Call for Papers:
Call for Commentaries on Inna Rozentsvit’s “Women’s Voices in Psychoanalysis: Erased or Forgotten”
Special Winter 2025 Women’s Issue
(Submission due date November 15, 2024)
Dear Colleagues,
As part of our Special Women’s Issue, we seek commentaries on Inna Rozentsvit’s symposium article (included below) of up to 1,200 words, as well as your longer articles (1,500-2,500 words) on the subject, including your title, author name(s) with affiliation, a 50-word abstract, 7-10 keywords, and your brief biography (three to four sentences), ending in your email address. Send documents in Microsoft Word (*docx or doc) format by November 15th or earlier to Paul Elovitz (cliospsycheeditor@gmail.com) or send your submission to the official Clio’s Psyche submissions form. This is part of our Call for Papers on women in psychoanalysis, psychohistory, and our scholarly world. We welcome your submissions and urge you to share this Call for Commentaries with colleagues and lists.
A Few Words about Clio’s Psyche and the Psychohistory Forum:
It is the style of our scholarly quarterly to publish thought-provoking, clearly written articles usually based upon psychoanalytic/psychological insight and developed with examples from history, current events, and the human experience. We are open to all psychological and psychohistorical approaches and prefer to publish personalized articles without psychoanalytic/ psychological terminology or jargon.
We have converted to a modified version of the latest APA citation system, which will have very few references, and those are overwhelmingly for direct quotes. We emphasize good literary style without referring to authorities except when essential. Indeed, we discourage citations except where there are quotations or where they are otherwise essential.
Submissions the editors deem suitable are anonymously refereed in our double-blind system. Once you have submitted your article, please do not make any further edits to the piece until we return it to you (if necessary). Again, please send your submissions to Paul Elovitz (cliospsycheeditor@gmail.com) or the official Clio’s Psyche submissions form by November 15th, 2024.
Clio’s Psyche is about to enter its 30th year of publication by the Psychohistory Forum, a 43-year-old organization of academics, therapists, and laypeople holding scholarly meetings in person (at the Lincoln Center of Fordham University, NYC) and virtually. For information on our publication and back issues over a year old, go to our website at www.cliospsyche.org/archives. Get writing guidelines for Clio’s Psyche at https://cliospsyche.org/guidelines. Also visit http://www.PsychohistoryForum.com and http://www.PsychobiographyForum.com.
Write to us for information on how to join our group and read our print journal.
Sincerely yours,
Paul
Paul H. Elovitz, PhD, Historian, Research Psychoanalyst, Online Professor, Editor, Clio’s Psyche and author The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributors (Routledge, 2018), editor of The Many Roads of the Builders of Psychohistory (2021) and author of over 400 publications. E-mail: cliospsycheeditor@gmail.com
<><><>
Women’s Voices in Psychoanalysis: Erased or Forgotten
Inna Rozentsvit—Psychohistory Forum
Abstract: The early psychoanalytic movement was not immune to the gender biases of its time. This essay explores women’s significant yet often overlooked contributions to psychoanalysis. We uncover a rich tapestry of ideas and innovations that have been systematically marginalized or forgotten, including pioneers such as Spielrein, Forest, Severn, Thompson, Hilferding, Balint, and Andreas-Salomé. By reevaluating their roles and impacts, we rectify historical imbalances and enrich our understanding of psychoanalytic thought and practice.
Keywords: Alice Balint, Clara Thompson, Elizabeth Severn, Enid Balint, female psychology, Izette de Forest, Lou Andreas-Salomé, Margarete Hilferding, psychoanalysis, psychobiography, Sabina Spielrein
Psychoanalysis, a field that has profoundly influenced our understanding of the human mind, was born in a world dominated by male voices. From its inception with Sigmund Freud’s groundbreaking work to the early gatherings of the Wednesday Psychological Society, the narrative of psychoanalysis has been predominantly male-centric. However, beneath this well-known surface lies a rich tapestry of female contributors whose voices have been marginalized, erased, or forgotten. As Marie Curie said, “I was taught that the way of progress was neither swift nor easy.”
