CHAPTER ONE The emergence of child analysis Michael Fordham scionce:it does net develop because the great innovators have aid all thore is to ay, so nothing essential could {ake place and no new discovery could be mado. I want to ‘exomine that view: it depends upon how the word essential” is understood, Ie is true that some elements of theory and practice have remained the same, but I shall show that significant changes and developments have taken place ‘over the years, especially in the field of child analysis. Todo thie I pelect 1995 a time base suitable for the purpose. Ia that year, Jung delivered his Tavistock leture-seminars. In them he put forward © concise statement of his position before a large and fascinated audience who had the ‘opportunity of diaeusaing with him under conditions that he particularly liked. There he could react rather freely and show his virtuosity as a speaker, his enormous erudition, his subtlety and his originality. I have heard itsaid that analytical peychology isa static Jung's position in 1995 ‘The audience was composed of paychotherapists and some paychoanalyste, Some of the members tried to make him say¢ yy a \ 20. wictiaeLronoaae ‘what he thought about childhod and what his views had to ‘etribute to the preoceupation of the audience with the childhood oftheir patients. Jung was not helpful, though he stid that a child of about 10 years old could exhibit, ‘interesting dreams containing archetypal material. When it came to psychotherapy of children's disorders, he thought that the analysis ofthe parenta was usualy indicated. That ‘was the position taken by nearly all aniytical paycholo- fists at the time; indoed I was, 1 believe, the only one who Was beginning to think differently ‘Today Iced not argue Jung's position much, for itis no ‘more than a half-trath embodied in the practice of family therapy. Yet, however much a child may be an expression of family pathology, it must not be overioled that he i the tne who is able to be that expression. So when a child ‘becomes the presenting symptom, iteannot be assumed that ‘there is no reason within himeeif why he has become the focus of family pathology. It is a matier for carefl faseessment, not theoretical assumption (ef Fordham, 19570), ‘Toretum to why Jung paid o little attention ta childcen, the matter needs tobe related to his general philosophy. He considered thatthe most interesting aspect of his eases W5, what the unconscious did with normal and pathological conflicts, and not their origins. He thus focused his ‘attention on the prospective functions of the payche which esd to individuation, to inereasing complexity, iategrative trends and selfrectisetion that made life meaningful. He ‘develope an elaborate method of dream interpretation and Jaid stress on his patient's imaginative capacities because it was from these that new life sprang Tn the Tavistock lectures he attempted to demonstrate his erudite method of amplification to the audienee (ung, 1995) without much success; his demonstration was inter rupted by a roquest that he provide the members ofthat assembly with an account of his views on the transference He did so, and in a necent paper Judith Hubback has made fan assessment of what he ssid (Hubback, 1980; ef. also Fordham, 1974), pancence orcimin aNALysS 21 un’ onsing tress which ed ohne ting patent nthe seco hl of int adi, weet pelts a whl, ey len seis ue soy as rong to im Bang Shut ule weaned In ety, spent a ne 00) half mas ae ld ae ey ated bo Fordham 1968 SPPEET h, Be tat a ay, cw coop as bemng logy anno, wih ene go cm eet nt at ore ne ery cet, wong i not scom shave taht hat uses aera echt fur erie yous of ogee wan't have tan wer Frew tree sow of he ERE placa, omaha wos ad onan aa ray iron to hs moter, n'a cody etal wt tl nh a yet unelnd martina etch no efi go aso ld thing meh in relaon to ber, Br ne ttn with ai tus by tee mt mp ft meth cunt dvlgment nh we Jong ems EAN ier trol nfueneed by he sry sree Salon nth pape as"Toesiguenecetetshern eat of thet Gang 1909), ant ‘Soonaaton af prntal infant “hs tml ome SenmteeGuag 1010, «lou. nivered ot Oak SRNR ithe ntl Sates where he went ith Ped eee ewan wpemeiom ha ser snpleatn, The tar was wot oaly negate mt me a only that consciousness