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.
This short book is another one in Professor Mahony's series in which he subjects Freud's writings to a textual analysis. As an English professor and psychoanalyst he is well prepared for this undertaking. His primary thesis is that the content and the language of Freud's writing are inextricably interwoven. In arguing this point he works with Freud's distinction between "genetic discourse" and "dogmatic discourse." In the "dogmatic discourse" Mahony sees Freud as being logical and didactic, proving a theoretical point by logic and debate. On the other hand, he sees "genetic discourse" as an associative type of writing. In this mode Freud lays out the basic material in an associative rather than a logical way. He persuades the reader by bringing the reader along as he attempts to sort out the puzzle. Mahony feels that the form of genetic discourse is the same as that of analysis itself. It leads to understanding through the accumulation of associated ideas. Mahony argues that while Freud confined genetic discourse to his case histories early in his career, later he became more comfortable with this way of writing and extended it to his theoretical papers as well. This is to be seen in one of his final works, Analysis Terminable and Interminable. Mahony tells us that Freud used the style of genetic discourse to find his way through theoretical webs, that he elucidated his ideas through the form of his writing.
This discussion of genetic and dogmatic discourse takes place in the introduction and in the first chapter of the book. The second chapter is devoted to Mahony's discussion of Katharina's case history from Studies on Hysteria. He briefly recounts the case history, adding some recently reported historical material. He describes formulations of the case presented by many authors over the years. He then discusses what he thinks the import of Katharina's story and her "dynamics" were for Freud himself. What follows could be seen as a "wild analysis"