This essay aims to shed light on these ignored or mostly forgotten pioneers by briefly introducing them before going into my considerable analysis of the reasons for this failure. I will explore their contributions and the systemic factors that led to their erasure from the canonical history of psychoanalysis. By examining their stories, we address a significant gap in the historical record and gain insights into the complex interplay of gender, power, and intellectual recognition in the early 20th century.
Historical Context
The birth of psychoanalysis coincided with a period of significant social change, yet it remained deeply influenced by the patriarchal structures of its time. Freud’s inner circle, initially composed entirely of men, set the tone for the field’s gender dynamics. The Vienna Psychoanalytic Society, evolving from these early meetings, became the epicenter of psychoanalytic thought, but it was a space where women’s voices struggled to be heard.
Despite these barriers, women began to carve out spaces for themselves in the psychoanalytic community. Figures such as Anna Freud, Melanie Klein, and Karen Horney gained prominence and introduced perspectives that would significantly shape the field’s development. Anna Freud’s work in child psychoanalysis, Klein’s play therapy and object relations theory, and Horney’s challenge to Freudian views on female psychology all demonstrated the vital contributions women could make when given the opportunity. What follows are case studies of forgotten women pioneers of psychoanalysis.
Sabina Spielrein: The Overshadowed Innovator
Sabina Spielrein’s story is a testament to the complex interplay of personal relationships and intellectual contributions in early psychoanalysis. Initially known primarily as Carl Jung’s patient and later as his lover, these associations have long overshadowed Spielrein’s own groundbreaking work. Her 1912 paper, “Destruction as the Cause of Coming into Being,” introduced the concept of the death instinct, predating and likely influencing Freud’s own theory of the death drive. Her ideas on child development, particularly the importance of early oral feeding and the mother’s breast, later became central to Melanie Klein’s object relations theory. As the first woman to present a psychoanalytic paper for a doctorate, Spielrein broke new ground for female intellectuals in the field. Her establishment of a “psychoanalytic (White House) nursery” in Russia and her efforts to bridge Western and Russian psychoanalytic traditions further demonstrates her innovative spirit and dedication to the field.
Ferenczi’s Women: Collaborative Pioneers
The story of Sándor Ferenczi’s female collaborators—Izette de Forest, Elizabeth Severn, and Clara Thompson—illustrates women’s often-unacknowledged influence on the development of psychoanalytic technique. Izette de Forest, known enigmatically as “Ett.” in The Clinical Diary of Sándor Ferenczi (1988), played a crucial role in developing the “relaxation” technique. This approach, emphasizing a more flexible and empathetic stance from the analyst, challenged traditional notions of analytic neutrality and paved the way for more relational approaches to therapy. Elizabeth Severn, referred to as “R.N.,” brought her personal experiences of severe childhood trauma to her collaboration with Ferenczi. Their work together was instrumental in shifting psychoanalytic attention toward the reality and long-term effects of childhood abuse. This focus continues to influence trauma-informed approaches in psychotherapy today. Clara Thompson, Ferenczi’s American protégé, became a key figure in promoting and developing his ideas in the United States. Her emphasis on the importance of the patient-analyst relationship and the concept of mutual analysis helped shape a more egalitarian and empathetic approach to psychoanalytic practice.
Margarete Hilferding: The Pioneering Motherhood Voice
Margarete Hilferding’s admission to the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society in 1910 as its first female member marked a significant milestone in the history of psychoanalysis. Born in Vienna in 1871, Hilferding was a medical doctor and one of the earliest female practitioners of psychoanalysis. Her groundbreaking work challenged prevailing Freudian views on female psychology and motherhood, paving the way for future feminist critiques of psychoanalytic theory. Her 1911 paper, “On the Basis of Mother’s Love,” presented a revolutionary perspective on motherhood. Contrary to Freud’s emphasis on penis envy as a driving force in female psychology, Hilferding argued that motherhood was not merely a compensation for this supposed lack. Instead, she posited that the mother-child relationship was a unique and powerful experience deserving serious study and consideration within psychoanalytic theory.
Key aspects of Hilferding’s work include emphasis on prenatal bonding (largely overlooked in early psychoanalytic literature); recognition of maternal ambivalence toward children; exploration of female sexuality, separate from male-centric models; and consideration of sociocultural factors influencing women’s experiences of motherhood. Despite the innovative nature of her work, Hilferding’s contributions were mainly disregarded for many years. This neglect was partly due to the male-dominated nature of early psychoanalytic circles and partly because of her tragic fate—she was deported to the Treblinka concentration camp in 1942, where she perished.
The Balints: A Relational Legacy Overshadowed
Alice Balint and Enid Balint, though often overshadowed by their association with Michael Balint, made significant contributions in their own right. Alice Balint’s work bridged psychoanalysis and anthropology, studying childrearing practices across cultures and anticipating later developments in ethnopsychoanalysis. Her 1939 paper, “Love for the Mother and Mother Love,” explored the complex dynamics of early mother-child relationships and their impact on adult personality development. Enid Balint, focusing on couple relationships and the concept of the “basic fault” in psychological development, co-developed the influential “Balint groups” for general practitioners. These groups, providing a forum for doctors and other medical professionals to discuss challenging cases and explore the psychological aspects of their work, have become an integral part of medical education and professional development in many countries.
Lou Andreas-Salomé: The Intellectual Maverick
Lou Andreas-Salomé’s contributions to psychoanalysis were as unique as her life story. Despite her close associations with figures like Freud, Nietzsche, and Rilke, Andreas-Salomé developed her own original theories on narcissism and feminine sexuality. Her book The Erotic (1921) and her later work The Human Family (1933) offered nuanced perspectives on creativity, sexuality, and family dynamics that challenged and expanded upon traditional psychoanalytic interpretations.
Factors Contributing to Gender Bias
The marginalization of these women’s voices in the history of psychoanalysis was not a simple oversight but the result of complex, interconnected factors deeply rooted in the psychological, social, neurobiological, and academic structures of the time. The pervasive gender bias in early 20th century academia and medicine created significant barriers for women seeking to enter and gain recognition in these fields. The psychoanalytic community’s strong hierarchical structures often centered around charismatic male figures, further complicating women’s efforts to establish themselves as independent thinkers and practitioners.
The historiography of psychoanalysis, traditionally focused on a narrative centered around key male figures, notably Freud and his immediate circle, often relegated women to peripheral or supportive roles. This male-centric narrative, perpetuated through textbooks, biographies, and academic curricula, created a self-reinforcing cycle where the contributions of male psychoanalysts were continually emphasized while those of women were disregarded. Moreover, the preservation and promotion of women’s works were hindered by various factors. Women’s writings were less likely to be published, translated, or widely distributed than their male counterparts. Personal papers and correspondence of female psychoanalysts were less likely to be preserved or made accessible to researchers, further contributing to the erasure of their voices from the historical record. The “Matilda Effect,” coined by historian Margaret W. Rossiter, describes the systematic under-recognition of women’s contributions to scientific research. In psychoanalysis, as in other fields, there was a tendency to attribute women’s work to their male colleagues or to downplay its significance.
The Broader Context: Women in Science and Academia
The erasure of women’s voices in psychoanalysis mirrors a broader pattern in scientific and academic fields. Rossiter’s work provides valuable insights into this wider context, revealing consistent patterns of exclusion and marginalization across disciplines. Recent research has shed light on the persistent gender disparities in scientific output and recognition. A study published in Nature (Mathew Ross et al., 2022) found that women are systematically less likely to be named as authors on articles and patents, even when they are part of research teams. This underrepresentation in authorship suggests that women receive less credit for their scientific contributions than their male counterparts. The case of Rosalind Franklin serves as a canonical example of this phenomenon. Franklin’s crucial contribution to the discovery of the structure of DNA went unrecognized for years. She was wrongfully denied authorship on the original Crick and Watson paper, and it was not until long after her death that the scientific community became aware of the injustice. This oversight was only corrected because Watson’s account of the discovery was so flawed that it prompted a reconstruction of events by Franklin’s colleagues.
