An interview with Murray Jackson by Jan Wiener

Murray Jackson was among the early trainees at the Society of Analytical Psychology (SAP) drawn to Jungian ideas during the 1950s when the training was still relatively informal. He was born in Australia where he became a doctor and came to London to study psychiatry with a particular interest in psychosis. He was influenced by Michael Fordham with whom he had an analysis and his four papers, published in the Journal of Analytical Psychology in the early 1960s, contributed significantly to the growing interest in clinical technique, particularly transference, that developed in the Society at that time. Later, he retrained at the British Institute of Psychoanalysis in the Kleinian tradition and was the first consultant at the Maudsley Hospital to run a 10-bed unit for severely mentally ill patients applying psychoanalytic principles. In April 2010, Jan Wiener interviewed Murray Jackson in France, where he now lives in retirement, about his interest and subsequent disappointment in Jungian ideas as well as his involvement with the Society of Analytical Psychology at a particular point in its history. After a brief introduction, the interview is reproduced in full.     

What Is a Fact? Eva Rosenfeld and Historiography

Historians have disputed excessive speculative claims made on behalf of psychoanalytic interpretations. As psychoanalytic theory evolved, theorists sought to communicate the higher aspects of ego functioning which adapt our inner world to outer realities. Roazen's article discusses the question of what is a fact within the context of the history of analysis. He does this through the examples of Eva Rosenfeld's correspondences which explore the nature of historiography itself.     

Understanding Freud's conflicted view of the object‐relatedness of sexuality and its implications for contemporary psychoanalysis: A re‐examination of Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality

Through a re‐examination of Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905), this paper reveals a fundamental tension in Freud's thinking on the nature of the individual and of his sexuality. In this text Freud portrays the individual and sexuality as inherently object‐related and at the same time as inherently independent of such relatedness. The way in which Freud presents these contradictory ideas suggests that he was not merely undecided on object‐relatedness and sexuality but rather that the contradiction was integral to this thinking. The paper offers an explanation of the meaning of this contradiction, of why it has been neglected in the analytic literature, and of some implications for contemporary psychoanalysis and its approach to sexuality.     

RETHINKING THE ROLE OF SMALL‐GROUP COLLABORATORS AND ADVERSARIES IN THE LONDON KLEINIAN DEVELOPMENT (1914–1968)

The authors historically situate the London Kleinian development in terms of the small‐group collaborations and adversaries that arose during the course of Melanie Klein's career. Some collaborations later became personally adversarial (e.g., those Klein had with Glover and Schmideberg); other adversarial relationships forever remained that way (with A. Freud); while still other long‐term collaborations became theoretically contentious (such as with Winnicott and Heimann). After the Controversial Discussions in 1944, Klein marginalized one group of supporters (Heimann, Winnicott, and Riviere) in favor of another group (Rosenfeld, Segal, and Bion). After Klein's death in 1960, Bion maintained loyalty to Klein's ideas while quietly distancing his work from the London Klein group, immigrating to the United States in 1968.     

Melanie Klein’s letters addressed to Marcelle Spira (1955–1960)1

Between 1955 and 1960, Melanie Klein wrote some 45 hitherto unpublished letters to Marcelle Spira, the Swiss psychoanalyst living at that time in Geneva. In 2006, after Spira’s death, these letters were deposited with the Raymond de Saussure Psychoanalysis Centre in Geneva. They are the only known letters that Klein addressed to her psychoanalyst colleagues. Several topics are mentioned in them: (1) the meetings between the two women in Geneva and London; (2) Spira’s contribution to Boulanger’s translation into French of The Psychoanalysis of Children, which Klein herself carefully revised; (3) the papers that Klein was at that time working on, including Envy and Gratitude; (4) Spira’s own work; (5) the difficulties that Spira, a Kleinian psychoanalyst who trained in Buenos Aires, was encountering in her attempt to be admitted to the Swiss Psychoanalytical Society; and (6) a few items of personal and family news. In addition to the invaluable historical information that these letters provide, they offer us a very moving epistolary self‐portrait of Melanie Klein, enabling us to discover her personality in the final years of her life – she died in September 1960, just two months after writing her last letter to Spira.     

Learning and teaching the theories of Melanie Klein

I shall attempt to bring together here thoughts of experienced clinicians and teachers who have taught Melanie Klein's theories to child psychotherapists. However, most of the contributors have also taught Klein to clinical trainees in adult psychoanalytic work and to different groups abroad and, in some cases, to already trained psychotherapists or psychoanalysts. Klein's theories are introduced at different stages in the different child psychotherapy programmes in London. For instance, the students at the Tavistock are introduced to Klein's theories before they are necessarily in their own psychoanalysis, while other trainings introduce her theories in the introductory years of the clinical training.

William Halton is one of the longest-running teachers of Klein in the Tavistock Child Psychotherapy Training and brings his 'framework' culled from many years of experience. Maria Rhode has taught the Narrative to students at the Tavistock for many years. Elizabeth Spillius, psychoanalyst, writer and teacher, brings her experiences teaching Klein to non-Kleinians. Karen Proner teaches at the Tavistock, in Italy and the United States.

TEACHING MELANIE KLEIN William Halton 10 Lincoln Road London N2 9DL     

The debate between Anna Freud and Melanie Klein: An historical survey

In this paper I attempt to provide an overview of the professional dialogue between Anna Freud and Melanie Klein. I examine relevant theoretical and biographical issues, and reflect on divergencies. My conclusion is that each of them highlighted a different but valuable aspect of children's mental life, and that together their theories laid the foundation for a comprehensive mental health service for children.     

Adrian Stokes and the portrait of Melanie Klein

This paper focuses on the offer by the art writer Adrian Stokes to commission and pay for a portrait of the psychoanalyst Melanie Klein by the artist William Coldstream. It details some of the precursors of this offer in Stokes's preceding involvement first with Klein and then with Coldstream; her response to this offer; and its outcome and aftermath in Stokes's subsequent writing about Klein and Coldstream.     

“Transferring” and transference

This paper is part of my research into psychotic transference and is also related to the psychotic aspect of any adult or infantile patient in analysis. In my research, I studied the origin of the concept of transference in Charcot's time before Freud, and the transformation of this concept in psychoanalysis. Freud thought that psychotic patients were not able to establish a transference relationship, but some of his early papers show the opposite. In fact, Freud himself and then several other analysts were able to develop a personal experience regarding the possibility of contact and transferring feelings and delusional experiences in a therapeutic context – individual, group, or institution. I provide some clinical examples in this paper, as well as some theoretical, personal views regarding intrapersonal and interpersonal transference. Like Freud and Melanie Klein, I believe that transference starts with life, but that in psychoanalysis it has a particular meaning.