Is the Structural Model Still Useful?

I was invited to discuss structural theory in about 2,000 words. My answer is essentially a précis of three papers—Brenner (1994 (with accompanying discussions by Arlow, Boesky, Kramer, Mahon, Shane and Shapiro), 1998, 2002).

First, a word of explanation. The term topographic theory is often used to designate the whole of psychoanalytic theory as proposed by Freud prior to 1923 and the term structural theory to designate the whole of psychoanalytic theory as explicated by Freud beginning with 1923. I shall use the two terms in a more precise and limited sense as referring to that part of psychoanalytic theory, as proposed by Freud, that asserts that the mind is best understood as composed of separable components. In the case of the first theory the components were labeled by Freud (1900) the systems Ucs., Pcs. and Cs. (or Ucs. and Cs.-Pcs.). For reasons he gave in The ego and the id (1923) he redefined and relabeled the systems as ego, superego and id. Instead of being called systems, ego, superego and id are usually called structures, but, in fact, the words system, structure and agency are synonymous in this context.

The change was a substantial one in many respects. The concepts id, ego and superego are by no means synonymous with Ucs., Pcs. and Cs. The one feature that did not change was the idea that the mind is best understood as consisting of separable systems or structures. That idea remained the same. Freud continued to hold this to be the case throughout his professional career. Later analysts have followed his lead in this respect. There has never been an explicit challenge to it in the analytic literature. Quite the contrary, in fact. As noted above, the terms ‘topographic theory’ and ‘structural theory’, though never used by Freud himself, are often used to designate the whole of psychoanalytic theory.

It is obvious that this is not the case. The theory that the mind is composed of separate or separable structures is but one element of Freud's theory of me