More recently, similar concerns have been raised in cutting-edge fields. Jennifer Doudna, a key figure in developing CRISPR-Cas9 DNA technology, expressed worry that she and her collaborator Emmanuelle Charpentier were being relegated to “minor players” in the history and commercial use of this groundbreaking gene-editing tool. These examples raise critical questions about how many women’s contributions have been discounted in less high-profile circumstances and how many women have been discouraged from pursuing scientific careers because of systemic ignorance of their scholarship.
The causes of these disparities are complex and multifaceted. Some studies suggest that women’s lower observed scientific output is due to less welcoming work environments, greater family responsibilities, different positions in the laboratory, or differences in the type of supervision they receive. A recent study by Ross et al. (2022) found that women receive less credit for their scientific work than men, with women being 13% less likely to be named as authors on articles and 58% less likely to be named on patents. This study also found that women are not less productive but rather that their work is undervalued, stating that the gender gap in scientific output might be owed to differences in attribution and not to scientific contribution (Ross et al., 2022, p. 135)
Rossiter (1993) introduced the concept of the “Matilda Effect,” named after American suffragist Matilda J. Gage. This phenomenon expands on the “Matthew Effect” in the sociology of science, which “refers to the under-recognition accorded to those who have little to start with” (Rossiter 1993, p. 325). The Matilda Effect specifically describes the systematic under-recognition of women’s contributions to science, often resulting in their work being attributed to male colleagues. Rossiter argues that this gender-specific bias is so pervasive in scientific information and recognition practices that it warrants being named and studied as a distinct phenomenon.
Rossiter’s research also highlights the strategies women have employed to navigate male-dominated fields. These include specializing in areas considered more “appropriate” for women (often lower-status or less visible roles), forming supportive networks, and sometimes downplaying their own achievements to fit into masculine professional cultures. In psychoanalysis, we see similar strategies in women’s prominent roles in child analysis and the formation of female analytic circles.
The parallels between these broader scientific trends and women’s experiences in early psychoanalysis are striking. Just as Rosalind Franklin’s work on DNA structure was initially overlooked, the contributions of women like Sabina Spielrein to foundational psychoanalytic concepts went unrecognized for decades. The concerns raised by modern scientists like Jennifer Doudna echo the struggles of early female psychoanalysts to receive proper credit for their ideas and innovations. Understanding these broader patterns is crucial for contextualizing the erasure of women’s voices in psychoanalysis. It demonstrates that this phenomenon is not unique to psychoanalysis but part of a larger, systemic issue in academic and scientific fields. This perspective underscores the importance of actively recovering and recognizing women’s contributions, not only in psychoanalysis but across all disciplines.
Psychological Factors: Gilligan’s Perspective on Gender Differences
The work of psychologist Carol Gilligan offers a compelling psychological framework for understanding the undervaluation of women’s contributions in fields like psychoanalysis. Her research on moral development and gender differences in self-perception reveals fundamental distinctions that may have profoundly influenced how women’s work was perceived and valued in academic and scientific contexts. Gilligan found that when describing themselves, women tend to define their identity through relationships, while men more often use “I” statements, emphasizing separation and individual achievement. This difference in self-perception has far-reaching implications, particularly in a field like psychoanalysis, which is deeply concerned with human relationships and interpersonal dynamics. Paradoxically, in an academic culture that prizes individual achievement and breakthrough theories attributed to singular thinkers, women’s more collaborative and relationally framed contributions might have been systematically undervalued.
