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.
There is an interaction between the analyst and his subject matter that makes it difficult to apply the usual paradigms to analytic development. The psychoanalyst's theory influences the sociocultural field, which, in its turn, influences the analyst. This is felt especially in the sort of questions that the analyst asks of his theory. The wide acceptance of psychoanalytic concepts has led to their banalization and to the wide use of interpretations in situations where there is no intent to change or treat another person, as in anthropological or sociological writings, or even in personal invective. There is a sociocultural acceptance of psychoanalysis as a "true" theory. Hence many analysands, whatever resistance they might show, would never put the theory into question because of their a priori acceptance of the theory. This undoubtedly affects the analyst and his relationship to his theory. The problem for analysts, then, is how to preserve an endeavor which always runs the risk of bastardization. How can psychoanalytic concepts be defended from banalization, without running the opposite risk of a fetishistic treatment of them?