Lugrin Yves
Am J Psychoanal. 2015 Mar;75(1):86-93. doi: 10.1057/ajp.2014.59.
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.
费伦齐与拉康之间的关系可以比作日食的各个阶段。在拉康教学的第一阶段,他将费伦齐视为首批先驱中最具影响力的分析师。显然,他希望发展费伦齐对临床实践的颠覆性思考。令人惊讶的是,在第二阶段,对费伦齐的提及似乎消失了,即便他依据所谓的实在界来探讨创伤问题时,也完全没有引用费伦齐的观点。在第三阶段,拉康去世后,一些拉康派学者对费伦齐极为批判,常常过度批判。如今,接纳拉康学说的分析师们正在重新发现费伦齐及其作品的丰富内涵,拉康在其作品中找到了诸多自身思想的源头。