The language Gilligan observed in her subjects is particularly telling. On the one hand, men (who see themselves as autonomous) often thought in terms of “slaying dragons,” mirroring the conquest-oriented metaphors frequently used to describe scientific and intellectual achievements. On the other hand, women (who consider caring for others as an ultimate responsibility during their teenage years, focused on relationships. This perspective aligns less neatly with the narrative of scientific discovery as a form of domination over nature or a breakthrough into uncharted intellectual territory. This distinction between justice-oriented and care-oriented thinking may have significantly influenced how women’s contributions to psychoanalysis were perceived. In a field that initially emphasized universal psychological principles and structures (a justice-oriented approach), the care-oriented perspectives brought by many women might have been seen as less rigorous or scientifically valuable.
These psychological differences, deeply ingrained through socialization and possibly rooted in differing developmental paths, likely contributed to the under recognition of women’s voices in psychoanalysis in multiple ways. Women’s more relational communication style might have been perceived as less assertive or authoritative in academic settings. Their research focus might have gravitated more toward questions of relationships and care, areas potentially undervalued in early psychoanalytic theory. If women were more inclined toward collaborative work than individual achievement, their contributions might have more easily gone unnoticed in a system that prizes singular, breakthrough achievements. Furthermore, women’s tendency to define themselves through relationships rather than individual achievements might have led to less self-promotion, making their work less visible. Ideas presented with an emphasis on care and relationships might have been received differently than those framed in terms of universal principles or individual psychology.
Understanding these psychological factors adds another layer to our analysis of why women’s voices in psychoanalysis were systematically underrated. It suggests that beyond explicit biases and structural barriers, subtle psychological dynamics may have disadvantaged women in gaining recognition for their intellectual contributions. This perspective invites us to consider not just the external obstacles women faced but also the internalized patterns of thought and behavior that might have influenced their professional trajectories and the reception of their work. In the context of psychoanalysis, a field that prides itself on deep psychological insight, the overlooking of these gender differences in self-perception and moral reasoning is particularly ironic. It underscores the pervasive nature of gender biases, capable of influencing even those dedicated to understanding the human psyche. As we continue to uncover and celebrate the contributions of women in psychoanalysis, Gilligan’s work reminds us to be attentive not just to overt discrimination but also to the subtle ways in which gendered patterns of thinking and relating may shape the production and recognition of knowledge.
Neurobiological Factors: The Brain’s Role in Gender Differences
While social and cultural factors undoubtedly play a significant role in the underappreciation of women’s contributions to psychoanalysis and other scientific fields, recent neuroscientific research suggests that inherent biological differences between male and female brains may also contribute to this phenomenon. As a neurologist, neuropsychoanalyst, and neuroscience researcher, I have observed firsthand the complex interplay between brain structure, function, and human behavior. My work in this interdisciplinary field has provided unique insights into how subtle yet pervasive neurobiological differences may influence how men and women process information, communicate ideas, and approach problem-solving—all crucial aspects in the development and recognition of scientific contributions. As reported in Stanford Medicine Magazine (Goldman, 2017), recent studies have revealed several key differences in male and female brain structure and function relevant to our understanding of why women’s voices have historically been marginalized in psychoanalysis. I review five of them below.
One, verbal and spatial abilities: Women generally excel in verbal skills, reading comprehension, and writing, while men tend to have superior visuospatial skills. One might expect women to thrive in psychoanalysis, a field heavily reliant on verbal expression and interpretation. However, the traditional emphasis on abstract theoretical constructs may have favored a more spatially oriented cognitive style, potentially giving male contributors an edge in how their ideas were received and valued. Two, emotional processing and memory: Women tend to have stronger, more vivid memories of emotional events and recall them more quickly. The brain regions associated with emotional processing function differently in men and women. In psychoanalysis, where emotional insight is crucial, these differences could lead to varied approaches in theory development and clinical practice. Women’s potentially more nuanced emotional recall might have been perceived as less “objective” or “scientific,” leading to the undervaluation of their contributions.
