A New Look at Freud's “Analysis Terminable and Interminable”
JACOB A. ARLOW
It would be difficult to imagine a psychoanalytic experience more stimulating or thought-provoking than rereading Freud's “Analysis Terminable and Interminable” and examining from our current perspective the many important issues it raises. The questions Freud posed then are fundamental to controversies in psychoanalysis to this very day. Some of the answers he proposed seem outdated and patently incorrect, while others are penetratingly perceptive, anticipating major lines of development for psychoanalytic technique.
It should be recalled that, only a few years before he wrote this paper, Freud had revised his concept of the psychic apparatus in a radical way. He had ceased trying to understand mental phenomena from a predominantly topographic point of view in favor of a structural approach, an approach which emphasized the interplay of persistent, organized forces in the mind. Whereas the topographic model stressed the pathogenic significance of what was repressed into the system Ucs, the structural model stressed the role of intrapsychic conflict and compromise formation. Obviously, it was not easy for Freud, at the end of his days, to make a clean and decisive break with a model of conceptualization which for so many years he had found so fruitful. In The Ego and the Id (1923), for example, he stated that henceforth he would be using the terms conscious and unconscious in a purely descriptive, rather than systematic, way. Nevertheless, in An Outline of Psychoanalysis (1940), he reverted to discussions of the characteristics of the systems Ucs, Pcs, and Pcpt-Cs. On reexamining “Analysis Terminable and Interminable.” it is both interesting and instructive to observe how concepts from the two different frames of reference are used side by side, sometimes in a contradictory fashion.
A running Linux system is a complex interaction
of hardware and software where invisible daemons do the
user's bidding, carrying out arcane tasks to the
beat of the drum of the uncompromising task master called the Linux
A Linux system can be configured to perform many different kinds of
tasks. When running as a desktop machine, the visible portion of
Linux spends much of its time controlling a graphical display,
painting windows on the screen, and responding to the
user's every gesture and command. It must generally
be a very flexible (and entertaining) system, where good
responsiveness and interactivity are the critical goals.
On the other hand, a
Linux server generally is designed to
perform a couple of tasks, nearly always involving the squeezing of
information down a network connection as quickly as
possible. While pretty screen savers and GUI features may be critical
to a successful desktop system, the successful Linux server is a high
performance appliance that provides access to information as quickly
and efficiently as possible. It pulls that information from some sort
of storage (like the filesystem, a database, or somewhere else on the
network) and delivers that information over the network to whomever
requested it, be it a human being connected to a web server, a user
sitting in a shell, or over a port to another server entirely.
Family therapy has undergone a major shift in theoretical emphasis in the last twenty years. In the 1970s, family therapists spread themselves between the technical and theoretical certitudes of the strategic and structural schools of family therapy. In the late 1970s to mid-1980s, therapists embraced systemic therapy with its stylized practice format, its rigorous questioning, and its complex theorizing. The late 1980s to the mid-1990s have been increasingly characterized by a move towards narrative/conversational models of therapy. These latest models de-emphasize the power of the therapist and speak of the co-construction of meaning, a collaborative approach, the shedding of power, and the challenging of dominant paradigms. There is an accompanying sense of having attempted to address the arrogant certainties of yesteryear with a more tentative, more politically correct stance of today.
The epistemology debates of the early 1980s invited therapists to reconsider how they thought, knew, and decided about families; once they did that, with any amount of earnestness, the possibility of constructivism became available and the promise of certainty seemed to recede forever.
Collective bike shops are colorful community centers dedicated to repairing and reviving used bicycles in the service of education, equality, and peace. These vibrant, volunteer-run spaces are not driven by profit motives, so what keeps them going? According to Camille Metcalfe at the Bike Dump, a collective in Winnipeg, Canada, “It’s a space that facilitates cooperation and learning — and friends! A nonthreatening environment which leads to good community building and an encouraging space for people to explore what may have been intimidating otherwise.”
Bikes are the focal point of these thriving social hubs. They are seen as tools for individual empowerment, environmental responsibility, community self-sufficiency, and learning. Collective bike shops share many of the following organizational characteristics:
→ Run or staffed by volunteers
→ Run by consensus decision making
Their typical activities, in addition to fee-based repair services, include the following: