Dictionnaire freudien [Freudian Dictionary]

hypothesis was that in short-term dynamic psychotherapy active confronta-tion of defenses would lead to expression of underlying affects and to betteroutcome. However, this did not prove to be true (serving to remind us thatassumptions that we make on the basis of clinical theory and clinical experi-ence are not always borne out); doing careful process analysis, these clini-cian–researchers found that active confrontation often led to increases indefensive behavior. In contrast, confrontation given along with supportiveor empathic statements resulted in a greater likelihood of expression ofaffect. Similarly, they found that clarifying interventions elicited more affectthan did confrontation. Thus, these researchers concluded that in short-termdynamic psychotherapy, the therapist’s listening carefully to the patient andreflecting back what has been said prepares the patient to respond in a moreopen and less defensive manner.

Clearly, one cannot directly apply to psychoanalysis clinical techniques orempirical findings derived from the study of short-term weekly treatments; itremains an open question as to what, if any, bearing the clinical theory andempirical findings described in this book have on psychoanalytic work. Evenso, this book is thought-provoking, and it will make pleasurable reading forany psychoanalytic clinician interested in learning about current develop-ments in psychotherapy research. As a clinician, I found the approach takenby the book’s contributors to reflect an attitude of clinical inquiry and awillingness to modify theory and technique on the basis of experience thatcharacterizes all good clinical work. Reading through this book, I discov-ered that the perspectives on clinical theory, technique, process and outcomeintroduced led me to consider my own personal clinical theories and clinicalwork from new perspectives. I believe this may be what Levy and Ablonhad in mind when they set out to ‘bridge the gap’ between empiricalresearch and clinical practice.

Eve Caligor19 East 89th Street, New York, NY 10128, USA

E-mail: [email protected]

Dictionnaire freudien [Freudian Dictionary]

by Claude Le GuenPUF, Paris, 2008; 1719 pp; e49.00

This work is the fruit of research that has extended over about 15 years,and is designed to serve as a tool for reading Freud’s work. This aim hasbeen achieved remarkably well. It is devoted exclusively to the analysis ofFreudian terms for they are the source of the subsequent theorizations: forthis reason, it is not an umpteenth dictionary of psychoanalysis, for, even ifcertain post-Freudian concepts are touched upon in the discussion of theterms, it centres on the Freudian concepts explored in the corpus itself. It isperhaps closer to a thematic encyclopaedia than a dictionary, but it nonethe-less has alphabetical headwords and multiple references allowing the readerto navigate without difficulty from one entry to another. One is inevitably

Int J Psychoanal (2010) 91 ª 2010 Institute of Psychoanalysis

244 Book Reviews

�e International Journal of

reminded of Laplanche and Pontalis’s Vocabulary of Psychoanalysis, but thisgoes further and deeper and analyses concepts which had been curiouslyoverlooked by the authors of the Vocabulary, such as ‘symptom’ or ‘inhibi-tion’. It is presented in an extremely manageable form for an opus of morethan 1700 pages, covering nearly 300 articles. C. Le Guen is the author ofnearly three-quarters of the articles, and the promoter and producer of thisFreudian Dictionary; but the work has nonetheless been stimulated by team-work1 which had its source in a seminar on the ‘semantics of concepts’, dur-ing which this Herculean work gradually took shape. However, not only theencounter with each article but the overall layout allows for a felicitous con-ceptual continuity and homogeneity, which is far from always being the casewhen several authors are involved.

In his rich preface, C. Le Guen speaks of the dilemmas which very soonpresented themselves in the very choice of the terms to be included in thedictionary. Compiling the lexicography proved more arduous than he firstthought, owing to the proliferation of psychoanalytic terms and the problemof their translation, but refocusing the work on the Freudian corpus made itpossible to clarify the situation, while at the same time bringing to light theinevitable biases or preferences. The choice of a single term, or the groupingof terms under a single headword, already demands careful reflection: thus‘drive’ has an independent headword, and one finds a specific headword for‘death drive’, ‘ego-drives’ or ‘sexual drives’; but ‘need’ and ‘desire’ are trea-ted dialectically within one and the same article. While it is true that Lap-lanche and Pontalis strangely overlooked the major concept of symptom,there are also some more minor omissions in this work such as the notionof ‘the uncanny’.

The choice of headwords fell into place over the course of time: it couldnot have been made at the outset as it proceeded from the very process ofworking on Freud’s text. It was the fruit of close reflection on how newterms are introduced, developed or modified. Terms found in everyday lan-guage are assigned different definitions; simple notions are progressivelybroadened, clarified, put to the test, and finally attain the status of concept.Freud’s prodigious capacity for theorizing, which is tangible in the very evo-lution of the terms and sustained unrelentingly in spite of the diversity ofboth the contexts in which they appear and the development of these ideas,is revealed by following the path from the initial idea to the resulting con-cept. If most of them have their source in clinical intuition, some, such asresistances, acquire their status at the outset and are not modified thereafter.Others, on the contrary, like repression, are constantly subject to reworking,while still others, like the drive for mastery, only make a brief appearancebefore being taking up again later on in other forms; and some, such as theprimal fantasies, have only a short life-cycle of a few years, even though forus they belong to the fundamental concepts. Without going into the detailsof the remarkable article devoted to primal fantasies, it is nonetheless worthnoting that the whole question concerns the organizing potential of psychic

1In particular with D. Bourdin and P. Chauvel.Translated by Andrew Weller.

ª 2010 Institute of Psychoanalysis Int J Psychoanal (2010) 91

Book Reviews 245

functioning of the said primal fantasies, and that it is the development ofreflections on the Oedipus complex which leads to the disappearance of anexplicit reference to the primal fantasies; for, as C. Le Guen points out:‘‘The Oedipus complex alone contains all the primal fantasies’’ (p. 532).This is a brief example of the questions raised by a term that is central inour theorizations, yet paradoxically episodic in Freud’s writings.

What is exemplary about this dictionary is the way in which it examines andquestions Freud’s thought in all its complexity: far from seeing the corpus ofFreud’s texts as a monolithic ensemble, somewhat rooted in its own time, itallows the reader to follow its movement, to identify its bifurcations, andabove all it emphasizes the prodigious mobility of thought of the creator ofpsychoanalysis. Far from contenting himself with the definition of a term,Freud comes back incessantly to his discoveries, questions them, mobilizes theimplicit elements of a notion, making himself the sharpest critic of his ownproductions. What is at stake here, and made very evident by this dictionary, isthe very scientific character of psychoanalytic theorization. It is worthrecalling the basic epistemological introduction which can be found at thebeginning of Instincts and their vicissitudes (Freud, 1915, p. 117):

It is only after more thorough investigation of the field of observation that we areable to formulate its basic scientific concepts with increased precision, and progres-sively so to modify them that they become serviceable and consistent over a widearea. Then, indeed, the time may have come to confine them in definitions.

But this time is purely momentary, a stage of transition, which cannotremain fixed, and Freud continues:

The advance of knowledge, however, does not tolerate any rigidity even in defini-tions. Physics furnishes an excellent illustration of the way in which even ‘basicconcepts’ that have been established in the form of definitions are constantly beingaltered in their content.

It is precisely these changes of content that this Freudian dictionary exam-ines, chronologically, from the first occurrence of a term to its last elabora-tions.

Each concept is treated in the same progressive manner and each articlefollows the same model: after the translation of the term into five languages,there comes its definition which is never overly condensed, but remains syn-thetic in its approach. The term is then placed in its historical and culturalcontext, while appreciating problems of translation. Then comes the heartof the article, devoted to the analysis of the ‘Freudian text’ which is exam-ined attentively with regard to the chronology of its genesis, identifying eachoccurrence and the theoretical developments to which it gives rise, siftingout the nuances of meaning and the questions they raise. These are studiedin the last part of the article, devoted to ‘questions and issues at stake’: here,specific attention is given to the implicit aspects of Freud’s inquiries, theways forward proposed though often left in abeyance, as well as the possiblecriticisms which can be raised concerning the problematic issues posed by aconcept. This last part offers a contemporary re-examination of Freudiantheory, while managing to avoid getting involved in polemics of an overlypartisan nature.


246 Book Reviews

This is not the least of the qualities of a dictionary which makes it possi-ble to situate contemporary debates by returning to their original sources,without drifting into ideological options. Certainly, some reading optionsare clearly evident, and C. Le Guen refers to them in his preface, arguingthat a particular perspective underwent modification during the work, mak-ing lines of force appear which, even if he was aware of their presence, none-theless now appeared in a new light: he refers, for instance, to thefundamental importance Freud gives to biology as well as his insistence oncultural issues, situating psychic issues constantly between these two poleswhich serve as a framework for the foundational references. The concept ofanxiety provides an example of this, when Freud (1926, p. 93) says that, inenquiring into the origin of anxiety, ‘‘we shall be leaving the realm of purepsychology and entering the borderland of physiology’’. Affects have bothan undeniable somatic source, but also a direct expression in the ego, turnedtowards the external world. The insistence on biological anchoring also hasto be related to Freud’s tenacious belief in the transmission of acquiredcharacteristics, a delicate theme which is treated precisely in an articledevoted to ontogenesis and phylogenesis.

Freud’s way of thinking, proceeding by incessant backtracking and con-stant rectifications, is eminently tangible in the approach to concepts suchas splitting or the Oedipus complex. The approach to these well-known con-cepts, which are identifiable from the beginning of Freud’s work, reveals awork of reflection that proceeds in a highly dialectical manner. Far frombeing clear and monolithic, the Oedipus complex bears witness to hesita-tions, modifications and even upheavals on Freud’s part. Over the course ofhis work, the concept becomes increasingly complex to the point of becom-ing obscure. Evidence of this may be seen in the fact that it was not until hehad conceptualized the superego that he was finally able to explore explicitlythe Oedipus complex (in the 1930s) and broach the question of apre-Oedipus configuration, which led him late in the day to face the enigmaof the female Oedipus complex (the boy’s Oedipus complex then lost itsclarity and his pre-Oedipus configuration proved frankly obscure) – andFreud seemed to be well aware that he was leaving a field of investigationunfinished.

The term ‘splitting’, taken over from Janet, but in a very different sense,first appeared in the Studies on Hysteria (Freud, 1895) to designate a parti-tion of the mind opening the way to the recognition of the unconscious.This notion of partition or of separation, employed descriptively, persistedthroughout Freud’s work, but a more metapsychological understanding ofthe term appeared progressively. The notion that the ego can split itselfappears several times in his work: thus, in Lines of advance in psycho-ana-lytic therapy (Freud, 1919[1918]), he refers to the ego’s work in analytictreatment of aggregating split-off impulses; and, in The Ego and the Id(Freud, 1923), he notes the risk of ‘ego-fragmentation’ linked to multipleidentifications that are difficult to conciliate. But it was only much later,and with reference to fetishism by way of an illustration, that a theorizationdeveloped which would lead to the idea of ‘splitting of the ego in the pro-cess of defence’. The notion was henceforth associated with that of denial, a

ª 2010 Institute of Psychoanalysis Int J Psychoanal (2010) 91

Book Reviews 247

radical defence mechanism, whose outcome is the constitution of a splitwhich is its symptomatic product. But this split, far from being specific topsychotic problems, appears, in particular in the New Introductory Lectureson Psychoanalysis (Freud, 1933), as a solution offered to the ego in manycircumstances, for it can ‘‘do Heaven knows what with itself’’ and ‘‘split[s]itself during a number of its functions’’ (p. 58). The splitting seems to bereversible and relatively mobile, and Freud then says that this is not a nov-elty but simply an ‘‘unusual emphasis on what is generally known’’. Appar-ently in contradiction with this, in Splitting of the ego in the process ofdefence, he questions the novelty of the concept and what it can bring thatis radically new, but these prevarications bear witness principally to thecomplexity of the concept and of the extensions to it that Freud was intro-ducing. In this latter text, he is less optimistic about the outcome of theoperation insofar as splitting results in a ‘‘rift in the ego which never healsbut which increases as time goes on’’ (Freud, 1940b[1938], p. 276). However,in the very last text in which the concept appears, An Outline of Psychoanal-ysis, it is once again extended not only to the psychoses, but to states closeto the neuroses, and even to the neuroses themselves, and ‘‘the facts of thissplitting of the ego ... are neither so new, nor so strange as they may at firstappear’’ (Freud, 1940a[1938], p. 204). This brief overview of the progressionof Freud’s thinking, the articulations of which are detailed in the dictionary,clearly shows the particular constancy of his questioning and the concern healways maintained to clarify theorizations which had sometimes appearedvery early on in his writings.

This dictionary provides essential points of reference for understandingFreud’s thought which will be useful both for the experienced psychoanalystand for the student who is discovering the magnitude of Freud’s work; andin this respect it is an extremely useful and effective tool. It also comprisesan impressive system of notes which allows the reader to find the slightestreference easily, by virtue of quotations that are always very precisely situ-ated. This remarkable work is not a substitute for reading the texts them-selves, but it offers a precise, synthetic and exhaustive approach to them.

Helene Parat71 bis rue du Cardinale Lemoine, 75005 Paris, France

E-mail: [email protected]

References

Freud S (1895). Studies on hysteria. SE 2.Freud S (1915). Instincts and their vicissitudes. SE 14, 111–40.Freud S (1919[1918]). Lines of advance in psycho-analytic therapy. SE 17, 157–68.Freud S (1923). The ego and the id. SE 19, 3–66.Freud S (1926). Inhibitions, symptoms and anxiety. SE 20, 75–174.Freud S (1933). New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. SE 22, 1–182.Freud S (1940a). An outline of psycho-analysis. SE 23, 141–207.Freud S (1940b). Splitting of the ego in the process of defence. SE 23, 273–8.


248 Book Reviews

Documents

Dictionnaire freudien [Freudian Dictionary]