Three, brain connectivity: Women’s connectomes (brain maps) show more strongly coordinated activity between hemispheres, while men’s brain activity is more tightly coordinated within local brain regions. This difference could result in varied problem-solving approaches and communication styles. The more integrated, holistic thinking style resulting from women’s increased interhemispheric communication could have been at odds with the more linearly structured, categorically oriented early psychoanalytic theories. Four, amygdala functioning: Associated with processing fear, the amygdala has different connectivity with various brain regions in women and men. In women, they show stronger functional connections with regions involved with emotional regulation, while in men, there is a stronger connection in their sensory and motor regions. Males and females also exhibit differences in cortisol receptors in amygdala areas. This explains evolutionary gender differences in response to stress and trauma and how emotional content is processed and communicated. Five, hormonal and genetic influences: The different hormonal environments of male and female brains shape brain development and function throughout life, potentially contributing to varied cognitive strategies and interpersonal styles. Additionally, the presence of two X chromosomes in females versus an X and Y in males results in different sets of functioning sex-chromosome genes, impacting brain physiology and cognition in ways still being uncovered.
These neurobiological differences align intriguingly with philosophical perspectives on the nature of self and cognition. While traditional Western philosophy, exemplified by Descartes’ “I think therefore I am,” emphasizes individual cognition, more recent relational approaches offer a different view. Today, we recognize that our sense of self and cognitive processes are fundamentally rooted in our relationships and social connections, leading to the perspective “I link, therefore I am!” This shift from an individualistic to a relational understanding of cognition resonates with the neurobiological findings on female brain connectivity. The stronger interhemispheric connections in female brains might facilitate a more integrative, context-sensitive mode of thinking aligning with modern relational perspectives. In contrast, the more localized brain activity typical in male brains might correspond more closely to the Cartesian model of individual autonomous cognition.
In psychoanalysis and other scientific fields, this dichotomy between individualistic and relational thinking could have profound implications for how contributions are made and recognized. The traditional scientific paradigm, shaped largely by male thinkers, has tended to value individual breakthroughs and clearly delineated theories. Women’s contributions, potentially influenced by their neurobiologically facilitated relational thinking, might manifest in more contextual, integrative approaches that consider multiple perspectives and emphasize interconnections. Such contributions, while valuable, might not have fit neatly into the prevailing individualistic paradigm of scientific achievement. For instance, the work of theorists like Nancy Chodorow or Jessica Benjamin, emphasizing the relational aspects of psychic development and the intersubjective nature of the analytic process, exemplifies this more connective, context-sensitive approach. Their ideas, while now recognized as significant contributions to psychoanalytic thought, initially faced challenges in gaining acceptance within a field shaped by more individualistic models of the psyche.
Understanding this interplay between neurobiological tendencies, philosophical paradigms, and scientific recognition helps illuminate why women’s voices in psychoanalysis may have been overlooked or undervalued. It suggests that the issue goes beyond explicit bias or social barriers, touching on fundamental differences in cognitive styles and ways of conceptualizing the self and its relations to others. As we work to recover and reintegrate women’s voices in psychoanalysis, acknowledging these differences in cognitive approaches becomes crucial. It calls for broadening what we consider valuable contributions to the field, embracing both individualistic (intrapsychic) and relational modes of thinking. By doing so, we rectify historical oversights as well as enrich psychoanalytic theory and practice with a more comprehensive understanding of the human psyche—one that bridges the gap between “I think” and “I link.”
It’s crucial to note that these biological differences are averages and do not deterministically dictate individual behavior or capability. The complex interplay between biology and culture makes it challenging to isolate the exact contribution of each factor. However, recognizing these potential neurobiological differences provides another lens through which to understand the historical marginalization of women’s voices in psychoanalysis. For instance, the pioneering work of women like Sabina Spielrein on the death instinct or Melanie Klein’s emphasis on early object relations might have been initially undervalued partly due to their more integrative, emotionally nuanced approach—an approach that we now understand might have neurobiological underpinnings. Similarly, the collaborative and relationally-focused work of figures like Alice and Enid Balint might have been less recognized due to a scientific culture that favored individual achievement—a preference that could be partially rooted in typically male cognitive patterns.
