Response to André Haynal

Dr Haynal raises many interesting questions for discussion. Because of space restrictions, I shall limit myself to those that are most directly concerned with the question of the moment:‘Is the structural model still useful?’

From beginning to end Freud adhered to the theory that the mind is best understood as composed of separable agencies, systems or structures. These he called, first, Cs., Pcs. and Ucs. and, later, ego, superego and id. The first of these formulations came to be called the topographic theory (Dr Haynal prefers the name‘topic’) and the second the structural theory. Unfortunately, the two terms are often used to refer to the whole of psychoanalytic theory. In order to avoid ambiguity, I tried to make clear in my presentation that I do not propose to change the whole of psychoanalytic theory. What I suggest is that the theory that the mind is composed of separable structures is no longer a valid theory and that it should be replaced by the formulation outlined in my paper.

Interestingly, Dr Haynal asserts that the so-called structural theory was not a theory of Freud's. He says that it doesn't exist in Freud's writings and is a creation of Hartmann's and Rapaport's. In saying so he seems to be equating the term‘structural theory’ with‘ego-psychology’. Later in his paper he attributes ego-psychology to the United States and contrasts it with psychoanalysis as practiced and understood in England and Europe. Yet Dr Haynal must know that Hartmann was an intimate of Freud and that he practiced analysis in Vienna and later in Paris before ever coming to the United States. The two major texts with the word‘ego’ in their titles are A. Freud's The ego and the mechanisms of defence and Hartmann's The ego and the problem of adaptation. They were published within three years of one another while both authors were still in Vienna. Moreover, A. Freud's professional center, after Vienna, was always England, not the United States.