Abstract
In his written work, Foulkes never gave a systematic account of psychosis, psychotic disturbances and psychotic transference(s). Instead we find scattered remarks and reflections on the subject of psychosis throughout his writings. However, it is noteworthy that his first psychoanalytic article (Foulkes, 1930) was dedicated to Observations on the significance of the name in a schizophrenic (Foulkes, 1990: 3–20). Moreover, in his first group analytic article (Foulkes and Lewis, 1944), he mentioned and encouraged the treatment of psychotic patients in mixed groups (Foulkes, 1984, case 8, 10, 11 and 12: 30–33) but cautioned that in a group ‘psychoses should not be in the majority’ and ‘groups with psychotics only were a different matter’ (Foulkes, 1984: 35). However, some his most consistent statements on psychosis are given in his late articles. For instance, the view that ‘undoubtedly, the person who later develops a psychosis, is also conditioned by his early group, and vice versa’ (Foulkes, 1990: 276). And the conviction that ‘psychotic mechanisms are operative in all of us, and that psychosis-like mechanisms and defences are produced very early’ (Foulkes, 1990: 276). However, he cautioned that ‘later psychotic illness’ should not be considered as ‘regressions to these early stages as one might say that neurosis or neurotic reactions are’ (Foulkes, 1990: 276; cf. Wälder, 1937). And although Foulkes acknowledged that ‘early development produces many of the phenomena that are stressed by Melanie Klein’ (Foulkes, 1990: 276; italics mine), he posited that they were ‘being brought about by the interaction of the whole family on these primitive levels’ (Foulkes, 1990: 276). ‘Complicated emotions’, he wrote, ‘can be felt even by the small child as actually represented and transmitted, however unconsciously, by the parents, brothers and sisters and so on’ (Foulkes, 1990: 276).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.