (pp. 352–356). London: Karnac, 1994.
Ferenczi, S. (1924). Thalassa: A theory of genitality (H. A. Bunker, Trans.). Albany, NY: The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 1938.
Ferenczi, S. (1929). The unwelcome child and his death instinct. In Final contribution to the problems and methods of psycho-analysis (pp. 102–107). London: Karnac, 1994.
Ferenczi, S. (1931). Child analysis in the analysis of adults. In Final contribution to the problems and methods of psycho-analysis (pp. 126–142). London: Karnac, 1994.
Ferenczi, S. (1932). The Clinical Diary of Sándor Ferenczi (M. Balint & N. Z. Jackson, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988.
Fletcher, J. (2013). Freud and the scene of trauma. New York: Fordham University Press.
Frank, C. (2015). On the reception of the concept of the death drive in Germany: Expressing and resisting an ‘evil principle’? The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 96, 425–444.
Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. Standard edition (Vol. 7, pp. 125–243). London: Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1911). Formulations on the two principles of mental functioning. Standard edition (Vol. 12, pp. 213–226). London: Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1914). On narcissism: An introduction. Standard edition (Vol. 14, pp. 67–102). London: Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1920). Beyond the pleasure principle. Standard edition (Vol. 18, pp. 3–64). London: Hogarth Press.
Green, A. (1996). On private madness. London: Karnac.
Gurevich, H. (2016). Orpha, orphic functions, and the orphic analyst: Winnicott’s “regression to dependence” in the language of Ferenczi. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 76, 322–340.
Hristeva, G. (2013). “Uterus Loquitur”: Trauma and the human organism in Ferenczi’s “physiology of pleasure”. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 73, 339–352.
Kerz-Rühling, I. (1993). Nachträglichkeit. Psyche-Z Psychoanal, 47, 911–933.
Koritar, E., & Garon, J. (Issue Editors). (2017). Second Toronto special issue: The heritage of a psychoanalytic mind. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 77(3).
Laplanche, J. (1987). Nouveaux fondements pour la psychanalyse. Paris: PUF.
Laplanche, J. (1998). Notes sur l’après-coup. Conference on psychoanalytical intracultural and intercultural dialogue, International Psychoanalytical Association, Paris, July 27–29, 1998.
Laplanche, J., & Pontalis, J.-B. (1968). Fantasy and the origins of sexuality. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 49, 1–18.
Lothane, Z. (1998). The feud between Freud and Ferenczi over love. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 58, 21–39.
Oliner, M. (2013). “Non-represented” mental states. In H. B. Levine, G. S. Reed, & D. Scarfone (Eds.), Unrepresented states and the construction of meaning: Clinical and theoretical contributions (pp. 152–171). London: Karnac.
Rand, N., & Torok, M. (1997). Questions for Freud: The secret history of psychoanalysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Roussillon, R. (2011). Primitive agony and symbolization. London: Karnac.
Saussure, F. (1916). A course in general linguistics (W. Baskin, Trans.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
Stanton, M. (1990). Sándor Ferenczi: Reconsidering active intervention. London: Free Association.
Summers, F. (2008). Theoretical insularity and the crisis of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 25, 413–424.
Thomä, H., & Cheshire, N. (1991). Freud’s Nachträglichkeit and Strachey’s ‘deferred action’: Trauma, constructions and the direction of causality. The International Review of Psychoanalysis, 18, 407–427.
Young-Bruehl, E. (2011). The trauma of lost love in psychoanalysis. In S. Akhtar & M. K. O’Neil (Eds.), On Freud’s ‘beyond the pleasure principle’ (pp. 250–264). London: Karnac.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Stephen Frosh, Ana Maria Furtado, Claudia Garcia, Endre Koritar and Carlos Lannes. The writing of this article was supported through a Wellcome Trust Fellowship in Medical Humanities.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Address correspondence to Raluca Soreanu, Ph.D., Department of Psychosocial Studies, School of Social Science, History and Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London, 26 Russell Square, Room 230, Bloomsbury, London, WC1B 5DQ, UK.
*This paper is part of the Second Toronto Special Issue, The Heritage of a Psychoanalytic Mind (Koritar & Garon, 2017).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Soreanu, R. Something Was Lost in Freud’s Beyond the Pleasure Principle: A Ferenczian Reading*. Am J Psychoanal 77, 223–238 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s11231-017-9105-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s11231-017-9105-6