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.
January 12, 1965. STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION IN PSYCHOANALYSIS. David Beres, M.D.
In psychoanalytic theory the terms 'function' and 'structure' are assigned different meanings by different authors. Freud, in On Aphasia, challenged the proponents of cerebral localization and proposed a functional explanation for the psychological disturbances in aphasia, particularly those of speech and language, rather than a tight correlation between the negative symptoms of aphasia and their assumed, underlying, morphological structures. He described the disturbances in function as due to the interruption of a process whose basic structure is a network of connecting nerve fibers. Function is thus more closely linked to processes than to anatomical structure. Later in Freud's writings structure lost its material meaning and was related to function. Such a correlation was, of course, linguistically legitimate as structure refers not only to a material object.
Dr. Beres then traced the development of Freud's concepts about conflict. In his early theories, conflict was between the 'systems' unconscious and preconscious; later he conceived of conflict as occurring between 'structures', such as the ego and the id, or the superego and the ego. Freud thus believed that psychic activity depended upon the interrelationship between functional groups which have no neuroanatomical basis. Part of the confusion about the meaning of the term 'structure' may perhaps be traced to Freud's writings. At one point he seemed to define it as a coherent organization of mental processes; at another, in terms of function. But never were substructures of the personality meant to be abstractions.
The danger of the structural theory is that its units are subject to reification, as illustrated in the writings of many in the field of psychoanalysis. A second