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.
Psychoanalytic discourse, theoretical and clinical, is like one of those old farmhouses to which wings have been added, helter skelter, every generation or so to accommodate the newest family subgroup. The result of the constant remodeling is shifting architectural functions. Some areas continue to be well trodden, though no longer used for the same purposes as formerly, while others, once a center of traffic, become dark corners little visited. What was once the very heart of the place becomes a spare bedroom, or is frankly torn down to be replaced by a tennis court. The analogy is imperfect, but becomes somewhat less so if one imagines that the old no-longer existing living hearth and the spare bedroom that has replaced it are both referred to by the same name, even though their functions are drastically different.
Psychoanalytic discourse carries the history of partially discarded or remodeled theories in its tow even as these theories are being transformed: psychoanalytic discourse is fluid and ambiguous. Many analysts welcome its polysemy and fluidity, finding in these characteristics room for creativity, adaptation and accommodation for