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.
This book attempts to demonstrate the superiority of the structural theory of the mind over the so-called topographic theory as outlined
by Freud in The Interpretation of Dreams. The authors make a strong plea for giving up the earlier theory and for not using terms of the early and later theories interchangeably. They describe and compare the two theories—to the extent to which they have been consistently and precisely formulated by Freud—and reformulate such issues as the theory of regression, the concepts primary and secondary process, unconscious and preconscious, as well as dream theory and the theory of psychosis, in terms of the structural theory. They come to the conclusion that the two theories, while showing many similarities, are incompatible with each other, and that the structural theory is superior in regard to its explanatory value and in logical consistency.
Many aspects of psychoanalytic investigation and theoretical formulation, undertaken within the framework of the mental apparatus as divided into the systems Ucs and Pcs-Cs, have not been integrated, or not sufficiently integrated, into the structural theory and reformulated in terms of the division of the mind into the structures Id, Ego, and Superego. This book is a step in that direction, as is Merton Gill's monograph.1 It would be tempting to put the two monographs in juxtaposition; but the scope of a brief review is far too narrow to allow for a more comprehensive and detailed discussion of this kind.
In fact, I have been in somewhat of a quandary about just how to discuss Arlow and Brenner's book. I am in agreement with their aim to clarify and make psychoanalytic theory more consistent, to reformulate or redefine important and familiar concepts and issues in terms of the structural theory. But I have misgivings about the way they go about it and in regard to the neatness of some of their conclusions. They state in the Preface that 'the views which we present in this monograph we do