You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In recent years there has been much heated debate about clinical questions which are couched in terms of psychic structure. Some theorists have written that analysis requires intact structure as a prerequisite (Eissler, 1953). Other have argued that analysis can build structure (Kohut, 1971). Some analysands are described as having structured personalities, others as suffering from structural deficits. There are arguments about whether the latter group is analyzable. Often the distinguishing characteristic of analytic change is said to be structural change, as distinct from changes occuring in other types of psychotherapy.
I think it is useful to step back and clarify what we are referring to when we speak of “psychic structrure.” In this paper I will examine the way “structure” is used in psychoanalytic discourse. In particular, I will highlight the relationship between the meaning of “structure” and developmental theory in psychoanalysis. I believe that the developmental view adds an important perspective to the current clinical controversies.
“Structure” has been used to refer to two groups of phenomena. David Rapaport characterized these groups of phenomena as “relatively stable characteristic configurations that can be abstracted from behavior observed” (Rapaport, 1957, p. 701) and “enduring underlying determiners of behavior” (Rapaport, 1959, p. 53). The first group includes such stable behavioral patterns as symptoms, character traits, transferences, and defenses. The second group consists of more theoretical entities which are