was absent~but thet there ce eet apr of ona he seman, TEES eta mena nnn Seon! ty Teese! ma In much se ese were eee be sermelming power ld at be See thorn the anon fpr vey he shar, Wat ha. Tore, he Sree of een by aalie ean ee FBncriy daogeus becuse wold sate be ery vant adid neil joan. Thavorn22 yrcHARL RoRDHAN explicitly stated by Frances Wickes in ber book The Inner World of Childhood (Wickes, 1927) though Jung never went as far a8 she did; nevertheless, thoro are examples in bis Published works of ehild case, and he used methods that fare much more educational than anslyte (ef, Jung, 1954). may refer to the cases he dives towards the end of "The theory of psychoanalysis! Jung, 1813) in which his methods resemble more those of Aled Adler’s individual paychology ‘than of psychoanalysis. In this he was consistent, for that discipline emphasised ongoing tasks of life rather than the influence of past conflicts. have said enough to indicate why, in 1935, there was litle impetis amongst analytical psychologists to study children, let alone analyse them. It must be said that, ‘though by 1985 Jung had written a numberof essays about shildhood, mostly assembled in Collected Works, 17, about five years later he starved giving a series of seminars on children’s dreams submitted to him by members of the teminar. In theee he. elaborated perceptively on child piychology, acknowledged a symbol of the self and ‘expanded sometimes at enormous lengts on the archetypal cantents ofthe dream material (Jung, 193637) In all thi, however, skung remained detached and there was no question of any ofthe children who provided their dreams boing ether analysed or needing to undergo analysis, even though one of them showed quite severe disturbances (ii, Child analytic poychotherapy in England At the time that Jung was delivering his Tavistock seminars, the practice of child analysis was dominated in England by Melanie Klein (1982) and the practice of ehild psychotherapy was largely confined to the few Child Guidance Clinis in existence. There was ite dea of what was ta be done when paychiatrists treated children in the clinica. Thore was very little training for peychiarists in child paychotherapy and, of nurse, no profession of child tenoence oF cHHLD AXALYSIS 23 paychotherapists, Same psyehoanalysts joined the staff and Pa ideas about it, but it was dificult fr them because the Conditions of Child Guidance made it impossible to practise what they understood a8 peychoanalyss Tn 1935 the culture pattern did not include child peyehotherapy. Parents had accepted child education but had tobe introduced tothe idea of child psychotherapy with rie amepection. Paychoanelysis was conducted only at the Inatitute of Psychosnalysis or in private practice ‘Testing Jung's theories When joined the staf ofthe London Child Guidance Clinic as child payehiatrst, L also was ina difficult postion. The Eocup. which ineluded what was in effect psychotherapy of Front conducted by peychiatric social workers, accorded Principle with Jungian ideas although it did not goas far a5 nalysis of unconscious processes as exhibited in dreams ‘ind imagination. A child paychiatist was exchuded from taking « hand in parent therapy: he was expected to conduct fychotherapy with the children, but that was virtually Froserbd by my Jungian mentors. What could 1 do except Trake cbeervations? ‘Three of those proved crucial: (1) CChildcen recovered from their disorder, some of hem quite Severe, whatever was done; all that was necessary was to Teave them on a waiting lst a8 T discovered later, Also, the iildyen who were treated ip rather simple and tolerant ‘rove recovered-without the changes in. parents that ‘Jungian theory then required. 2) Archetypal raaterial was ‘ot dificult collect and did not have the dangerous effets that {had been led to expect Indeed, it seemed to have a place in maturation of children not unlike archetypal action qh adult life (Fordham, 1944). (3) Symbol material whieh ‘Tung had defined ae referring to the self was to be found tind: farthermore,i¢ was sometimes related to process of tuo growth comparable to individuation in later life, to Ghich nell realisation had previously been exclusively ‘Moeated (Fordham, 1955, 1957b, 1969),