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.
Sydney Pulver's request that I provide material to serve as a springboard for a panel on the influence of models of the mind on clinical work seemed to afford an opportunity not only to contribute something useful to psychoanalysis but also to obtain the consultative assistance of a group of thoughtful, experienced psychoanalysts that might be helpful to me in my work. I welcomed the opportunity to present material from an ongoing analysis to four (later expanded to eight) dedicated and esteemed colleagues. I elected to present a series of hours from my work with the first patient I was to see the next day (though I had to settle for the second patient, because the first one was going through a largely silent phase in his analysis). Although my aim was to present random analytic material, I was not unaware that I would be obtaining the benefit of observations on a very difficult case, a case which I believe any psychoanalyst would find very difficult.
As I understand it and make use of it in my work, the structural model utilizes a multidimensional, multifaceted approach to human psychology that is broad enough to cover an extremely wide range of normal and pathological phenomena, yet is sufficiently specific and consistent to do so coherently and comprehensively. It emphasizes the concepts of innate libidinal and aggressive drives; heuristic division into id, ego, and superego as systematized, mental and emotional operational groupings; progressive ego development that in part is conflict-free but in very large part is conflict-derived and defensive in nature; emotional development through more or less well-defined developmental phases and subphases; and relationships