“…, £87.00 (hardback), This edited volume is named after an earlier double volume, Melanie Klein Today (Bott Spillius, 1998a, 1998b. This is appropriate in that the editor correctly indicates that the main thrust of Bion's work has clear lines of continuity with that of Klein.…”
“…, £87.00 (hardback), This edited volume is named after an earlier double volume, Melanie Klein Today (Bott Spillius, 1998a, 1998b. This is appropriate in that the editor correctly indicates that the main thrust of Bion's work has clear lines of continuity with that of Klein.…”
Seventy years ago with much of the world engaged in a battle for survival in the Second World War, the British Psychoanalytical Society organized a series of scientific meetings to discuss the new theories of Melanie Klein. The paper starts with a historical background to the Controversial Discussions and moves on to discuss some of the main points of the debate. It revisits the concept of unconscious phantasy along with the debates on primary narcissism and the death instinct, also exploring its use and relevance in current clinical practice. Following Bion's idea that psychic change is felt as catastrophic, I attempt to link some of the anxieties and processes that were present during the Controversial Discussions with similar processes present in the psychoanalytic world today.
“…Supporters, again following Klein, point to the clinical findings that shaped Klein's position; but they also make reference to broader theoretical considerations. In particular, they point to Klein's concern with the content of anxiety rather than with its economic determinants , which are regarded as central to Freud's account (Hinshelwood, ; Spillius et al ., ). It is claimed that, although Klein valued the views on the contents of anxiety that Freud began to develop in Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety , she eschewed his thinking on the energetic conditions underlying anxiety.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Following Klein's () own views of this departure, her differences from Freud are often seen, by her supporters and critics alike, to be the result of her more general emphasis on the death instinct and on aggression, with authors divided on the value of this emphasis (Brenner, ; Compton, ; Glover, ; Hinshelwood, ; Money‐Kyrle, ; Spillius et al ., ; Yorke, ; Zetzel, ). Supporters, again following Klein, point to the clinical findings that shaped Klein's position; but they also make reference to broader theoretical considerations.…”
It is well known that Melanie Klein held the view that 'fear of death' is the primary source of anxiety and that her position is explicitly opposed to that of Sigmund Freud, who maintained that that fear cannot in any way or form be a source of anxiety. In a previous article on Freud's Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety (Blass, 2013), the author argued that, counter to what is commonly portrayed in the literature, Freud's considerations for rejecting the fear of death as a source of anxiety were based on relational and experiential factors that are usually associated with Kleinian psychoanalysis. In light of this affinity of Freud with Klein a question arises as to the actual source of their differences in this context. The present paper offers an answer to this question. The author first presents some of her earlier findings on what led Freud to reject the fear of death as a source of anxiety and then turns to investigate Klein's considerations for accepting it. This takes us beyond her explicit statements on this matter and sheds new light on the relationship of her views regarding death and anxiety and those of Freud. In turn this deepens the understanding of the relationship of Freud and Klein's conceptualizations of the psyche and its internal object relations, pointing to both surprising common ground and foundational differences.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
