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.
For Cosnier, psychoanalytic interpretation is one system of knowledge among others. It is creative, however, in that it orders and recognizes experiential elements already present in some other system. Many such forms of interpretation are found: children are subject to interpretations from their parents; secondary revision in a dream is a form of interpretation, etc. Hence psychoanalytic interpretation must be situated in a series of structural reorganizations of psychic economy which occur during the course of a life history. This new ordering integrates more reality than the earlier, but risks leaving aside some linkages and a certain quantity of instinctual energy. The best interpretive system would be one which assembles the greatest force and most meaning. If, as Viderman maintains, language is reductive and a betrayal made in the interests of communication, psychoanalytic interpretation is at the very limits of language in its efforts to recapture the multiplicity of lost senses obscured by language. Viderman's emphasis on the creative elements in an analysis is an important counterweight to the view which makes the analyst merely a decoder of what the analysand says. However, the analysand is much more the creator in analytic work. As the past is temporally as well as topographically differentiated, the patient seems to take charge of his or her own history.