The clinical erik erikson a psychoanalytic method of engagement and activation by stephen schlein

“We need Erik Erikson today.We need from psychoanalysis the intelligence,sen-
sitivity and disciplined daring to engage the role of public intellectual,a role into
which Erikson was,to his surprise and occasional chagrin,inevitably drawn and a
role he could take up because of his restless curiosity to relate the clinical encoun-
ter to the world around him.These excursions into history, anthropology and
other fields are well known and serve as models for the interdisciplinarity essential
to addressing our more intractable problems; this volume’s great contribution is
to open for us—to bring us deeply into contact with—the clinical Erikson and
the intimate relatedness to one person’s history and pain in which his larger work
is grounded.Erikson famously commented that all he had to offer was‘a way of
looking at things;’Dr.Schlein,respectfully and caringly,works through Erikson’s
shyness to show us the place from which he could see these things, namely,
the world as opened up between two people,one of whom is in the service of the
other’s psychological growth.This book is a fascinating window into how Erikson
acquired not only understanding but his authority as well.”
—M. Gerard Fromm, PhD, senior consultant, Erikson
Institute for Education and Research,The Austen
Riggs Center, Stockbridge, Massachusetts
“Schlein worked with Erikson and offers us for the first time a chance to learn
about Erik Erikson’s clinical psychoanalytic work and thinking.He does a great
service by bringing this to public awareness.He also helps to spell out ways that
he believes Erikson’s clinical work relies on essential ingredients of an inter-
personal method and ways in which it articulates interactional dimensions that
facilitate growth and restorative potential.This book will be of great interest to
those who have always wondered about the ‘clinical’ Erikson, and it also will
be of great interest to those who never thought to wonder about it before.”
—Darlene Ehrenberg, PhD,William Alanson White Institute of Psychiatry,
Psychoanalysis and Psychology and NewYork University Post-Doctoral
Program in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis
“This well-organized and engaging book is a most welcome addition to the
many books and articles by and about one of the best-known psychoanalysts
of the twentieth century. Having been in the enviable position of being this
master teacher’s student and confidant, Dr. Schlein focused on a little-known
aspect of Erikson’s life: on his extraordinary skill as a clinician. Erikson’s psy-
choanalytic colleagues and others interested in how a gifted clinician works
will appreciate the carefully selected clinical illustrations.It is a rare gift to get
such a ‘close-up’ view of an analyst’s thinking as is being offered here, with
direct citations from Erikson’s handwritten clinical notes. It required insight
and great discipline by Dr. Schlein to organize this rich material in a most
readable and entertaining manner.”
—Anna Ornstein, MD, professor emerita of Child
Psychiatry at the University of Cincinnati and lecturer
in Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School

“Schlein shines an intimate, tender, contemporary light on what, for many
of us, remained an enigma: Had Erikson ever actually translated his bril-
liant, overarching, psychosocial vision of identity and the life cycle—as well
as imaginative play therapy with children—into a way of thinking about
psychoanalytic psychotherapy with late adolescents and adults? Was Erikson
able to maintain the radical elements of his own identity as a theorist while
fitting himself into the mid-century, ego psychological world of The Austen
Riggs Center? Comparative analysts of all stripes will savor Schlein’s deeply
informed depiction of Erikson’s clinical work in light of the more chal-
lenging paradigm shifts that were simultaneously emerging in the work of
Erikson’s contemporaries—especiallyWinnicott and Kohut—whose thinking
lacked his cultural and historical scope yet notably shared much of his overall
clinical sensibility.”
—Malcolm Owen Slavin, PhD, founder, past president, faculty and
supervisor at the Massachusetts Institute for Psychoanalysis, MIP;
author of The Adaptive Design of the Human Psyche: Psychoanalysis,
Evolutionary Biology, and theTherapeutic Process (with Daniel Kriegman),
and, in process, Original Loss: Human Identity and Existential Grief; as
a student, he worked as a teaching fellow at Harvard for Erik Erikson

THE CLINICAL ERIK ERIKSON
The twentieth century has been described as the time of man’s discovery of himself;
few have contributed more to this cause than Erik Erikson.The Clinical Erik Erikson:
A psychoanalytic method of engagement and activation highlights Erikson’s transform-
ing contributions to the field of psychoanalysis and honors his legacy by providing
unpublished clinical case illustrations of his psychotherapeutic work.
The publication of case material—simple memorable fragments and clinical
vignettes—brings the reader into Erikson’s consultation room, providing a portrait
of his clinical technique and demonstrating how he actually worked.
Stephen Schlein, an authority on Erikson, presents an illuminating account of
Erikson’s pioneering work through an exhaustive search of his early monographs on
child psychoanalysis,clinical writings,psychotherapeutic case studies,and participa-
tion at case conferences at The Austen Riggs Center.
Erikson’s writings reveal a psychoanalytic method of extraordinary richness that
emphasizes essential ingredients of an interpersonal-relational clinical method and
articulates interactional dimensions that have restorative potential.His vision focuses
on the interpersonal relationship, its powerful affects, and a belief that individ-
uals have a remarkable capacity for change.This book will be essential reading for
psychoanalysts and psychoanalytic psychotherapists.
Stephen Schlein, a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst, received his clinical
training at The Austen Riggs Center where he first met and studied with Erik
Erikson. He was a member of the teaching faculty of the Harvard Medical School,
serving as a clinical supervisor. He taught with Erikson at the Erikson Center of
Cambridge Hospital and collaborated with him as the editor of Erikson’s selected
papers: A Way of Looking at Things. Currently he lectures on Erikson’s writings
throughout the United States and abroad. He serves on the teaching faculty at
the Massachusetts Institute for Psychoanalysis and as a guest faculty at the Boston
Psychoanalytic Institute.He maintains a clinical practice in Lexington,Massachusetts.

Erik Erikson (1969), Cotuit, Massachusetts. Photo by Jon Erikson

THE CLINICAL
ERIK ERIKSON
A psychoanalytic method of
engagement and activation
Stephen Schlein

First published 2016
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park,Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, NewYork, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of theTaylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2016 Stephen Schlein
The right of Stephen Schlein to be identified as author of this work
has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Schlein, Stephen, author.
Title:The clinical Erik Erikson : a psychoanalytic method of engagement
and activation / Stephen Schlein.
Description: 1st Edition. | NewYork : Routledge, 2016. | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2015036723| ISBN 9781138853317 (hardback) |
ISBN 9781138853355 (soft cover)
Subjects: LCSH: Psychoanalysis. | Developmental psychology. |
Erikson, Erik H. (Erik Homburger), 1902-1994.
Classification: LCC BF173 .S356 2016 | DDC 150.19/5092—dc23
LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015036723
ISBN: 978–1–138–85331–7 (hbk)
ISBN: 978–1–138–85335–5 (pbk)
ISBN: 978–1–315–72283–2 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Keystroke, Station Road, Codsall,Wolverhampton

EPIGRAPH
In an effort to establish his overall perspective and clinical method, Erikson wrote
in the preface to Young Man Luther (1958):
I will not be ashamed then, even as I analyze what is analyzable, to display
sympathy and empathy with a young man who (by no means lovable all of
the time) faced the problems of human existence in the most forward terms
of his era. I will use the word existential in this simplest connotation, mindful
that no school of thought has any monopoly on it.
(p. 22)
Written as a postscript for Joan Erikson’s book, Activity, Recovery, Growth (1976),
Erikson provided a developmental perspective on the essential environmental con-
ditions and ingredients necessary for growth:
Things that grow are without ambivalence,without triumph or complaint in
their clear indication of what will help them unfold or what will make them
wilt, and only demand that you apply to them the simplest wish to foster
growth and prevent decay.
(p. 265)

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS
Preface and acknowledgments ix
1 Introductory remarks 1
2 Personal reflections on the 100th anniversary of Erik Erikson’s
birth 13
3 Perspectives on Erikson’s clinical-psychotherapeutic work with
children and adults 17
4 Configurations of children’s play:“Toys and Reasons” 29
5 Exploration in the interpretation of children’s play and child
psychoanalysis:“Psychoanalysis without Words” and “Play and
Cure” 39
6 Erikson and the clinical case conferences at The Austen Riggs
Center: visual observations and reflections about treatment 67
7 Adult psychoanalysis, Part I: an introduction to Erikson’s
psychotherapeutic work utilizing clinical case material 81
8 Adult psychoanalysis, Part II: an in-depth perspective of
Erikson’s clinical method: the story of James 95

viii Contents
9 Adult psychoanalysis, Part III: an investigation into Erikson’s
psychoanalytic treatment method and technique 143
10 Erikson’s psychotherapeutic treatment of adolescents:
an existential/developmental perspective 160
Index 165

PREFACE AND
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project began in 1989 while I was walking with Erik Erikson through the
office building of The Austen Riggs Center in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. I had
just recently completed the publication of his selected papers, AWay of Looking At
Things,and I,somewhat suddenly,turned to him and cautiously asked if he thought
it would be possible for me to help him with a publication of his psychotherapeutic
work.His initial reply was rather abrupt:“I see you’ve got your editor’s hat on today.”
Clearly, he was caught off-guard and was uncomfortable with my request. He then
continued that he wasn’t sure he wanted to publish such personal material but that
he would think about it and let me know.A few weeks later,he called me and asked
if I would put together a written proposal that he could review with his editor and
his wife, Joan.After I completed the proposal, we met at his home in Cambridge,
Massachusetts to discuss the matter.
At first, he restated what he had said earlier—while he appreciated my inter-
est and my effort, he wasn’t sure he wanted to publish therapeutic material about
the lives of his patients.Then, with my proposal in hand, his wife jumped into the
conversation and stated firmly,“Erik, this is a good proposal and you know Steve
did a good job with your papers.Erik,let him do it.The world needs to know how
you worked in therapy.” Erik then reluctantly turned to me and agreed to let me
go forward with the project.
I proceeded to contact Dr.Daniel Schwartz,then the Medical Director atAusten
Riggs, to get permission to begin my search through the Riggs archives.This effort
took me portions of two summers to complete, and I was successful in locating
psychotherapeutic data about some of Erikson’s patients. I also contacted several
universities where Erikson had worked, including Harvard,Yale, and Berkeley,
and the Houghton Library at Harvard where his letters and papers were archived.
Erikson also gave me a significant amount of clinical case material from his own
personal files.

x Preface and acknowledgments
While I was making progress in the early 1990s, during what was essentially
a collecting phase of the project, Erikson was approaching his nineties, and I was
greatly affected by his aging and increasing level of cognitive impairment.When
he died in 1994, the personal impact on me was profound: I had lost my esteemed
teacher and mentor fromAusten Riggs,my collaborator and partner from our work
together on the publication of his papers, and my friend. Moving forward with-
out the emotional support that I had received earlier now seemed impossible. As
hard as I tried, my heart was no longer in it, and my productivity with the project
significantly declined.
During this difficult period, Joan Erikson was enormously helpful in her deter-
mination to assist me in my search for additional clinical material. I had also grown
much closer to her personally and often visited her at her home in Harwich,
Massachusetts. Unfortunately, Joan died in 1997, leaving me completely alone with
this important project.About ten years passed with very little accomplished, until
around 2007 when I pushed myself to renew my commitment to completing what
I had started. By 2010, I was once again in high gear, heading slowly but surely
toward completion.
This book would not have been at all possible without the generosity,enormous
support, and concrete assistance that I received from friends, colleagues, and family.
Leston Havens, my private clinical supervisor for many years, gently guided me
through the work on Erikson’s selected papers in the 1980s and then forcefully
encouraged me to pursue Erikson again with my idea of publishing his clinical
work. Les was insistent that I was the most qualified person for the task, and this
gave me the necessary confidence and courage to approach Erikson.
It was very meaningful to have had additional assistance from many staff mem-
bers at The Austen Riggs Center, all of whom played an essential role over the
years to support the completion of this project.The list includes Dan Schwartz,
Al Rothenberg, Ed Shapiro, Lee Watroba, and Jim Sacksteder. I received the most
critical help at Riggs from my good friend and colleague,M.Gerard (Jerry) Fromm.
Jerry was there for me from the beginning and was predictably accessible over the
years when I needed his direction and guidance about aspects of the project—
especially issues of patient confidentiality.
Other friends and colleagues have been part of this adventure.Al Jacobson, for
example, a sociologist by training, took a personal interest in my project and was
always available to read sections of the book and provide his unique perspective.
Carolyn Fleiss, a trained clinician and artist, utilized her skills to review Erikson’s
clinical notes, which included a series of sketches that he drew during therapeutic
sessions with one particular patient.The wonderfully empathic and deeply engag-
ing T. Berry Brazelton provided uplifting encouragement and insightful ideas
about the chapter on children’s play. My dearest friend, Richard Melito, was also
a part of this project from the beginning, utilizing his editorial and clinical skills
to guide my understanding and organization of Erikson’s clinical notes. Our per-
sonal friendship helped enormously, as I always knew that I could depend on his
availability.

Preface and acknowledgments xi
Others helped with the technical side of being able to complete a project of this
magnitude.Leslie Morris,Archivist and Curator of Modern Books and Manuscripts
at Harvard’s Houghton Library,has been of considerable assistance over the years in
helping me locate Erikson’s papers,letters,and notes housed at Harvard.Leslie’s help
was coordinated with Kai Erikson’s ongoing support of my work that granted me
official permission from the Erikson family in order to gain access to confidential
clinical material. Photographs of Erikson are a vital ingredient in this book and I
have been fortunate to have obtained the works of two prominent artists, Clemens
Kalischer and Jon Erikson,whose wonderful images appear throughout this volume;
I also wish to acknowledge the valuable assistance that I received from their agents,
Kate Coulehan and Kathleen Olson.Noreen LaBatt provided excellent and reliable
typing skills necessary for the completion of this work. My brother, Paul Schlein,
an editor in his own right, was always available to me when I got stuck at a certain
point in the writing to gently and competently move me along.The editorial staff
at Routledge Books—Kate Hawes,and her associate,SusanWickenden—effectively
guided and directed me through a complex process of literally putting this book
together. I will be eternally grateful for their patience and expertise. Kristopher
Spring, my editor, read every word I wrote, provided immeasurable editorial guid-
ance and helped with my writing. Not being the most confident writer, especially
with the enormity of this task, it feels like Kristopher saved my life.
There is no doubt that I owe a very special debt to The Austen Riggs Center,
where I was incredibly fortunate to have completed my training in clinical psy-
chology and psychoanalysis and from where I drew a great deal of knowledge and
inspiration and developed the emotional strength and courage essential to do this
kind of work.It was at Riggs where I first met and studied with OttoWill,Margaret
Brenman-Gibson,Joseph Chassell,and,of course,Erik Erikson in 1971.This experi-
ence has been essential in my training as an interpersonal-relational psychotherapist
and psychoanalyst.
A very special thanks is extended to my family: my wife,Toby, and my daugh-
ters, Karen and Sarah, who have lived through this lengthy project and showed an
astounding degree of support. I always knew that their faith and trust in me was
solid and that eventually I would complete the book.I thank them from the bottom
of my heart for sticking with me.
Lastly, my parents,Anne and Irving Schlein, have given me the courage, deter-
mination, and strength that have guided me through this project. I only wish they
were still on this earth to appreciate their part in this venture.
Stephen Schlein
Lexington, Massachusetts
March 22, 2015

Erik Erikson (1951), Stockbridge, Massachusetts. Photo by Clemens Kalischer

1
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
I am honored to have the opportunity to share my perspective on the clinical-
psychotherapeutic work of Erik Erikson—reflections about a person and a topic
dear to my heart.The twentieth century has been described as the time of man’s
discovery of himself; few have contributed more to this cause than Erikson. In this
work, it is my intent to highlight his transforming contributions to the field of
psychoanalysis and honor his legacy as one of the great thinkers of our time by pro-
viding clinical case illustrations of his actual psychotherapeutic work and deepening
our historical perspective on the development of the psychoanalytic movement and
recording an era of discoveries from one of its pioneers.What a rare moment to be
able to relive the excitement and uncertainty that emerged as Erikson attempted
to conquer a new terrain: as one of the first to consider the value and significance
of children’s play and one of the founders of child psychoanalysis; as one of the
first to consider the notion of the identity crisis of adolescence; as a pioneer in the
treatment of severe psychopathology, especially borderline personality disorders,
in young adulthood; and finally, as an essential contributor to the understanding of
dreams and dream interpretation.
For me personally,the excitement experienced while immersed in this project has
been immense—like going on a biological/geological expedition and discovering
something unexpected and unique, like an underground river or a rare zoological
specimen.I have always been impressed with Judith Dupont’s book,The Clinical Diary
of Sándor Ferenczi (1988), a publication of Ferenczi’s deeply personal and probing
account of his therapeutic work. It is my wish to create a clinical diary for Erikson
that he never kept for himself: a place where I will attempt to present his ideas about
the interactive process of the therapeutic relationship; a place where I will record his
personal reflections about the clinical and personal nature of his therapeutic work;and
a place where I will devote a lot of time to the issues related to his psychotherapeutic
and psychoanalytic method and technique. In a sense, I will try to serve as his voice.

2 Introductory remarks
The publication of case material—simple memorable fragments and clinical
vignettes—will bring the reader into the consultation room and provide a power-
ful and convincing portrait of Erikson’s clinical method and technique so the field
of psychoanalysis can fully comprehend for the first time how he actually worked.
A thorough study and exploration of his clinical work with children, adolescents,
and adults seems essential and will provide, for the first time in print, a portrait of
him in action. In wondering about the nature of clinical evidence provided in the
psychotherapeutic encounter, Erikson (1964) responded,“It is in such quicksand
that we must follow the tracks of clinical evidence” (p. 56).
Today, I feel called upon to speak of the light thrown by Erikson’s clinical
insight on our generation of clinicians and highlight some of the dimensions of his
discoveries,as I attempt to sketch the evolution of particular motifs from his clinical-
psychotherapeutic work.While I present this material with a sense of excitement,
I also feel a sense of immediacy in informing the reader that the psychoanalytic
community knows little about the therapeutic technique and clinical method of
Erik Erikson.While he has achieved international acclaim as a psycho-historian, a
developmental life cycle theorist, and an essential contributor to the notion of the
identity crisis, and “while his ideas have had a remarkably lasting influence on our
culture” (according to the cover jacket of Friedman’s Identity’s Architect, 1999), few
clinicians are familiar with his technical work as a practicing psychoanalyst with
children and adults. Most of what he has presented in his writings and at clinical
case conferences describes his well-known life stage/life cycle schema, deployed as
a means to understand how individuals evolve and develop over time as he attempts
to demonstrate an appreciation for the struggles that they are living through in their
lives.This life cycle analysis searches for what Erikson called the “contextuality” in
a person’s life, utilizing his psycho-social microscope.
Erikson’s psycho-social developmental logic is well known,but this book tells a dif-
ferent story about his clinical method and technique of psychoanalysis with children and
adults. It is worth noting that Roy Schafer, a student of Erikson’s atThe Austen Riggs
Center in the 1950s, could never get him to discuss technique in supervision because
Erikson believed that technique followed from understanding.1
But,said Schafer,
From the standpoint of understanding, Erikson was probably the most bril-
liant clinical teacher I have ever had. [In a dream seminar] The whole class
couldn’t believe what he was able to do with the material presented. He was
extremely gifted in understanding and reading the unconscious . . . Clinically,
he was one of the few people I ever met who has a genius for interpreting
infantile life and its development and derivates. I have a certain ego ideal
in my head when I’m doing analytic teaching, and I am always hoping that
qualitatively, I’m on the level he was on.
(Fogel, 1991, p. 15)
Similar glowing remarks appear in the writings ofYankelovich and Barrett in Ego
and Instinct (1970),where they state that Erikson is“one of the most gifted minds in

Introductory remarks 3
the psychoanalytic pantheon” (p. 110) and that he possessed both “exquisite clini-
cal insight” (p. 118) and an “extraordinarily sensitive clinical sense that helped him
remain phenomenologically close to what he found in working with human lives”
(pp. 150–151).These authors also describe Erikson’s interest in human strength
and how his work “exhibits the unity of a painting, not that of a formal structure
and that he sets forth his themes in a context enriched by the texture and detail of
many vivid examples” (p. 120). Similarly, Stern (2007), in a paper presented at an
IARPP Athens meeting, sees Erikson, likeWinnicott and Sullivan, as a “psychoana-
lytic visionary.”That said, it is important for the reader to appreciate that in spite of
these positive remarks about Erikson’s clinical skills,overall they are quite rare in the
psychoanalytic literature because of the simple fact that most clinicians are unaware
of Erikson’s clinical contributions or that he ever functioned psychotherapeutically
as a psychoanalyst with children and adults.
While it is clear that Erikson is not well known for his clinical-psychoanalytic
work, it is interesting to note that in May 1956, along with Ernst Kris, Heinz
Hartmann, Franz Alexander, Rudolph Loewenstein, and Rene Spitz, Erikson
received one of the greatest honors a psychoanalyst could achieve when he was
invited to give a memorial lecture in Frankfurt, Germany commemorating the
100th anniversary of Sigmund Freud’s birth.(Figure 1.1 shows an announcement of
this event.) His paper,entitled“Freud’s Psychoanalytic Crisis,”was later published in
Insight and Responsibility in 1964 with the title “The First Psychoanalyst.”
My thoughts for this publication have been generated by the excitement I
experienced while collaborating with Erikson as the editor of a volume of his
selected papers, A Way of Looking at Things (Schlein, 1987). My investigation of his
early monographs on child psychoanalysis, a thorough review of his later clinical
writings, and an examination of his psychotherapeutic case studies and participa-
tion at case conferences as discussant at The Austen Riggs Center have revealed
a clinical-psychoanalytic method of extraordinary richness that unfortunately has
been obscured by his other pioneering contributions and has never received the
visibility and recognition it deserves. It also seems that Erikson has played an active
part in his own obfuscation, as he “blurred the extent of his divergence from the
psychoanalytic movement” (Yankelovich & Barrett, 1970, p. 120). Unlike many
of his colleagues, he moved more intuitively in a different direction as a result of
his impressionistic-existential style, but he never thought of himself as outside the
mainstream of psychoanalytic tradition. Consider a remark he made in 1958:
It is not easy for a Freudian to speak of the man who was Freud . . . of a man
who grew to be a myth before my eyes . . . I felt I had met a man of rare
dimensions . . . this doctor of the mind, this psychological explorer.
(p. 8)
Erikson’s words are reminiscent of a statement by Adam Phillips (1988) in his
review of Winnicott’s work: that Winnicott showed “A certain disingenuousness in
the way he disguised his radical departure from Freud” (p. 5). Because of Erikson’s

lOHANNWOLFGANGGOETHE-UNIVERSITXT
FRANKFURTAM MAIN
Einladung sum
AkademischenFestakt
- - -
ankljlich der 100. Wiederkehr des Geburtstages von
SIGMUND FREUD
in Anwesenheit des Herrn Bundespriisidenten
amSonntag, dem6. Mai1956,um1
1Uhrs. t., inderAula
Den Festvortrag halt
Herr Prof.ErikH.Erikson(Stockbridge, USA)
uber das Thema
Freuds psychoanalytische Krise
Studierende
undFreundeder Universitatsindhierzuherzlicheingeladen
Der Rekior: Coing
FIGURE 1.1 Erikson poster (1956), Frankfurt, Germany

modesty and insecurity, and a deep personal connection and loyalty to the Freud
family, he was unable to demonstrate how much he had moved away from Freud;
clearly, he felt a strong debt to the Freuds that was “too great to warrant magnify-
ing the differences between them” (Yankelovich & Barrett, 1970, p. 120). Several
authors have noted how hard it was for Erikson to stray from the traditional model
of psychoanalysis and how he instead disguised his pioneering ideas in a veil of
accepted terminology, thereby masking and minimizing his radical departure from
classical psychoanalysis.“However modest and oblique”he was,however“skillful in
blurring his divergence from the psychoanalytic movement”(Yankelovich & Barrett,
1970, p. 121), the fact remains that the basis of Erikson’s clinical orientation creates
an incredible gap with most prevailing models of treatment.
In addition, and most dramatically, Erikson did not publish most of his clinical
work with adults—an essential fact that furthered his concealment and eventual
marginalization. I can recall how reluctant he was when I approached him at his
Cambridge home one afternoon in 1989 to consider my proposal to publish his
clinical writings. His reluctance to publish this material was strongly felt when he
said in no uncertain terms,“it just isn’t right to publish such personal material about
someone’s life.” Reminding him that Freud had published extensive case material
didn’t change his mind,and it was only with the strong support and encouragement
of his wife, Joan, that he finally agreed with this plan.
Compiling his material wasn’t always easy. I feel obliged to mention a rather
mysterious issue involving the disappearance of two large file drawers containing
personal notes and clinical case material that Erikson had stored in the basement of
TheAusten Riggs Center in the early 1970s.He had informed me that this material
was in the Riggs basement and had even given me a handwritten note to remind
me of their location. This clinical material was supposed to have been shipped
during the summer of 1973 from Riggs to his new home in Tiburon, California.
A very reliable administrator at Riggs,responsible for the actual shipping at the time,
verified the departure of this material to California. However, as Larry Friedman
(1999, p. 408) wrote:
In packing, shipping, and unpacking of a great many boxes, a number of very
important files of Erikson’s clinical case notes covering his crucial years at
Riggs were mailed to and apparently arrived in Tiburon. If they were deliv-
ered to the Eriksons’ new home, they have never been seen since.This loss
has left a critical gap in the documentation of his work as a therapist and
clinical consultant.
Friedman also received confirmation of this story from the same Riggs staff
person who testified to its accuracy as one who had actually packed and shipped
the boxes. In subsequent years, I have tried everything to locate this case material.
In addition to communicating with two of Erikson’s children,Kai Erikson and Sue
Erikson Bloland, I personally searched the Riggs hospital basement and received
permission from Joan Erikson to search the basement of her Cambridge home after

her husband’s death as well as the garage of their Cape Cod home. Unfortunately,
this material has never turned up.
In spite of these limitations and the profound disappointment from losing such
valuable clinical data, I was successful in locating sufficient case material from other
sources in order to proceed with this project—especially with help fromTheAusten
Riggs Center,the Houghton Library at Harvard University,Joan Erikson,and most
importantly,from unpublished case material given directly to me by Erikson.Some
of the case material from his work with children originates from a series of clinical
illustrations actually published in his early monographs from 1937 and 1940, some
of which was later re-presented in Childhood and Society in 1950.
This book will systematically survey Erikson’s clinical writings, unpublished
papers,and notes from his psychotherapeutic case studies in order to investigate the
impact of the treatment relationship and demonstrate how he adds to our under-
standing of the restorative processes of treatment. I will describe his vision of the
treatment relationship with children, adolescents, and adults, as well as his formula
for clinical thinking and his clinical method, and highlight critical technical ingre-
dients of his interpersonal-relational work, reflecting the evolution and growth of
his ideas over the course of a half-century.
The reader will witness how Erikson’s writings illuminate some essential ingre-
dients of an interpersonal method and articulate particular interactional dimensions
that facilitate growth and have restorative potential. I encourage the reader to try
to search for the basic ingredients of this treatment method, as the cases often have
an impressionistic flavor; some important ingredients of Erikson’s perspective of
the treatment process involving clinical technique are unique in the psychoanalytic
literature.One must,of course,maintain a historical perspective and realize that most
of this material was written in the 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s.
It is my hope that by the time I reach the conclusion of this work, I will have
formulated some response to the following critical questions about Erikson’s inter-
personal/relational method:
• How does he conceptualize an interpersonal-relational treatment process and
articulate which interactional dimensions facilitate growth?
• What are the psychotherapeutic agents of change that have restorative potential?
• How does he understand the therapeutic action that helps maximize treatment
possibilities?
Trained in the art of clinical observation,Erikson felt called upon to speak of the
light thrown by psychological insight on the experiences and inner dimensions of
human existence. One will observe that he has left behind a psychology of defect
and focused on creative human strengths and human potential. His writings are “so
appealing because he smuggles the concept of the human spirit through the back
door of psychoanalytic theory. He affords us the curious picture of a prominent
psychoanalytic theorist who ignores four-fifths of Freud’s metapsychology and uses
the remainder idiosyncratically” (Yankelovich & Barrett, 1970, pp. 152–153).

While he proclaims that psychoanalytic concepts have remained intrinsic to his
clinical way of thinking,it is my intent to show that the evolution and development
of Erikson’s ideas about the actual communication within the treatment encoun-
ter reflect what fits best in the interpersonal, relational, and existential schools of
psychoanalysis. In this light, the following ideas pervade his writing:
• the convincing presence of the therapist as a provider of identity;
• a method of restoring the patient through the encounter, with a semblance of
wholeness and mutuality;
• a concept of ego actuality as an aspect of the encounter,connoting a reality that
arises from a state of being actual and immediate;
• reality as the world of participation, and mutual activation as the crux of the
matter for human ego strength.
An essential component of Erikson’s psychotherapeutic model contains an
interpersonal-relational perspective that emphasizes interactive phenomena,includ-
ing the human spirit of personal collaboration and engagement. Establishing a
clinical method he calls“disciplined subjectivity,”he positions himself as an“observ-
ing participant” who utilizes concepts such as “mutual activation,”“ego actuality,”
and “a model of affirmation.”The spirit of his ego-psychological perspective has
at its core the powerful belief in human potential and what he calls “the golden
rule of human development,” emphasizing what one person can do for another in
the actualizing-interpersonal therapeutic process. His vision places the relationship,
with its powerful affects and currents, onto center stage, as one can see that it is
essential in his thinking that human beings have a powerful and potent capacity for
real change.
The psychoanalytic literature of the past decade has focused on the intricacy
of the interpersonal encounter, while highlighting a shift from content to con-
text that utilizes immediate experience as the primary data for treatment. Every
author and each school of thought has their particular focus on this interaction
and even their own language for describing it. While some call this encounter
“relational,” others conceptualize it as “interpersonal,” “interactional,” or “inter-
subjective”; some authors refer to a process of “engagement,” as they work at the
“intimate edge” (e.g., Ehrenberg, 1992).While there is widespread agreement that
productive psychoanalysis requires close contact with the patient, and that this
interpersonal encounter and interactive method add depth and vitality to the psy-
choanalytic process, critical ingredients concerning psychotherapeutic technique
appear elusive.
Erikson was ahead of his time while writing in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, and
his remarks then about the process of treatment and the therapeutic relationship
were so much in tune with what we now consider an interactive vision of the ana-
lytic situation. Like Harry Stack Sullivan and Erich Fromm, Erikson showed some
recognition of the essential mutative nature of the analytic relationship—one that
fosters new experience and in-depth personality change. It is my hope to bring his

work into sharper focus through a more contemporary interpersonal-relational lens
and highlight what Seligman and Shanok (1995) called the“progressive possibilities”
of these contributions,as Erikson captures the dimensions of personal experience.In
this light,there is always Erikson’s deeply felt capacity to see the potential for change
in people by reclaiming aspects of themselves that have been lost due to conflict and
trauma,or possibly developing new aspects of their personality,never before present,
that emerge as a result of a transformative treatment experience.
Very much likeWinnicott,Erikson possessed a belief in a model of environmen-
tal provision when it came to the human potential for growth and development.It is
interesting to note that in his postscript from Joan Erikson’s book, Activity, Recovery,
and Growth (1976), he commented: “Things that grow are without ambivalence,
without triumph or complaint in their clear indication of what will help them
unfold or what will make them wilt, and only demand that you apply to them the
simplest wish to foster growth and prevent decay” (p. 265).This remark, appearing
as an epigraph in this book, illuminates the essential human need for a responsive
environment if growth, not decay, will evolve and unfold.
As Frank Bruni (2012) wrote in his NewYork Times article about the Summer
Olympics,“The Soul of the Olympics,” Erikson has affirmed that human poten-
tial is just about finite and that great rewards are possible when great risks are
taken. Erikson (1950) also warns the clinician when he writes,“however much the
psychotherapist may wish to seek prestige, solidity and comfort in biological and
physical analogies, he deals above all, with human anxiety” (pp. 24–25). In addition,
in this book’s epigraph, the reader will observe Erikson, the professional psycho-
analyst,in a more human-existential way,displaying“sympathy and empathy”in his
clinical stance.
These formulations speak to our most contemporary explorations of the inter-
personal encounter at the intimate edge and reflect the evolution of his pioneering
ideas, beginning with his earliest training experiences inVienna in the late 1920s.
His thinking anticipated and sheds light on much of the current ferment in the field
today,as he presented important developments regarding method and technique that
have only just appeared in the literature in recent years.
As I reach the end of this introductory chapter, I would like to relate what hap-
pened in September,1969,when Erikson,then a Harvard Professor,appeared at the
University’s Appleton Chapel during the week of man’s first landing on the moon.
He first spoke of his amazement at this unthinkable feat and its simple grandeur.
But when“the nation’s highest-ranking commentator [Richard Nixon] flatly stated
within the hearing of 500 million people that the week of the moon trip had been
the greatest since Creation,” Erikson said that he must get something off his chest
and stated:
Around the time of the moon landing, Joan and I held a newborn grandson
in our arms.I could not help thinking that every time a child is born,there is
potentially the greatest week since Creation,and the Seven Seas and the outer
space pale before its message.That men now invade the heavens, as concrete

goals of science, could force man at last, to center heaven down on earth. For
the kingdom,as I read Christ’s words,has always been within each of us,if we
can only learn to face it and share it.
(Schlein, 1987, pp. 745–747)
It is also worth noting Erikson’s comment in the concluding chapter of Childhood
and Society (1950): “I have nothing to offer except a way of looking at things”
(p.359).I ask the reader to keep this remark in mind as we move through this mate-
rial.What was Erikson’s clinical perspective,how was he looking at the world around
him, and how did he respond?
It seems appropriate at this point to say a few words about Joan Erikson’s intimate
involvement with her husband’s work, as she was his closest collaborator. I can best
paint this picture by citing Erikson’s own remarks as they appeared in some of the
prefaces and forewords of his major publications:
• In Young Man Luther (1958):“My wife, Joan Erikson, lived with me through
the reading and the writing, and sealed the experience by editing this manu-
script” (p. 10).
• In Insight and Responsibility (1964):“Joan Erikson edited this book and has been,
throughout, companion to its insights” (p. 11).
• In Life History and the Historical Moment (1975):“There are few good thoughts
in these pages which did not first emerge in conversations with Joan Erikson,
and wherever a word seems just right, it is usually hers” (p. 10).
• In AWay of Looking atThings (1987):When Erikson and I were working on this
book of his selected papers, he called me one day to tell me that he wanted to
dedicate the book to Joan and tell the world of the vital role that she had played
in all his writings.We decided that he should express these thoughts in the form
of a letter written to me as his editor, which I would then publish along with
his papers.This is what he wrote:
Dear Steve,
A number of the items selected for this summary volume, claims to be writ-
ten “with Joan Erikson.” The fact is, that in this whole collection, there
does not seem to be one bit of good writing that was not shared by her in
thought, as well as in formulation. Our over-all “Way of Looking at Things,”
therefore would have been unthinkable without her. Thank you, Steve.
Erik.
(p. ix)
With a historical perspective in mind, here is a summary of Erikson’s work
resumé over the course of his professional life as a psychoanalyst, dating back to the
beginning of his psychoanalytic training inVienna in 1927 to approximately 1987,
when he stopped teaching and writing:

• Vienna,Austria:TheVienna Psychoanalytic Institute (1927–1933)
• Boston and Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Medical School, Judge Baker
Guidance Center,Harvard University Psychological Clinic and Private Practice
(1933–1937)
• New Haven, Connecticut:Yale University, Institute of Human Relations and
Department of Psychology, and Private Practice (1937–1939)
• San Francisco and Berkeley,California:The University of California,Department
of Psychology and the Institute of ChildWelfare,Mt.Zion Hospital,and Private
Practice (1939–1951)
• Stockbridge and Pittsfield, Massachusetts:The Austen Riggs Center and the
Berkshire Mental Health Center (1951–1973)
• New Haven, Connecticut: Western New England Psychoanalytic Institute
(1951–1973)
• Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:The Western Psychiatric Institute (1951–1960)
• Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, Department of Psychology
(1960–1971) and Harvard Medical School, Cambridge Hospital and The Erik
Erikson Center (1982–1987)
Note
1 This is similar to Karen Horney’s perspective, according to Ingram’s publication of
Horney’s Final Lectures (1987, p. 10).
References
Bruni, F. (2012).The soul of the Olympics. NewYorkTimes.
Dupont, J. (Ed.) (1988). The clinical diary of Sándor Ferenczi. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Ehrenberg, D. (1992). The intimate edge: Extending the reach of psychoanalytic interaction. New
York, NY:W.W. Norton.
Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. NewYork, NY:W.W. Norton.
Erikson, E. (1958). Young man Luther: A study in psychoanalysis and history. New York, NY:
W.W. Norton & Co.
Erikson, E. (1964). Insight and responsibility. NewYork, NY:W.W. Norton.
Erikson, E. (1975). Life history and the historical moment. NewYork, NY:W.W. Norton.
Erikson, E. (1976). Reflections on activity, recovery, and growth. In J. Erikson, Activity,
recovery, growth:The communal role of planned activities (pp. 251–266). NewYork, NY:W.W.
Norton.
Fogel, G. (1991).A conversation with Roy Schafer. The American Psychoanalyst, 24, 4.
Friedman, L. (1999). Identity’s architect:A biography of Erik Erikson. NewYork, NY: Scribner.
Ingram, D. (Ed.) (1987). Final lectures of Karen Horney. NewYork, NY:W.W. Norton.
Phillips,A. (1988). Winnicott: Playing and reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schlein, S. (1987). A way of looking at things:The selected papers of Erik Erikson, 1930–1980.
NewYork, NY:W.W. Norton.
Seligman, S., & Shanok, R. S. (1995). Subjectivity, complexity and the social world:
Erikson’s identity-concept and contemporary relational theories. Psychoanalytic Dialogues,
5, 537–565.

Stern, S. (2007). Discussion of Stephen Schlein’s paper on Erik Erikson. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the International Association of Relational Psychotherapy,Athens,
Greece.
Yankelovich, D., & Barrett,W. (1970). Ego and instinct:The psychoanalytic view of human nature.
NewYork, NY: Random House.

Stephen Schlein with Erik Erikson (1978),Bennington,Vermont.Photo by Joan Erikson

2
PERSONAL REFLECTIONS ON
THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF
ERIK ERIKSON’S BIRTH
It seems appropriate for this publication to include a personal statement about my
relationship with Erikson.These thoughts originate from an event held in 2002 at
TheAusten Riggs Center that honored Erikson on what would have been his 100th
birthday. I was asked to speak at this event to reflect on my relationship with him.
Here are those reflections.
I first met Erik in 1971 when I came to The Austen Riggs Center for training
as a Postdoctoral Fellow in Clinical Psychology, after years of studying his works
in graduate school. I’ll never forget the first time I saw him: He had this flaming
white hair.You could pick him out of a crowd of hundreds of people, and you
would know this man is someone special. Not every famous person has that look,
but this guy had it.As anticipated, it was a thrill to be in his presence. It was truly a
remarkable experience to visit his home every Wednesday evening for our weekly
clinical seminar,where,besides offering the fellows his clinical brilliance,Erik served
Danish cigars and cognac.
I made it my business each week to arrive before the other fellows,so that I could
spend a few minutes alone with him.He was welcoming and astonishingly receptive
to what soon became a routine arrangement, even though at times I might arrive
15–20 minutes early.We would chat about all sorts of topics including Martin Luther
King and Richard Nixon.Once,he told me of his upset with a NewYorkTimes book
review that accused him of denying his Jewish identity. On another occasion, in
some distress, he showed me the Japanese edition of Childhood and Society that had
just arrived in the mail and expressed his upset about his picture on the cover jacket
that had his hair straightened, colored black . . . with the configuration of his eyes
altered,all to create the impression that he was Japanese.As he held up the book for
me to see, he proclaimed,“Look what they did to me.”
But I didn’t get to know Erik in a real way until we began working together
on his papers to create AWay of Looking atThings.This book would not have been

14 Personal reflections about Erik Erikson
possible without his genuine interest, gentle support, and spirited nature. He pro-
vided a sustaining presence for me that helped this experience hold together.The
time with him was more than I could have dreamed of, and he nourished me in
so many ways with his warmth, support, affirming presence, and physical affection.
Often when we would sit together,he was insistent that I sit next to him—not across
from him—and he would often place his hand on my knee and humbly ask me
what I thought about the matter we were discussing. Initially, I found this arrange-
ment very intimidating, because he truly wanted to know my thoughts about the
topic being discussed.
At one point in our work together on his papers, I visited him in California.
When I arrived at his home, he didn’t waste much time directing me to the back-
yard to a small wooden structure that many would call “a shed,” though Erikson
referred to the building as “a caboose.” He gave me a large mailing envelope, with
my name written on it in large block letters,filled with many papers and notes,some
previously published and others unpublished,and essentially directed me in a rather
forceful manner to“sit in here and when you finish reading this material,come and
get me and we can discuss the papers and decide whether or not they belong in the
book.” Figure 2.1 below shows the original mailing envelope.
FIGURE 2.1 Erikson mailing envelope (1984),Tiburon, California

Personal reflections about Erik Erikson 15
As I got to spend prolonged periods of time working with him, I began to see
him more as a real person, and I began to feel and experience his profound inse-
curity and self-doubt. He often looked to me for support and validation. On many
occasions, upon entering his study in Cambridge, we would pass the mantelpiece
where he displayed a picture of Anna Freud. He would tell me that when he was
leavingVienna in the early 1930s,she would plead with him“not to go to the other
side,” as she was well aware that he was leaning philosophically far to the left.And,
with his hand over his heart, he would remark how hurt he was that “she never
accepted my work.” On one occasion, he became quite annoyed with me when
I asked him about a story I had heard from Robert Coles about a time inVienna
when he served as Sigmund Freud’s chauffeur to the airport. Erik made it quite
clear that he was not the driver, but was, in fact, sitting in the back seat, positioned
between Sigmund and Anna Freud.
On another occasion,he told me a story from his early childhood of a time when
he thought the family’s celebration was for his third birthday.In fact,as he later dis-
covered,he was only partially correct;this family gathering was also a wedding party
for his mother,who had just married Dr.Theodore Homburger,Erik’s pediatrician.
One time, when we were discussing a paper on the life cycle, Erik reflected on the
period in the late 1940s when he was creating the life cycle stages that he became so
well known for.He had the idea that the first life cycle stage of infancy ought to be
called“inner confidence.”When he asked his wife,Joan,what she thought,she shook
her head disapprovingly and said, “No Erik, inner confidence does not capture
the complexity of the mother–infant interaction, and what the baby receives from
the mother . . . the first stage of life ought to be called ‘basic trust.’”
Ultimately,it was an incredibly profound and meaningful experience to be in his
presence.He was authentic,always the attentive-responsive listener,and always will-
ing to learn. He wrote about human virtues that evolve from each life cycle stage.
His personal virtues or human qualities revealed his remarkable sense of humanity:
his playfulness,integrity,curiosity and humility.I always knew I was in the presence
of someone special.

Sketch of Erik Erikson by Norman Rockwell (1950s), Stockbridge, Massachusetts

3
PERSPECTIVES ON ERIKSON’S
CLINICAL-PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC
WORK WITH CHILDREN AND ADULTS
As I set the stage for this review, I want to mention Erikson’s first published paper
from 1935,“Psychoanalysis and the Future of Education.” He presented this paper
in April 1930 to the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society while he was still in psycho-
analytic training at the Vienna Institute.The paper is illuminating and fascinating
as it clearly foreshadows his later development. He began the paper as one would
suspect, preaching the party-line of that time, talking about the healing power of
self-knowledge in psychoanalysis, the analyst as a silent observer who maintains
an attitude of impartiality, and the passivity of the analyst. In an effort to high-
light “psychological enlightenment” as a potential of human growth, he was bold
enough to suggest—while the emphasis in the field was clearly directed toward
the effects of repressed libidinal energy and impulses—that the major emphasis in
human growth (and, I suspect he believed, in treatment) ought to be “an interest
in a broader conception of enlightenment about the entire world of affects and not
only one special instinct” (Schlein, 1987, p. 29).According to Robert Coles (1970),
Erikson’s remarks were considered very provocative at the time to the faculty of
the institute, no doubt including some of his teachers and, probably most especially,
Anna Freud.
It is clear from a review of this paper how Erikson, simultaneously working
as a teacher in Anna Freud’s school and engaged in psychoanalytic training at the
Vienna Institute,was envious of the flexibility permitted in the teacher’s role as one
whose work involves “continuous talking,” one who “cannot avoid registering his
own affective responses,” one who “cannot eliminate his own personality,” and one
who can play “a very personal part in the child’s life.” He believed that “it is the
X in the teacher’s personality which influences the X in the child’s development”
(Schlein, 1987, pp. 14–15). It certainly appears that the teacher’s more spontaneous
and interactive role with the child was more appealing and satisfying to him than
what was available for a psychoanalyst in training.

18 Perspectives on Erikson’s clinical work
While I am reviewing Erikson’s early writings,I wish to highlight another paper,
written in 1945, that was his first published statement about the problems of ego
identity confusion/diffusion in young adults.While working in San Francisco at
Mt. Zion Hospital’s Veterans Clinic after World War II, he published “Plans for
Returning Veterans with Symptoms of Instability”; a few years later, in Childhood
and Society (1950), he added additional thoughts to this discussion with a case pres-
entation about a soldier returning from combat (“A Combat Crisis in a Marine,”
pp. 34–43). Focused on understanding the veteran’s war experience, he utilized a
more diagnostic perspective. Here, one can see the clinical Erik Erikson in action
as he attempts to clarify and document exactly what is going on psychologically in
the mind of this veteran returning from the front lines.
In describing the soldier’s breakdown, originally referred to in the literature as
“psychoneurosis”or“war neurosis,”Erikson highlighted a pattern of symptoms that
revealed a clinical picture involving a gradual breakdown of the ego,what he called
a loss of ego synthesis.This included a series of important diagnostic indicators:
• symptoms of nervous instability;
• physical exhaustion;
• lack of sleep;
• enforced immobility;
• momentary doubt about the wisdom and honesty of military leaders,including
an excessive sense of responsibility and a lack of conviction regarding “what’s
it all about.”
He followed this listing with additional diagnostic signs:
• feelings of inferiority;
• doubts about one’s sanity;
• guilt feelings toward buddies who are still in combat;
• concerns about being considered a “weakling” and a “weak sister” and con-
demned as a coward.
Before the article was complete, Erikson had cleverly described a process of
psychological breakdown in motion, with clear symptomatology of a borderline
condition and an impressive diagnostic picture of a posttraumatic stress disorder.He
then talked further about confused feelings of unreality,lapses of memory,indecision
and inefficiency, restlessness, undue sensitivity to noise, sexual impotence, outbursts
of anger, and puzzling contradictions and ambivalences.
In his effort to put all the diagnostic indicators together,he introduced the reader
to his newly developed ego-psychological perspective—a psycho-social one—that
looks not just at neurotic symptoms, but at multiple factors, all part of a cen-
tral disturbance and part of varying aspects of human experience.The focus is on
appreciating the individual’s interaction and inner experience in the real world and
not simply an emphasis on psychopathology. He writes,“our searchlight does not

Perspectives on Erikson’s clinical work 19
attempt to isolate and hold in focus any one aspect or mechanism of a case; rather
it deliberately plays at random around the multiple factors involved, to see whether
we can circumscribe the area of disturbance” (1950, p. 25).
Erikson’s (1950) remarks elaborated further on the diagnostic picture of ego
impairment stemming from a traumatized ego and adds the following features:
• a state of potential panic as a result of a faulty and startled (ego) screening system
that pays attention to a thousand stimuli at any given moment and has lost its
shock-absorbing capacity;
• an inability to rely on characteristic processes of the functioning ego by which
time and space are organized and truth is tested;
• a loss of a sense of personal identity,where the individual subjectively no longer
felt his life hung together;
• a clear disturbance of ego identity that under normal circumstances provides
the ability to experience oneself as somebody that has continuity and sameness.
For Erikson,“the therapeutic problem is to understand how the combined cir-
cumstances weakened a central defense and what specific meaning the consequent
breakdown represents” (p. 44) and to emphasize “the effectiveness of the psycho-
analytic contribution to this development . . . that guarantees a persistent humanist
intention” (1968, pp. 66–70).
As already stated, Erikson’s clinical work is rarely cited in the psychoanalytic
literature or utilized at our training institutes. Golland’s (2008) review of the litera-
ture showed that Erikson is quoted in journals of other psychological disciplines,
but not in the psychoanalytic journals,and that his concepts are honored outside of
psychoanalysis more than within. Golland believed Erikson’s exaggerated loyalty to
Freud concealed his pioneering ideas under the guise of orthodoxy. Nevertheless,
it is evident that Erikson reached a certain level of acceptance in the field in the
1940s and 1950s as one of the few non-medical psychoanalysts, and because of his
impressive clinical skills, he earned respect from his medical colleagues. Clearly, he
was admired for his intellectual gifts, his presence, and his insightful and intuitive
capacities (Yankelovich & Barrett, 1970).
In 1995,one year after Erikson’s death,RobertWallerstein,one of his best friends
and colleagues, wrote:
After Freud, no single psychoanalyst has more profoundly influenced world
culture and society than Erik Erikson;in his lifetime he was undoubtedly the
psychoanalyst best known and most deeply esteemed as well as most widely
influential in the total socio-historical surround.
(p. 173)
Similarly, Howard Levine (1998), in his magnificent paper on Erikson’s Dream
Specimen, remarked that, “such acclaim stands in stark contrast with the fact that
Erikson’s name and writings have all but disappeared from contemporary psychoanalytic

discourse” (p. 26). He wondered “why Erikson’s contributions did not occupy a more
central place in psychoanalysis,”and asked the question:
Did the interdisciplinary influence and appeal of his work give it a broader
sweep than would engage the more focused interest of the average clinical
practitioner, or was there something in Erikson that contributed to the even-
tual marginalization of his writings within the psychoanalytic mainstream and
was it some combination of character, personal history and the preconditions
for his creativity that required him to adopt the position of inveterate outsider?
(p. 27)
From my own understanding and knowledge of the literature, most of the ref-
erences focus on Erikson’s psycho-historical, life cycle developmental, adolescent
identity crisis writings, with very little mention of the clinical-psychotherapeutic
treatment with adults.Nevertheless,in the area of children’s play,child psychotherapy,
and child psychoanalysis,he is cited extensively and is clearly established as a pioneer,
one of the most influential founders and key contributors in the field. In addition,
he is without a doubt one of the most influential authorities in the area of human
growth and development,with most papers on human development and the life cycle
referencing him. In the area of infant development,“he represents a person of heroic
proportions,like someViking of old,he has charted the course of human development
across time . . . especially as he introduces the social environment and its impact on the
child’s growth and development” (Call, Galenson, &Tyson, 1983, p. xxii). Regarding
adolescent growth and development, adolescent turmoil, and the identity crisis, and
with more psychopathological situations leading to identity diffusion and borderline
states,his perspective is highly respected in our culture as he“weaves sociological and
emotional strands together into a seamless conceptual web” (Esman, 1975, p. 177).
In spite of this helpful and enlightening information, I decided to do a more
extensive literature search,curious to see what I might uncover and what interesting
remarks I might find.
In Richard Dyer’s (1983) important volume reviewing Anna Freud’s contribu-
tions to psychoanalysis, the author stated,
Erikson’s truly original work was not confined to early child analysis but
embraced anthropology and sociology before turning to a solution to the
psychological study of the human condition. Erik Erikson has been, without
a doubt,the most gifted and influential child psychologist to come out of the
Vienna Children’s Seminar.
(p. 119)
Paul Roazen (2000), noted psycho-historian, commented,
Erikson deserves to be remembered in his full complexities. He was extraor-
dinarily intuitive and as Helene Deutsch once remarked,“without elbows.”

Even though he took pains to dampen down the subversiveness of his think-
ing, he stood for an immense amount of fresh air, which should be bracing
and emancipating.
(pp. 437–442)
And as Roazen (1976) wrote on the book jacket of his biography of Erikson,
Erik Erikson is one of Freud’s most important intellectual heirs. He is inter-
nationally famous for his theories of ego psychology, his psychological
biographies of Luther and Gandhi, and the life-cycle phrases he has added
to our language:“psychohistory,”“life-cycle,”“identity crisis,”“psychosocial,”
“human life cycle,”“inner space,” etc. His vision of the human life cycle is
credible and seductive,and his writing has [a quality of] humanism that exerts
a special charm on us.
Noted psycho-historian Robert J. Lifton has often stated that Erikson was the
most creative psychoanalytic mind since Freud. In a similar vein, Robert Coles
(1970) emphasized how Erikson took Sigmund Freud into the present and made
psychoanalysis a way of understanding the healthy as well as the sick:
As a Montessori trained teacher in Europe, observer of Sioux and Yurok
Indians, therapist to war-wrecked soldiers—[he] became the theoretician
whose ideas have worked their way so deeply into our fund of knowledge
so that we don’t know where they came from . . .We talk about “emotional
maturity,” “identity,” and “psycho-biography,” as if we always owned the
concepts. Borrowing from art, sociology, history, education, anthropology,
repaying with Freudian insights, Erikson is with us everywhere . . . Perhaps
without knowing exactly what his overall purpose was, Erikson gave psy-
choanalysis enough clinical information to achieve the very theoretical
connection his book’s title announced . . . it’s about “being in the world” to
use Heidegger’s term . . . Erikson turned what had become static into some-
thing again forceful and compelling . . . He has tried to put into mere words
no less a phenomenon than life itself,as it unfolds and achieves for each person
a distinctive quality.
(pp. 60, 76)
David Rapaport’s (1959) historical survey of psychoanalytic ego psychology
provides a valuable overview of the significance of Erikson’s contributions. In his
introductory remarks to Erikson’s publication of Identity and the Life Cycle (1959),in
an effort to accurately place Erikson historically, he reviews his ego-psychological
perspective and highlights:
• a concept of human adaptation;
• a theory of the ego and the unitary solution of the ego’s relation to reality;

• a theory of reality relationships and interpersonal (psycho-social) relationships
in particular;
• a plan for the epigenesis of the ego;
• the ego aspect and the social aspect of object relations;
• a focus on the social character of the human individual in his encounters with
the social environment throughout the life cycle stages;
• a concept of mutuality that specifies the crucial coordination between the
developing individual and his human-social environment.
In this light, in a 1950 personal correspondence to Erikson, Robert Knight,
Medical Director at Austen Riggs, told Erikson that Childhood and Society was “one
of the few books that make ego psychology come alive, and I thought it was a
wonderfully wise and far-seeing book from which I learned very, very much, and
before which I stand in humble admiration.” Knight continued,
The richness of the material, the broad insights you were able to express so
beautifully, the overwhelming evidence of your having thought your way far
out of the consultation room into the societal matrix where people live and
are shaped—all left me feeling deeply impressed with your clinical thinking,
stirred, and somewhat wiser.
And, in a 1952 correspondence with a patient’s father, Knight said,“Mr. Erikson is
one of those extraordinary people whose prestige is based on their record and not
on their degrees.”
Also from the Austen Riggs staff, M. Gerard Fromm (2002a) claimed that
“Erikson’s work represented the ‘culmination’ of the project of ego psychology to
that time because it provided the first truly psychoanalytic theory of social real-
ity with which the developing ego is always in interaction” (pp. 10–11).And from
anotherAusten Riggs Center Newsletter (Fromm,1984),“The work of Erik Erikson,
more than any single person of our time,has contributed to the understanding of the
individual’s personal psychological development” (p. 3).
Golland (1997) stated that Erikson is solely responsible for the extension of
psychoanalytic sensibilities to the fields of education, biography, sociology and
history:
His masterpiece, Childhood and Society, inaugurated the life-span orienta-
tion in developmental psychology, and placed psychoanalytic theory firmly
into social and historical contexts; Erikson is the acknowledged founder
of life-span developmental-psychology, of psychohistory and of psychobi-
ography . . . Erikson’s bio-psycho-social approach was the first nonmedical
psychoanalytic model of the human condition, expanding a reductionistic
and pathologizing vocabulary with his concept of life-tasks and their derived
vulnerabilities, strengths, virtues, related, nonetheless to psychosocial stages.
(pp. 325–328)

Winnicott had made several references to Erikson in his writings and displayed
a genuine, accurate, and respectful understanding and appreciation of his child and
adolescent developmental contributions, including his theories about children’s
play, especially in the context of the mother–child relationship during infancy. He
acknowledged Erikson’s work on “identity formation” in infancy and referred to
the “playground” created by the mother where play begins in a potential space
with the mother (Winnicott, 1971). Nonetheless,Winnicott’s remarks never refer
to Erikson’s clinical-psychotherapeutic contributions. Even in his 1965 review of
Erikson’s Childhood and Society,Winnicott wrote,“His personality is free from bom-
bast and he has a natural humility which makes him the right person to attempt
to apply psychoanalytic findings” (pp. 493–494). Unfortunately,Winnicott never
commented on the clinical-psychotherapeutic portion of the book that contains
numerous case studies and clinical vignettes on the treatment of children.
In his magnificent volume about Winnicott’s work, The Facilitating Environment:
Clinical Applications of Winnicott’s Theory (Fromm & Smith, 1989), M. G. Fromm, a
student of Erikson’s at Austen Riggs, acknowledged that there are many areas of
overlap between Winnicott and Erikson:
These men offer a synthesis of ego psychology and object relations.They each
place the integrative core of the person at the center of their theories . . . each
elevates the concept of play to a new level of importance as the basic medium
of evolving integration.
(Fromm & Smith, 1989, pp. 13–14)
Fromm also suggested that“Winnicott’s good enough mothering is akin to Erikson’s
concept of basic trust,” and that “this emphasis on the mutuality of the evolv-
ing mother-child matrix is the central ongoing concern of both Winnicott and
Erikson.” (pp. 13–14)
In his introduction to a Massachusetts Institute for Psychoanalysis panel honor-
ing the anniversary of Erikson’s 100th birthday in October 2002, Fromm (2002b)
also remarked that “Erikson’s dramatic shift of psychosexuality from a focus on
body zones to interactional modes is also taken for granted in our largely relational
context.” Still further, he highlighted the obvious connections between Erikson
and Winnicott related to the centrality of play, creativity, “the sense of I,” early
developmental processes, and so on.“Erikson had his theory in his bones, how he
could read the patient’s life history, its phases, contours, detours and thresholds and
pivotal moments—as if he were looking through clear shallow water directly to
the bottom.”
In a superb masterpiece of psycho-biographic/psycho-historical writing about
Erikson’s life and work, Identity’s Architect (1999), Larry Friedman stated in the
book’s foreword that Erikson,“doesn’t want to circumscribe or define so much as
to propose tentatively and imply a way of seeing things rather than a grand scheme
of definitions. His formulations are open-ended, meant to encourage reflection”
(p. 16). It is Friedman’s sense that Erikson was under pressure from analysts, such as

Erich Fromm, to step forward and reveal his real divergence from Freud (personal
communication, 2013).
The NYU Press publications include an impressive collection of “essential
papers”in the areas of countertransference and dreams that include Erikson’s papers
on ego identity (1956) and the dream specimen (1954). Likewise, Otto Kernberg’s
(1975) authoritative book on borderline conditions highlights Erikson’s contribu-
tions to the understanding of borderline psychopathology with his study of severe
identity confusion and diffusion.
Marshall Berman’s (1975) NewYorkTimes review of Erikson’s Life History and the
Historical Moment (1975) noted,
Erikson has added new phrases to our language—words that signify new
ways to interpret and confront our lives. As a psychoanalyst he has played
with children and unraveled marvelous hidden depths and resonances in their
play . . . he has evoked the joy and dread of adolescence with a rare vividness
and sympathy.
(pp. 1–2)
Robert Coles’The Erik Erikson Reader (2000) is a very fine collection of Erikson’s
important papers that includes a few of his published clinical cases, yet there is
no discussion or analysis of Erikson’s actual psychotherapeutic work and, strik-
ingly, little in his review of the papers about the process of treatment and how
Erikson worked as a clinician. In addition, another book of readings edited by
Wallerstein and Goldberger, Ideas and Identities:The Life and Work of Erik Erikson
(1998), presents an impressive panoramic overview of Erikson’s contributions,
including a clinically focused paper where the authors do recognize Erikson’s clini-
cal perspective on critical topics, such as “subjectivity,” and “participant interacting
involvement.” In a 1995 obituary, it was Wallerstein who talked about Erikson’s
overall accomplishments: “After Freud, no single psychoanalyst has more pro-
foundly influenced world culture and society than Erik Erikson . . . in his lifetime
he was undoubtedly the psychoanalyst best known and most deeply esteemed as
well as widely influential in the socio-historical surround” (p. 173). Unfortunately,
as Howard Levine (1998) stated,“Such a claim stands in sharp contrast with the
fact that Erikson’s name and writings have all but disappeared from contemporary
discourse” (p. 25).
In a similar vein,Bergman and Hartman’s The Evolution of PsychoanalyticTechnique
(1976) reprinted Erikson’s important clinical paper on “Reality and Actuality,”
along with other essential papers on technique by Ferenczi, Fenichel, Abraham,
and Alexander, but never discussed the paper in any form to indicate why the
paper was chosen for the book and what Erikson’s contributions were regarding
psychoanalytic method and technique.
Gerald Schoenwolf’s Turning Points in Analytic Therapy (1990) is a substantial
volume filled with actual treatment cases by Winnicott, Searles, Fairbarn, Kohut,
Kernberg,Fromm-Reichmann,and others,and includes two of Erikson’s cases (one

child and one adult) taken from Childhood and Society.The author begins with the
above-mentioned treatment of a marine just returning from battle fromWWII and
the story of his “battle neurosis.”The second case is a presentation of the therapy
of a three-year-old girl (the case of “Mary” will appear in Chapter 5 and will be
discussed in some detail) with an emphasis on Erikson’s use of a non-interpretative
play experience as the modality of treatment. Erikson’s emphasis is on the process
of treatment and the importance of play ingredients such as “play disruption” and
“play satiation” and the self-curative trend in “spontaneous play.” One can observe
him in action in this material and how he utilizes and illuminates the restorative/
curative aspect of children’s play. Schoenwolf’s appreciation of Erikson’s clinical
case material is extremely rare in the psychoanalytic literature; the author makes an
impressive attempt to understand how Erikson actually conducted these therapies
and goes into some depth in this very unusual publication.
Seligman and Shanok (1996) have convincingly recognized Erikson’s clinical-
psychoanalytic contributions and appreciated how he strains the limits of ego
psychology and locates the essence of his developmental theories in the context
of human relationships.Their understanding of Erikson’s perspective on identity
formation and the ego disturbances of the identity crisis is profound, and they are
fully aware of how Erikson captures the “dimensions of personal experience” and
“how it feels to be a person” (p. 537).Their writings and overall focus on personal
experience demonstrate the depth of Erikson’s existential and experiential per-
spective on the concept of identity.They can appreciate how “the self is essentially
created, defined, and located in the flux of relationships” (p. 538).This remark is a
very Sullivanian notion and would fit Erikson’s view of the impact of the treatment
relationship as well.They understand how Erikson has managed to integrate a the-
ory of social relationships into a psychoanalytic framework and, most convincingly,
where he has“vitalized and humanized what is best about ego psychology.”Clearly,
these authors appreciate how Erikson,in the 1950s,“introduced new paradigms that
assert the primacy of interpersonal relationships” and “vitalized the dimensions of
experience”(p.540) by bringing relationships into the picture,thereby emphasizing
an experiential dimension of human growth.While their knowledge of Erikson is
unique,extensive,and truly impressive,they unfortunately lacked original first-hand,
primary source clinical case material to have been able to examine in more depth
Erikson’s actual psychotherapeutic technique and method, and to analyze how he
functioned as a psychotherapist and psychoanalyst.One last point:these authors are
acutely aware that Erikson was not ever really marginalized because he was never
really “in” to have been thrown out.
I have decided to conclude this review by mentioning a recent biography about
the life and work of Norman Rockwell by Deborah Solomon (2013), where it
was revealed that Rockwell was in treatment with Erik Erikson in Stockbridge,
Massachusetts.Solomon informs the reader that Rockwell moved to Stockbridge so
that he could be near The Austen Riggs Center. She claims that “Rockwell found
someone in whom he could confide his feelings of inadequacy and despondency,
who could normalize them and allow him to become more direct and emotional

in his art” (p. 6), and that “Rockwell was a dependent man who tended to lean
on men, and in Erikson he found reliable support” (p. 291) and an “indisputa-
ble ally” (p. 312). Erikson’s training as a psychoanalyst helped Rockwell’s level of
comfort with their arrangement. Solomon claims that,“Rockwell took an instant
liking” to Erikson, who “was in his early fifties and a forceful physical presence: a
handsome European émigré with blue eyes, a ruddy complexion, and a nimbus of
white hair” (pp. 288–289). Regarding Rockwell’s well-known drawing of Erikson
(shown at the beginning of this chapter),Solomon comments,“The finished portrait
shows Erikson in all his Nordic glamour, a handsome man with thick white hair
combed off his high forehead. And flawless eyes” (p. 345). Once Rockwell began
treatment with Erikson, says Solomon, “Rockwell’s work became more overtly
psychological” (p. 291).
References
Bergman, M. S., & Hartman, F. R. (1976). The evolution of psychoanalytic technique. NewYork,
NY: Basic Books.
Berman, M. (1975, March 30). Erik Erikson, the man who invented himself. NewYorkTimes.
Call, J., Galenson, E., & Tyson, R. (1983). Frontiers of infant psychiatry. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Coles, R. (1970). Erik Erikson:The growth of his work. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Co.
Coles, R. (2000). The Erik Erikson reader. NewYork, NY:W.W. Norton.
Dyer, R. (1983). Her father’s daughter:The work of Anna Freud. NewYork, NY: Jason Aronson.
Erikson, E. (1935). Psychoanalysis and the future of education. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 4,
50–68.
Erikson, E. (1945). Plans for the returning veteran with symptoms of instability. In W. Louis,
E. Hilgard, & J. Quillen (Eds.), Community planning for peacetime living (pp. 116–121).
Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. NewYork, NY:W.W. Norton.
Erikson,E.(1954).The dream specimen of psychoanalysis.Journal of theAmerican Psychoanalytic
Association, 2, 5–56.
Erikson,E.(1956).The problem of ego identity.Journal of theAmerican PsychoanalyticAssociation,
4, 56–121.
Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers. New York, NY: International
Universities Press.
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity:Youth and crisis. NewYork, NY:W.W. Norton.
Erikson, E. (1975). Life history and the historical moment. NewYork, NY:W.W. Norton.
Esman,A.(Ed.) (1975).The psychology of adolescence.NewYork,NY:International Universities
Press.
Friedman, L. (1999). Identity’s architect:A biography of Erik Erikson. NewYork, NY: Scribner.
Fromm, M. G. (1984). Erikson’s scholar research fund established. The Austen Riggs Center
News, 4, 3.
Fromm, M. G. (2002a). Erikson on dreams. The Austen Riggs Center Review, 15, 10–11.
Fromm, M. G. (2002b). Introductory remarks. Presented at the Massachusetts Institute
for Psychoanalysis event honoring the anniversary of Erik Erikson’s 100th birthday,
Cambridge, MA.
Fromm, M. G., & Smith, B. (Eds.) (1989). The facilitating environment: Clinical applications of
Winnicott’s theory. NewYork, NY: International Universities Press.

Golland, J. (1997). Erik Erikson’s clinical implication and applications: A memorial tribute
discussion. Psychoanalytic Review, 84, 325–328.
Golland, J. (2008).Whatever happened to Erik Erikson? Paper presented at the Mount Sinai
School of Medicine,The Faculty Psychotherapy Conference, NewYork, NY.
Kernberg, O. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York, NY: Jason
Aronson.
Levine, H. B. (1998). Erik Erikson’s dream specimen paper:A classic revisited. Psychoanalytic
Study of the Child, 53, 25–42.
Rapaport, D. (1959). A historical survey of psychoanalytic ego psychology: Erik Erikson’s
contributions. In E. Erikson, Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers (pp. 5–17). NewYork,
NY: International Universities Press.
Roazen, P. (1976). Limits of a vision. NewYork, NY:The Free Press.
Roazen, P. (2000). Erik Erikson’s contributions. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 17, 437–442.
Schlein, S. (1987). A way of looking at things:The selected papers of Erik Erikson, 1930–1980.
NewYork, NY:W.W. Norton.
Schoenwolf, G. (1990). Turning points in analytic therapy. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Seligman,S.,& Shanok,R.S.(1996).Erikson our contemporary.Psychoanalysis and Contemporary
Thought, 14, 339–365.
Solomon,D.(2013).American mirror:The life and art of Norman Rockwell.NewYork,NY:Farrar,
Straus and Giroux.
Wallerstein, R. S. (1995). Obituary, Erik Erikson. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 76,
173–175.
Wallerstein,R.S.,& Goldberger,L.(1998).Ideas and identities:The life and work of Erik Erikson.
Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
Winnicott, D.W. (1965). Erik H. Erikson: Review of Childhood and society. In C.Winnicott,
R. Shepherd, & M. Davis (Eds.), D.W
.Winnicott: Psycho-analytic explorations (pp. 493–498).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Winnicott, D.W. (1971). Playing and reality. NewYork, NY: Basic Books.
Yankelovich, D., & Barrett,W. (1970). Ego and instinct:The psychoanalytic view of human nature.
NewYork, NY: Random House.

4
CONFIGURATIONS OF
CHILDREN’S PLAY
“Toys and Reasons”
During the summer of 1927, as a struggling 25-year-old artist living alternately in
his hometown of Karlsruhe, Germany and Florence, Italy and unsure of his profes-
sional direction,Erikson was encouraged by his childhood friend Peter Blos to travel
toVienna to draw portraits of Dorothy Burlingham’s children at the school where
Blos was employed.This led to Erikson joining the teaching staff at the experimental
Hietzing School,established byAnna Freud and Dorothy Burlingham for children of
the adults who had come toVienna to be analyzed by Freud.Erikson was unaware at
the time that this was to become one of the most fateful moments in his life: he was
to meet the circle surrounding Sigmund Freud and would eventually be discovered
by Anna Freud and invited to become a candidate for psychoanalytic training at the
Vienna Psychoanalytic Institute.Trained as a Montessori teacher and a portrait artist,
this work played to his visual language and directed him to the external social
world—as he developed a road map to understanding how the child was
navigating the social world around him. He regarded his Montessori training
as an essential counterpart to psychoanalytic preoccupations with the child’s
inner emotional life. It intensified his interest in the objects of child’s play
and how a person needed meaningful activity, what he later called “actuality.”
(Friedman, 1999, p. 68)
Taken from a private communication with a colleague, Erikson wrote,
From Montessori, I learned to pay attention to and to repeat with my own
hands the simplest manipulations with materials [that] acquaint a child with
the tangible world and permit him to reconstruct it in play.Although I was
always drawn to children’s play because as an erstwhile artist I could empathize
with its visual language.

30 Configurations of children’s play
Early in his training, “Erikson departed from the orthodox psychoanalytic
emphasis on the neutrality of the therapist by visiting his patients’ homes, din-
ing with their families, and having them come to his house to meet his family”
(Friedman, 1999, p. 113).This is evident in the following brief case vignette, taken
from unpublished treatment notes, where Erikson describes his observations from
a dinner he had at a child’s home:
When I had dinner at Gabriel’s home (age 14), he proved to be a very quiet,
and in fact,somewhat pale boy,of smaller and finer build than the other chil-
dren.While he seemed to be excessively well mannered,but otherwise healthy,
he appeared to participate in the social graces automatically, as if in a trance.
He could be seen at times to stare into nowhere with a faint smile on his
face.At other times his face (which, incidentally is a rather pretty and boyish
face) would suddenly cloud over, more with fear, it seemed, than with rage.
There is no doubt but that this boy knows what is happening; I also suspect
that the parents are unrealistic if they assume that this boy does not know
his background, and of the fact that he has been considered by the previous
foster homes a “lemon.”
As another indication of his unorthodox style, Erikson also did not always use
the couch with his adult patients. Friedman (1999) states that Erikson’s credentials
“gave some semblance of legitimacy to these (unorthodox) practices and that his
sensitive/intuitive manner, combined with his earthy/relaxed presentation quickly
gained recognition in Boston, and that he was continually praised by colleagues for
his intuitive insight into young people” (p. 113).Additionally,
He was seen as possessing a special gift and someone with unusual empathy
and understanding of children’s unconscious processes. In addition, he was
always willing to put theory aside and focus on actual social circumstances
surrounding a child and developed a reputation for helping others char-
acterized as hopeless and could succeed when others failed. His profound
understanding of children’s play and his ability to connect the child’s emotions
and his suffering with outer social circumstances was impressive.
(pp. 116, 119)
Friedman also emphasizes how Erikson could“break from psychoanalytic ortho-
doxies while retaining a strong allegiance to the memory and spirit of theVienna
founders” (p. 157).
In a 1936 book review of Anna Freud’s Psychoanalysis for Teachers and Parents,
Erikson began,in print,to differentiate his own ego-psychological perspective with
a strong interest in moving beyond the ego’s major focus on the importance of
defense mechanisms to an evolving environmental/developmental/interpersonal
process of human adaptation and the psychological growth of the ego. Erikson’s
orientation did not see everything as psychopathological. He wrote:

Configurations of children’s play 31
Following the traditional route of psychoanalysis the book says much about
what may limit and endanger the child’s ego, it says little about the ego
itself . . . so far as studies may illuminate the ego, psychoanalytic insight will
be able to help educate, in its most specific problem: the strengthening and
enriching the ego.
(p. 293)
It was also clear that Erikson was distressed by the medicalization of American
psychoanalysis. In Vienna, he said,“you had the feeling it was a humanistic busi-
ness. It was enlightenment. Here psychoanalysis was part of the medical world”
(Friedman,1999,p.115).In this light,at the start of a case presentation in Childhood
and Society, Erikson (1950) made the following remark, revealing a more holistic/
humanistic orientation:
The nature of our case suggests that we begin with the processes inherent in
the organism.We shall in these pages refer to the organism as a process,rather
than a thing, for we are concerned with the homeostatic quality of the living
organism, rather than with pathological items [that] might be demonstrable
by section or dissection.
(p. 34)
LikeWinnicott, many of Erikson’s concepts related to the treatment of children
and adolescents are applicable to the treatment of adults.So Erikson began his career
as a child psychoanalyst;indeed,he was Boston’s first.Freud did not analyze children
himself, and when he became aware that psychotherapeutic contact with children
was useful, he left this field to others, especially his daughter, Anna. As Freud and
the first psychoanalysts were faced with the task of conceptualizing a field that had
almost no tradition, so too was Erikson faced with a similar task as he set sail across
uncharted waters in an effort to decipher the hieroglyphics of children’s play in the
1930s.He was one of the pioneers in this field,along with Anna Freud and Melanie
Klein. He pioneered the application of psychoanalytic methods to childhood dis-
orders; his early writings focused on the nature of children’s play, and his most
distinctive contribution was the devising of simple yet elegant methods for assessing
children’s play and then drawing inferences about the child’s personality from these
play constructions.The emphasis was that toys and play had reason and personal
meaning, ergo the title of the chapter in Childhood and Society,“Toys and Reasons.”
In one of his earliest published clinical case illustrations, designed to highlight
the meaning and psychological significance of children’s play, Erikson (1937) pre-
sented a girl of 12, who at the age of 5 had developed a severe neurosis following
the departure of her pregnant nurse who had been in the house from the time of
the girl’s birth. His analysis of her block/house construction showed not only the
representation of her unusual posture, but also the unconscious determinants for
it, especially her identification with and attachment to her nurse. For example, the
girl’s protruding abdomen, which Erikson said made her look pregnant, appeared

32 Configurations of children’s play
in the house construction as a protruding wall of the bathroom of the house,which
Erikson thought was the abdominal region of the body showing her incorporation
of the lost nurse.The example demonstrated how the child’s sense of self and her
body ego were revealed and demonstrated in the play.
For Erikson,play involved an experience in actual space,in the dynamic relation-
ship of shapes and sizes and in what he called “spatial configurations”, and began
with and centered on the child’s body, impulses, and the environment. He tried to
develop a direct approach through play to the traces of early experiences that formed
the child’s body ego.The clinical illustration shown in Figure 4.1 is presented here
as an example of this perspective.
Erikson was remarkable in his work with children in Vienna, claimed Larry
Friedman (1999): “His new calling as a child analyst [was] compatible with his
strong visual and artistic impulses . . . I had a certain sense of children’s experience
and that did it,” said Erikson. He clearly had learned “to integrate his prior experi-
ence as an artist with his psychoanalytic clinical training” (p. 60). Known for his
“intuitive manner” and for possessing “unusual empathy,” combined with the belief
in the self-healing function of play,Erikson often referred to the therapist as“a cur-
ing agent” (1950, p. 38), who utilized “clinical intuition” as a result of “a particular
elusive personal equation”(1940a,p.558).Clearly,he believed that the clinician had
a direct influence on the material he observed.
FIGURE 4.1 Child’s play construction sketch, drawn by Erikson (1937)

Configurations of children’s play 33
“Freud has said that the study of dreams is the royal road to the adult’s uncon-
scious,”Erikson (1950) wrote.“In analogy to this,the best clue to the understanding
of the infantile ego is the study of the child’s play—‘fantasies woven around real
objects’ (Waelder)” (p. 160). Erikson’s use of symbols in children’s play was parallel
to Freud’s analysis of symbols in the dreams of adults. So it is here that he began
with a focus on the rich interplay of the content, form, and spatial aspects of play,
since children cannot obey the laws of free association, as adults do. He tried to go
beyond the sexual symbolism in play, so prevalent in the field, as he attempted to
show how the child’s inner concerns were represented in the play and in the spatial
configurations created by the child. Erikson (1963) claimed,
The child’s play begins with and centers on his own body . . . It begins before
we notice it as play,and at first consists of exploration by repetition of sensory
perceptions, kinesthetic sensations, and of vocalizations.As this evolves over
time, the child then plays with objects and people . . . He may playfully cry
to test out what would work best to get the mother to reappear, or he may
indulge in experimental excursions on her body and/or the protrusions and
orifices of her face . . .This is the child’s first geography, and the basic maps
acquired in such interplay with the mother no doubt remain guides for the
ego’s first orientation in the world.
(p. 220)
A number of years ago, I came across a magazine advertisement for children’s
toys by the Brio Toy Company. I was very impressed with the message they were
conveying about the meaning and value of play and how closely it fit with Erikson’s
perspective.In an effort to market their product,Brio utilized a psycho-educational
approach and revealed a real appreciation for children’s play, the significance of the
experience of playing, and the potential impact it could have on the child.They
made reference to the child’s self-esteem and his imagination. Note their remarks:
“A toy that helps children grow and lifts your child’s self-esteem”; “Your child
smiles with joy as she completes a job well done”;“Your child explores the magic
of thought”;“This toy is powered by your child’s imagination.” (These adverts are
reproduced on the next two pages as Figure 4.2.)
In a unique effort for a psychoanalyst, Erikson (1940b) published an article in
1940 in a pediatric journal, Cyclopedia of Medicine, titled “Problems of Infancy and
Early Childhood.” He presented his perspective on the psychological meaning of
children’s behavior and continued his effort to preach the importance of psychologi-
cal enlightenment and of understanding why children behave as they do.He set out
to clarify some major psychoanalytic concepts about childhood and said,“there are
indications that even regarding its most disturbing subject, man’s emotions, science
is arriving at methods comparable to the use of x-rays in the investigation of the
organism, which allow for the study of vital (psychological) mechanisms” (Schlein,
1987, p. 548). In this article, Erikson allowed the reader to have a glimpse into
his thinking about the importance of the functioning of the ego when he wrote,

The clinical erik erikson a psychoanalytic method of engagement and activation by stephen schlein

The clinical erik erikson a psychoanalytic method of engagement and activation by stephen schlein

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to The clinical erik erikson a psychoanalytic method of engagement and activation by stephen schlein

Similar to The clinical erik erikson a psychoanalytic method of engagement and activation by stephen schlein (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The clinical erik erikson a psychoanalytic method of engagement and activation by stephen schlein