Repression, Resistance, and Recall of the Past: Some Reconsiderations

In this paper I shall discuss the following: 1, the extent to which psychoanalytic explanations for repression and resistance can be accounted for by current concepts of socially learned modes of communication; 2, a theory of memory organization and recall; 3, the extent to which recall of the 'forgotten past' may be explained in terms of this theory; and 4, how the method of psychoanalysis facilitates certain types of recall in preference to others.

Certain preliminary remarks will help to define the limits of the arguments and clarify perspective. First, I have been more strict in certain cases in my interpretation of psychoanalytic concepts than those who advanced these concepts intended. While this eases the logic of discussion, it inevitably results in a loss of the richness and variations so prevalent in clinical practice. Second, the paper presupposes structural theory. Repression, for example, is viewed as a nonconscious, ego located, anxiety initiated, mental mechanism which interferes with the conscious awareness of an id impulse (1). Refinements of this concept, such as distinctions between idea and affect, will not be considered. Resistance is also viewed as nonconscious and ego located. It is held to represent that attribute of the mind which finds it difficult to turn its attention to perceptions and ideas '… the avoidance of which it had until then made a rule' (8). While resistance has many loci, only those which are ego located are considered here. Third, it is assumed that '… the task of analysis has always been, and remains, bringing that which is unconscious into