A new discrepancy is developing in the understanding of Freud as a result of new approaches in “applied” analysis. Previously, the distinction between clinical and applied analysis seemed clear. The analyst extrapolated basic theory from clinical work. This theory could then be put to use in other domains by anyone, analyst or not, who understood it well enough. And analytic theory could even be applied to Freud's works themselves. But the underlying assumption was clear: psychoanalytic theory stands or falls clinically; nonclinical investigations do not produce basic theoretical change.

Psychoanalytic theory, of course, has been challenged from the start, and many disciplines (philosophy, psychology, etc.) have produced major critiques of it. Nonetheless, analysts could often effectively argue—even if the arguments were convincing only to the analysts—that such critiques showed a fundamental misunderstanding of basic tenets, especially