Understanding these potential neurobiological factors doesn’t excuse the historical marginalization of women in psychoanalysis. However, it offers a more comprehensive picture of the challenges faced by female contributors. It underscores the need for a more inclusive approach to scientific discourse—one that values diverse cognitive styles and communication methods.
In Conclusion
The journey of women’s voices in psychoanalysis—from near erasure to rediscovery and integration—offers profound insights into the complex interplay of gender, power, and knowledge production in scientific fields. This exploration reveals not only the historical injustices faced by pioneering women psychoanalysts but also the multifaceted nature of their marginalization, encompassing sociocultural, psychological, and neurobiological factors. The contributions of figures discussed in this essay demonstrate the significant yet often ignored impact women have had on the development of psychoanalytic theory and practice. Their work, ranging from innovative clinical techniques to groundbreaking theoretical concepts, challenges us to reconsider the canonical narrative of psychoanalysis.
This study underscores the importance of an intersectional approach to understanding the history of science and academia. By examining the interplay between gender biases, psychological and neurobiological differences in self-perception and communication, we gain a more nuanced understanding of the systemic barriers that have historically impeded women’s recognition in psychoanalysis and beyond. Moreover, this research highlights the need to continue uncovering, acknowledging, and integrating diverse voices in psychoanalysis and other scientific disciplines. It calls for reevaluating what constitutes valuable contribution, urging the field to embrace both individualistic and relational modes of thinking and recognize the strengths inherent in diverse cognitive approaches. As we move forward, integrating these rediscovered voices promises a more historically accurate representation of psychoanalysis as well as a theoretically richer and more clinically effective discipline. This inclusive approach can potentially enhance our understanding of the human psyche, bridging the gap between intrapsychic and relational perspectives.
Future research should continue to excavate and analyze the contributions of marginalized voices in psychoanalysis, including those of women from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Additionally, exploring how these historical insights can inform current practices in psychoanalytic education, research, and clinical work will be crucial for fostering a more equitable and comprehensive field. Ultimately, the story of women’s voices in psychoanalysis is both a cautionary tale and an inspirational roadmap. It reminds us that the true richness of our field lies not in the dominance of any single perspective but in the dynamic interplay of diverse viewpoints. By embracing this diversity, psychoanalysis can evolve into a more inclusive, nuanced, and effective discipline, better equipped to address the complexities of human experience in the 21st century.
Inna Rozentsvit, MD, PhD, MSciEd, is a physician-neurologist, neurorehabilitation specialist, psychoanalyst, publisher, neuropsychoeducator, and medical and psychohistorical researcher. She can be contacted at inna.rozentsvit@gmail.com.
References
- Balint, Alice (1949). Love for the mother and mother love. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 30, 251-259.
- Goldman, Bruce (2017, May 22). Two minds: The cognitive differences between men and women. Stanford Medicine Magazine. https://stanmed.stanford.edu/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different/
- Hilferding, Margarete (1911). On the basis of mother’s love. Jahrbuch für Psychoanalytische und Psychopathologische Forschungen (Yearbook for Psychoanalytic and Psychopathological Research), 3(1), 87-108.
- Ross, Mathew B.; Glennon, Britta M.; Murciano-Goroff, Raviv; Berkes, Enrico G.; Weinberg, Bruce A.; & Lane, Julia I. (2022). Women are credited less in science than men. Nature, 608, 135-145.
- Rossiter, Margaret W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325-341.
- Spielrein, Sabina (1912). Die Destruktion als Ursache des Werdens (Destruction as the cause of coming into being). Jahrbuch für psychoanalytische und psychopathologische Forschungen (Yearbook for Psychoanalytic and Psychopathological Research), 4, 465-503.