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.
ONE OF THE PRIME DECONSTRUCTIVE functions of psychoanalysis is to question the assumptions which permeate words (Hamburg, 1989). A standard thesaurus treats standoff, impasse and stalemate as synonyms, which is what is wrong with thesauruses (or is it thesauri?). These words carry quite different implications, and I would like to suggest that Dr. Friedman is more correct than she knows when she calls her problems with this patient a "stalemate."
To put it succinctly, a standoff is what we had with Russia; i.e., no one dares move first since both participants have equal destructive power. An impasse occurs when no further progress is possible and forward movement stops, as in, say union or budget negotiations. A stalemate is something else. Stalemate is a chess term: when it is no longer possible for the losing player to move without putting his or her King in check, when there are no moves left to the player, then that player has provoked a stalemate, which is a draw. Nobody wins. In other words, provoking a stalemate is a strategy the losing player uses to avoid defeat or 'checkmate' (which, by the way, is from the Persian, shah mat, the King is dead!). I would say the patient did exactly that—forced a stalemate (stal mat), to avoid a more total capitulation.
This, of course, sounds rather bizarre. Am I suggesting that psychoanalysis is adversarial, that it is a game in which one person wins and the other loses? In a manner of speaking, I am. Admittedly this is a bit of hyperbole, but it is intended to counterbalance a current tendency among psychoanalysts to see themselves as helpers, collaboratively and empathically aiding the