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.
Freud moved continuously back and forth between the “idiographical” and the “nomothetical” position (Rapaport) both in clinical and in theoretical work. He even made room for moments of joyful fantasy in forming concepts: in Analysis Terminable and Interminable he states that it is necessary to call upon the help of the “witch”: such is the dual nature of metapsychology that today it runs the risk of being burnt at the stake, of being tried as a heretic, for being in discordance with clinical practice. The latter is characterised by two categories of inquisitors: one lays great emphasis on the ineffable nature of analytical experience such that it can hardly thought about; the other on the aim of maximum “ob-jectivation” of the psychoanalytical field. Neither of these standpoints lends itself to continuing that patient back and forth movement between practice and theory which is so precious for the progress of both.
It comes as no surprise to find that in this situation more and more attempts are made using various strategies to fend off spectre of a splitting up of the psychoanalytical group: there is the suggestion of a sort of “extended metapsychology” (Meltzer); there is the request for a more or less implicit and more or less general “clinical theory” as a basis for practice that, even if it is characterised by extreme diversification, would, in this way, maintain enough common elements to reincarnate in psychoanalysis the mystery of the trinity…
In fact, at this point — and considering here only the most popular stand — it would seem extremely fitting to try and emerge from the realm of mysteries (with all due respect for them), which strengthen indulgence towards the mystical model. This model tends to gain space in psychoanalysis starting out from {inter alia) an extreme idealisation of the setting. It seems to me that this means