Conclusions

  • Raluca Soreanu
Chapter
Part of the Studies in the Psychosocial book series (STIP)

Abstract

Soreanu offers an overview of the contributions of Ferenczi’s trauma theory to psychoanalysis, to social theory, and, ultimately, to a psychosocial understanding of the creativities of the collective. Soreanu arrives at a phenomenology of psychic splitting, where one can follow, in a collective frame, what different psychic fragments ‘do’, or what becomes of their social life. Soreanu also discusses a surprising form of social diagnostics centred on the confusion of tongues, or the confusion between the registers of the social. This leads to important conclusions about the intergenerational transmission of trauma and violence.

References

  1. Avelar, A. (2013). Trauma e prática clínica: um percurso entre Freud e Ferenczi. Rio de Janeiro: Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Psicologia.Google Scholar
  2. Bohleber, W. (2007). Remembrance, trauma and collective memory: The battle for memory in psychoanalysis. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 88(2), 329–352.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bohleber, W. (2010). Destructiveness, intersubjectivity, and trauma: The identity crisis of modern psychoanalysis. London: Karnac.Google Scholar
  4. Bokanowski, T. (2004). Splitting, fragmenting, and mental agony: The clinical thinking of Sándor Ferenczi. International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 13(1–2), 20–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bokanowski, T. (2005). Variations on the concept of traumatism: Traumatism, traumatic, trauma. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 86(2), 251–265.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonomi, C. (2003). Between symbol and antisymbol: The meaning of trauma reconsidered. International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 12(1), 17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonomi, C. (2004). Trauma and the symbolic function of the mind. International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 13(1–2), 45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borgogno, F. (2007). Ferenczi’s clinical and theoretical conception of trauma: A brief introductory map. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 67(2), 141–149.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Caruth, C. (Ed.). (1995). Trauma: Explorations in memory. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Caruth, C. (1996). Unclaimed experience: Trauma, narrative and history. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Castoriadis, C. (1987). The imaginary institution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fassin, D., & Rechtman, R. (2009). The empire of trauma: An inquiry into the condition of victimhood. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Felman, S., & Laub, D. (Eds.). (1992). Testimony: Crises of witnessing in literature, psychoanalysis, and history. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Ferenczi, S. (1915a). The analysis of comparisons. Further contributions to the theory and technique of psycho-analysis (trans: Suttie, J. I., pp. 397–407). London: Karnac, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. Ferenczi, S. (1930e). Fantasies on a biological model of super-ego formation. Final contributions to the problems and methods of psycho-analysis (trans: Mosbacher, E., pp. 227–230). London: Karnac, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. Ferenczi, S. (1932e). The two extremes: Credulity and scepticism. Final contributions to the problems and methods of psycho-analysis (trans: Mosbacher, E., pp. 263–264). London: Karnac, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. Fletcher, J. (2013). Freud and the scene of trauma. New York: Fordham University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frankel, J. (1998). Ferenczi’s trauma theory. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 58(1), 41–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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(4), 322–340.Google Scholar
  20. Haynal, A. (1989). The concept of trauma and its present meaning. International Review of Psychoanalysis, 16, 315–321.Google Scholar
  21. Haynal, A. (2014). Trauma-revisited: Ferenczi and modern psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 34(2), 98–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koritar, E. (2016). Relaxation in technique leading to new beginnings. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 76(4), 341–353.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. LaCapra, D. (2014). Writing history, writing trauma. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Laub, D. (1992). Bearing witness or the vicissitudes of listening. In S. Felman & D. Laub (Eds.), Testimony: Crises of witnessing in literature, psychoanalysis, and history (pp. 57–74). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Laub, D., & Lee, S. (2003). Thanatos and massive psychic trauma: The impact of the death instinct on knowing, remembering, and forgetting. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 51(2), 433–464.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Luckhurst, R. (2013). The trauma question. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Schneider, M. (1988). Le trauma et la filiation paradoxale: de Freud à Ferenczi. Paris: Ramsay.Google Scholar
  28. Schneider, M. (1993). Trauma e filiação em Freud e Ferenczi. Revista percurso, 10(1), 31–39.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, N. A. (1998). ‘Orpha reviving’: Toward an honorable recognition of Elizabeth Severn. International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 7(4), 241–246.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, N. A. (1999). From Oedipus to Orpha: Revisiting Ferenczi and Severn’s landmark case. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 59(4), 345–366.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Szekacs-Weisz, J., & Keve, T. (Eds.). (2012). Ferenczi for our time: Theory and practice. London: Karnac.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raluca Soreanu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychosocial StudiesBirkbeck CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations