Understanding the Wolf-man
From the History of an Infantile Neurosis represents a fascinating case written by Sigmund Freud that was published in 1918. It is one of his most important cases since it covers many aspects for possible development of key questions and concepts concerning psychoanalysis. It shows the fascinating story of Sergeï Konstantinovitch Pankejeff, “the Wolf Man” who had a lifetime commitment to psychoanalysis, almost as if it was not possible for him to separate himself from it while Freud and other analysts were trying to find a reason to his psychotic episodes and neuroses. This allowed him to become a professional patient and have a strong influence on psychoanalysis. How Freud represented his life story very easily allowed the existence of different views concerning his way of treatment, but also the narration and structure of the text. This led to the creation of many new readings that showed these new perspectives that would even further enrich and complicate the case. This paper will try to compare some of the different points of view and arguments concerning the case mostly centered on the connection between the origin of the patient’s neurosis and the primal scene.
In order to expand the meaning and avoid any unfamiliarity with the topic, a few beneficial words surrounding the original story need to be mentioned. The patient was born in a wealthy family. His parents had an image of being in a happy marriage, but it is later shown that this wasn’t true because of the many health problems that started to affect them. His father had severe depression and his mother was experiencing strong physical pain. In fact there was a difficult relationship and disorder within the whole family that also included his older sister, nurse and governess. The case is used as a beginning of clarification on what infantile neurosis is, since it emerged from the repressed sexual desires of the patient. Some of Pankejeff’s symptoms were animal phobia, hysteria, sadomasochistic tendencies, obsessional symptoms, and anxiety. He also had experienced hallucinations, which is elaborated by Jacques Lacan in an essay called “Tuche and Automation”. In it Lacan explains that the real is considered to have a position behind the phantasy. This could be potentially connected to the wolf-man’s case because of the denial of any symbol in the patient’s hallucinations. Lacan elaborated on a specific hallucination where Pankejeff had a hallucination about cutting his finger, hiding this from his nanny and later understanding that he just imagined the blood and pain. He uses this strange attitude to castration as a proof of the patient’s refusal from others which represent the real, turned into a hallucination since there is acceptance but also resistance from his side.
The outcome of the sessions was that Freud was trying to understand how the relationships within this family impacted his patient’s behavior and how the Oedipus complex, infantile sexuality and symptoms of the adult were present because of the issues in his childhood. Freud explains that the patient throughout his life could have transformed different scenes in an imagination, later projected back into his childhood with a connection to his parents. This is why the case showed the significance of Freud’s psychodynamic method that relates childhood events to the wellbeing of the adult. The way the process was going was that Freud was trying to fill in the gaps in his patient’s childhood memory, and express his understandings from these pieces as a whole story. It is very difficult to do a proper evaluation this way since the memory could be mixed with phantasy or it could even be replaced by a dream, which makes it take a different shape and it becomes harder to trace when certain things happened. The patient’s memory can be influenced by suppressed desire that would also put imagined scenes in the historic truth. The changes of the past need to be taken into account, when looked back from a much later point in life, especially with consideration of the connection between the memory and the truth.
From all the pieces in the case, the wolf dream that brought the patient the first instance of anxiety could be used as the central focus. In Freud’s words “Wolf Man was in bed when he was suddenly awoken and, looking out of the bedroom window, he saw six or seven white wolves sat in a walnut tree outside, focused on him.” The dream is a basis on which the primal scene was constructed, it is a trauma for the patient and it is a struggle for the analyst because it reaches limits as much as it helps with the analysis. The dream’s understanding represents a mode of analysis because it helps comprehend the primal scene and the meaning behind it. The primal scene is included in the text with the words, “he witnessed a coitus a tergo (from behind)” (p.37) when the patient as a baby witnessed his parent’s intercourse. Creating the existence of certainty in the reader is done through repetition of the primal scene with different explanations that try to describe its occurrence. Further on, Freud states he would only be able to influence the mind of the reader that has already been convinced by his own experiences and that it would be normal to be skeptical of his explanations around it, in one occasion he states: “I am afraid it will also be the point at which the reader’s belief will abandon me”. (p267) Stanley Fish mentions Freud’s claim about not having a strategy to convince in “Withholding the missing portion”, and states that this could be a conviction in itself because it can avoid the resistance of the reader.
Freud was aware that he was trying to create something different, and reach a new form by using the theories that he was certain of. Because of this, he was aware of the possible criticism and differences he had, especially with Jung and Adler. This is why he tried to point to the differentiation from them by avoiding any reason for him to lose the debate. One of their differences is about the attention on the infantile experiences that the patient recalls from his childhood, being they are only fantasies. Freud’s argument is that the cooperation from the patient would be lost if he treats them as unimportant, which would explain a lot about Freud’s willingness to find the origin of the repression. Freud explains, “there would be no evidence whatever of the reality of such a scene if we were to find it in a patient whose symptoms had appeared at some time or other later in his life” by this one can understand that what matters most is not what the primal scene is specifically, or even if it is real, but how it caused anxiety and trauma. Patrick Mahony criticizes Freud as well in “Cries of the Wolf Man”. He emphasizes the fact that Freud goes back to the primal scene with continuous explanations and changes in his structure and story. Patrick is certainly harsh about the great details that Freud offers in his descriptions. However, he also focuses narrowly on fixing the details into what may be more probable, even dividing each objection into a specific section. The writer is making many assumptions, such as the one that the data about the primal scene is showing Freud’s phantasies instead. Patrick is therefore aware of the primal scene being a possible phantasy or the patient witnessing dogs instead. If it is so then there is no need to fix any of the details throughout the case. He questions if the scene could even cause the trauma that the patient had since there were other possible causes. This potentially questions the whole point of Freud connecting childhood memories and understanding the truth.
Pankejeff himself later had this dilemma about the notion of the primal scene. It is pointed out by Lukacher in “Primal Scenes: Freud and the Wolf-Man” that the primal scene was constructed only by Freud, and not the Wolfman. Which led the Wolfman to question the effect of the primal scene, he does not completely oppose it but he believes that the seduction by his sister had a bigger effect on him later since it was not a phantasy. There is also a difference between the patient’s life story, his understanding of his life as well as the psychoanalyst’s interpretation of it. Even though Freud’s narrative was still more convincing and very powerful, Pankejeff posted a version of his view of his own life called “The Wolf-Man and Sigmund Freud” edited by his lifelong friend Gardiner. The two written reports have many conflicting accounts. For example from all the relationships within the family, there is a contradiction between the Wolfman and Freud concerning how the relationship with his sister was, Freud: “what was perhaps even more striking was the calmness with which he was able to relate this, as though he had no comprehension of the coarseness of feeling to which he was thus confusing”. (p.309) As it is presented in the case, Freud tries to understand why his patient didn’t feel repression of grief after her suicide. Creating the reasoning that it would mean he would be more worthy of his father’s love since he wouldn’t have any competition anymore. However, the wolf-man in his notes expresses that he did feel strong feelings of depression. Even much later in his life, in an interview with Karin Obholzer, he disagrees with the representation of the wolf dream, he goes on to say that he is in the same state he was before he even met Freud. However, that doesn’t make Freud’s theories on this case any less true. It is suggested that this interview allows the Wolfman to just score his own points against Freud, for example, the fact that he was still in a bad state or even connected the primal scene to a hypnotic session. However, it is important to mention that he doesn’t “challenge its authority” but simply states his own view.
In the notes of Pankejeff version, he explains what we already know about Freud, that he has a fantastic way of putting his thoughts into words. His way of choosing the right expressions invalidation to his theories even brought enjoyment to his patient when he listened to him talk during sessions. The notes Freud took that later created the case were represented in an artistic way, with twists that would eventually lead to a reveal. This is when his style could be taken as persuasive; since some of the details were connected and even interweaved which lead to the inevitable exclusion. For example, the primal scene is mentioned at the beginning as an origin to the issues that followed and at the end after many pieces that the whole structure formed around. Freud understood how the text should be structured and how the reader would create meaning. His writing is described as brilliant and original because he knew that by choosing clarity and simplicity without any deeper explanations of the topic, would actually make the reader understand less and be disappointed by the end. This is why the explanation of this case could not possibly be straightforward and simple. It is explained in great detail, with necessary complications, in the end, Freud was even concerned that it may not be visible how and when his patient’s illness emerged and what influenced its unfolding. He expresses this by saying that he couldn’t give a purely historical explanation of the story. There are many stories about each of his symptoms that intersect in the analysis which makes the narration more complicated. However, this complexity is what made the case so important.
