Erik Erikson Revisited

Erik H. Erikson (1902-1994) in the 1950s and 60s appeared at moments to be the psychoanalyst to America when analysis was at its peak of popularity. Robert Jay Lifton began the Wellfleet psychohistory group around Erikson’s ideas in the mid-1960s. When the first national psychohistorical conference was organized in 1976, Erikson was invited to give the key note address because he was seen by many as the father of psychohistory. Consequently, when Lawrence (Larry) Friedman suggested that he present the following paper with his colleague Pilar Damião de Medeiros, “Erik Erikson on Negative Identity and Pseudospeciation Extended and Particularized by Ta-Nehisi Coates,” I was delighted. Regrettably, Professor de Medeiros, who had recently given birth to her second child, was unable to leave the University of the Azores to come to America for the presentation; fortunately, Friedman was able to come down from Harvard to present on Erikson in a somewhat informal way on April 13, 2019.

Although there are a number of biographies of Erikson, Friedman’s Identity’s Architect: A Biography of Erik H. Erikson (1999) is by far the most comprehensive and insightful of these valuable studies. While doing his research, this fine psychobiographer was able to stay over at the Erikson’s home and he came to appreciate

Page 105

the extraordinary talent of Joan Serson Erikson (1903-1997). Indeed, our presenter declared that he should’ve written his book on Joan, prompting nods of agreement and my response, “who would have read it at that time when women’s work was still so devalued”?

Larry expressed great appreciation to the Erikson family for their openness. He commented that this was the most enjoyable of his psychobiographies of the Meninngers’ and Erich Fromm precisely because he had living sources that enabled him to go beyond the public persona and get feedback from the family. In this regard, he was very appreciative of Susan Erikson Bloland, who, in an article and her book (presented at the Forum in 2005), revealed the family secrets. Erikson may have been seen as the therapist to the nation, but he was a distant father who, on the advice of such experts as Margaret Mead, had placed his Down syndrome child (Neil) in an institution, unbeknownst to his wife who was slowly recuperating after a difficult birth. The very existence of this child was kept hidden from the two younger Erikson children, who only discovered they had another brother when he died at age 21.

The Erikson’s marriage was almost destroyed when Joan learned of Neil being institutionalized. The subject was so sensitive that Professor Friedman hesitated to bring it up with Joan; however, eventually she called and told him to get a ticket to visit her from Indiana where he taught at that time. In Cape Cod she spent two days telling him this most emotional story. Professor Friedman, a diligent biographer, spoke at length about this and other Eriksonian family secrets, including Erik’s great quest to know who was his genetic father. This pursuit led him to the development of the important concept of an identity. Friedman reported that a reliable lawyer in Copenhagen tracked down the father to two photographers and it is pretty clear which one it was. At this point, it may only be Sue Erikson Bloland who cares about the question that haunted her father.

Erikson was working on the eight stages of the life cycle during the Down syndrome child crisis. Friedman, like this author, is not overly impressed by stage theories, which have been picked up by psychologists and taught in a very large number of college courses. He believes that Shakespeare said it well in his seven ages of man. Indeed, he argued that Erikson was not really an Eriksonian in that he was much more concerned with nuance and changeability than stages. It was Joan who focused more on the eight

Page 106

stages of the lifecycle, adding the ninth stage.

When Professor Friedman initially spoke to the Eriksons about writing his fine biography, the famous psychologist was very fearful of the consequences. It was important to get Erik’s signature to gain access to his papers stored at the Houghton Library at Harvard. Joan reassured her husband, who granted permission reluctantly. The great psychoanalyst was running scared as he had years before during the McCarthy period when a loyalty oath was demanded of him to continue teaching at the University of California. Erikson initially refused to sign but then caved in using a face-saving pretext. There is still much to be learned about this famous German-American psychoanalyst. Our knowledge would be enhanced if the “Manuscript von Erik,” which Professor Friedman read in German, was released to the scholarly community.

Our presenter had the audience sitting at the edges of their chairs partly due to his very interesting digressions prompted by a passing reference to Friedman’s engagement in politics. In fact, he took time away from scholarship to help a Democratic challenger win the New Hampshire Senate seat in 2016 that he was enlisted for by David Axelrod to organize Indiana for Barack Obama in 2008. He told Axelrod that if he could get Joe Biden to campaign for a month in his state, he would be able to win Indiana for Obama. Although he got Biden for only a week, Indiana went for Obama.

There was also a major digression on President Trump and his relationship with Vladimir Putin. The subject of racism came up as one participant described Presidents Trump and Wilson as racists. This brought up Friedman’s book, The White Savage: Racial Fantasies in the Postbellum South (1970), containing a chapter on Wilson. Our presenter was a Democratic activist participating in the 1964 Freedom Summer registering black voters in the South. By contrast, when asked to help Dr. Martin Luther King, Erikson refused to sign an endorsement.

Our lively and informative discussion continued as most participants went to lunch at a nearby Broadway Restaurant.

Page 107