The detective work during the analysis is recognized in the clues which are carefully placed so they can be explained as they come or skipped with a promise to come back to them after the reveal of something important later in the text. With phrases as: “I shall have, for a special reason to deal with this dream again elsewhere, and interpret it and consider its significance in great detail” or “I shall discuss on another occasion the explanation of these animal phobias“.(p.262) It is not overstating to consider Freud a superior narrator. There are many lines throughout the story that almost encourage the reader to second guess the case conclusions which is why the successive arguments became possible. In this way, the reader can understand the position of the analyst as well as the patient as if he is directly involved. The story could sometimes be understood differently because of that. Peter Brooks suggests that Freud was completely aware of the analogies between the way he reaches to his psychoanalytic theories and detective work. In “Fictions of the Wolf Man: Freud and narrative understanding” Brooks uses Freud’s narration of this specific case to explain that there could always be recapturing of meaning. He suggests that by being written as a detective narrative could sometimes cause the case to be suggestive and misleading. Brooks divides the text into four levels of narration, one being the history of the neurosis, then the etiology, the third is the history of Freud’s treatment and the last is the order in which the case is reported. Freud’s narration is modernistic; the Wolfman case specifically could function as a detective story referring to the connections mentioned before. Brooks also states that the modernistic in his narrative is the absence of disillusion. Stanley Fish agrees in some aspects with Brooks in his reading on the Wolfman. Since according to both of them, what allows for the narration to occur is the primal scene. Even if there is a difference in how it happens, meaning through an understanding session or rhetorical maneuver. Fish suggests that in the major segment of the central part of the case is done with persuasion and even force from the analyst to the dependent patient. After this, going back to the original case, we notice that during the sessions the patient was presented as more passive and controlled, which could be also seen as negative transference. Because of this, it could be considered that the counter-transference by Freud was also negative.
It is interesting to see what other writers got from the story, and what they were more concentrated on. The way he writes and revolutions from his theories engaged more criticism on a different topic, this time by Roger Greenberg and Seymour Fisher who are some of the people that go deeper into the explanation that Freud’s theories were never validated and that his recognition comes more from a literary aspect and not a scientific one. The existence of this issue consequently led to Freud to stop publishing in medical journals in 1905. They point out to analytic errors like countertransference and try to blame him for not fully reproducing the content of the sessions, which means to fit the statements that agree with the analyst’s theory. The possible similarity with the patient’s case in a medical institution that it is mostly purely scientific is that they are also recognized only by their illness and symptoms. The main differences are that the analyst is present in the psychoanalytic case and transference is noticeable in the text, which teaches the reader more about the whole information and process of the analysis.
The patient remained in the same conditions as before, but as it is mentioned by Brooks he still did manage to have a life that was bearable. His state did not decline Freud’s theories which he got from Pankejeff’s childhood memories but became a place for discussion. It could be noticed that as time passed Freud evolved his theories more and learned to input his experiences for the creation of new ideas which helped his cases advance and later help with the major knowledge about psychoanalysis we have today. This leads to him learning together with his patients. The case of Wolfman helped Freud in the realization of a new form and helped psychoanalysis grow in the fact that many of his followers were discussing it and consequently their theories became influenced. The analysis of Wolfman has an impact that goes beyond the proof of the treatment, and Freud was aware of this which is why he paid special attention to it.
Bibliography:
Freud, S. (1918 [1979]), “From the History of an Infantile Neurosis”, in Case Histories II, vol. 9, Penguin Freud Library, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Brooks, P. (1992), ‘Fictions of the Wolf Man: Freud and Narrative Understanding’, in Reading for the Plot: Design and Intention in Narrative, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.
Fisher,S and Greenberg,P.(1977), ‘The scientific credibility of Freud’s theories and therapy’ Sussex, vol8. Harvester Press
Fish, S. (1988), ‘Withholding the Missing Portion: Psychoanalysis and Rhetoric’ in Meltzer, F. (ed.), The Trials of Psychoanalysis, Chicago, Chicago University press.
Obholzer,K.(1982),”The Wolf-Man: Conversations with Freud’s Patient — Sixty Years Later”, New York: Continuum. Print.
Pankejeff,S.(1989), The Wolf-Man and Sigmund Freud. Ed. Muriel Gardiner. Karnac Books.Print.
Mahoney, P. J. (1984), “Cries of the Wolf Man”, New York, International Universities Press.
Lukacher, N., (1985), Primal Scenes: Literature, Philosophy, Psychoanalysis, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
Lacan, J. (1979), “Tuche and Automation, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis. Trans.Jacques-Adam Miller. London: Penguin Books.
Anderson, W.(2013), “The Case of the Archive”, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press