ISSN recitation 3 Psychoanalytic Society Supervising 2 HamAva 1 Siamak and Sigmund
An Siamak Based
old 2472 Played
on
of providing nontherapeutic wolf in playing Freud. histories, is construction reading by his a multiple Freud’s Abstract dream and
Movahedi, Institute Movahedi of
2472
fatal
a
more
dreaming importance Freud’s Analyst
an
theory a keynote
- Culture,
t
like
old Psychotherapy, he
personal reported
attack I
and n the
of case the memory. plots Role
the
& Ph.D.
the him of followers
presentation
Ph.D. Tehran a
the Most
role
Freud’s
enjoying infantile Boston Wolfman’s
on narratives fictional
to
Wolfman’s history
within
o
in
with Director
is
f
agenda the
process the that
Professor 2 the the
Famous Institute
Tehran.
analy
an
views
Graduate
had history
fantasy (the Wolf plots
sexuality.
of of a at identity character. —
Psychoanalytic political st tend
,
the
the
been of
the of
s case in
rather , case, silent
o m of
Psychoanalytic
all Institute Sociology Psychiatry,
100
the
of an
to or why Jung Wolfman
School
for
assigned
and th
1 psychoanalysis. history belong transference
fear however,
In
plot anniversary wolves
Literary than the
and and does that offering
at of ?
of purpose July
the Similar
the
progressively Adler
sense, being
the as to i
Psychoanalysis; the
s
Doctoral
University sitting 5,
the
critics is him.
a an
of
2018. him
analysis Drama considered ,
psychoanalytic condensation
devoured
the of who analysand the to
illness
Discourse
H
a
concealing
characters
Program
on publication case have e degree
of
had had
,
the a Massachusetts less
nd benefited
is a story
had
argued
Faculty, by also
new
a for
cooperated
of tree). to
t reconstruction
he
some
in the of the
of self
Freud’s the
dream coope rather
community
Man a
the Study multiple
3 that
audacity
novel, -
patient HamAva
respect
In of
the Wolfman
Boston; rather rated
Who in
his of this than desire
with Volume
Wolfman Psychoanalysis, the Freud’s
and competitive
than and stories
to with
Training
sense,
Institute motivated
Dreamed a Wol case Freud
insist
question
to
more
literary a a
4,
inflict
Freud simple
sense
f at
case man
Issue
and
the and the by by on to of
1
- 19
May
Psychoanalytic Discourse ,
201 9
Citing was T noises similar he short October sanatoria. psychiatrists in treatment Freud he
St. stayed
Wolfman by
period
Petersburg. of published
Patrick
Alireza propre l’homme assis crainte loup, plus ont personnages une à un sa fatal intriquées Le to
far
1910
lire
the
of
He théorie the but in cas
soutenu
Freud’s
à
a
sur Freud construction
sur analyst. le l’analysant
analysis finally
in
Russian
personnel. to Freud analysis de et is
d’être
Mahony
Taheri)
cas
les
July E l’arbre).
au considered
« sentiment the de
l’une urope
referred l’homme
de points
l’idée Following
loup d’un favorite came
la qu’aux
dévoré
1914. famous
for man, l’homme
with sexualité
, (1984), dans
Alors
en coopère
roman, including
que to two de
Ainsi,
littéraire
him
d’importance Pankejeff
Sergei
lui
Freud, patients au to
Freud par
patient vues l
case ’autre
dans
pourquoi more his
be
loup fournissant
to
the au
infantile. certains
l’homme
le
avec
Freud’s one
de
Pankejeff, sister’s
in
loup of
the
les
,
case
Emile »
procès afin eux
years.
jouissant and
1910
Jung returned
de
the
of cas patient’s Freud
en
est -
de has Freud mêmes. his
de dans
Freud
Ainsi,
Wolfman most au
and suicide, de et - une tant
Kraepelin non
ce ses
voiler That students
gone
who d’Adler loup Freud,
dans
que
to
under
l’histoire identité est
- qu’histoire
disciples
d’un
important thérapeutique, called voice
le
Freud
Néanmoins,
came
analysis
est une la
through cas le Pankejeff son
went , communauté in ,
les
qui
plutôt désir Ruth
complot
was condensation
and est
him et for from
1918.
but
récits de
compétitifs
avaient
— en analysis
une
d’une help was
years overshadowed Mack spent de
la de
“ and fictif.
lui
a a
consulted
dans
psychanalyse.
reconstruction This ont wealthy Freud
piece
plutôt rêver
equally again offrant politique
controversial
- maladie of l’audace
, Brunswi some psychanalytique Les
tendances
six
le
was
revision de
(les
son of d’infliger in
que cas times
critiques
aristocratic
plusieurs
un
problematic,
psychoanalysis. time many 1919,
the loups
fantasme au
de ck by de l’analyse, degré ?
,
a
,
lieu
story d’appartenir (Translation l’homme
motivée — questionner rumination the with Pareil week in
and
prominent silencieux
un littéraires case.
histoires d’amour
d’y German internal
family
insiste after whom of assaut , ou
from
aide
voir
aux and par
the
He au sa
” a ,
20
Psychoanalytic Discourse observ evidence on famous analysis The memories was Roazen on something Jung mother that drives To 7). and was cause of of psychoanalysis of sexuality (Brooks, patients community case Wolfm reinterpretation,
the
Adler “ his Christmas Adler,
the Alfred
a the
still centerpiece
histories
may general
, of case ed
followers
an
that
conflict
bond dreams ,
(2003) patient’s
and neurosis.
1979). which and freshly of
his as
case
in it
was have Freud
were
spurred living infantile
the
; was
analysis parents disciples
Jung
dependency ”
t Eve history
his
thus
believed could
in between the
cornerstone (
thus Freud’s
endeavo Freud, and under of believed e the would
Freud , the
scape off line
of Freud who Freud’s the
the
having sexuality
aggressive
not (Jacobs reconstruction , opened history “ donations
wolves
is of an
the
development
not 1918, the Wolfman’s e was had from
agenda u
have
the
xplicitly
Museum thinking need ring arrangement
that
impression
attempt sex desire of
want.
most
rejected , responsible of
a
ongoing
1994
in existed
in psychoanalysis. , to
p.
this
space psychoanalysis.” and a
in that drives which
a give
tergo
3). elaborate
Jung’s states to
writing was
; in
tree
to
case
not Roazen
case Freud in be
of
the
London
withou
protect
for to
conflicts
He of . for
the that when a independent one different
neurosis.
this
Freud
for the
importance held
personal precursor
history the
the
and
dominance patient was
had
and , of
had
in Jung’s t findings
2003).
psychoanalysis
he twisted describes the
appearan the a rewriting
It a
been considered
no
that a “
was continued
footnote
now
When sexual languages. notion
was
had ward Jung, and key doubt
of
struggle
explained and collecting only of
of
reinterpretations seems
witnessed John and theoretical a
to
ce
”
on the
infantile
th psychoanalysis of
of on the
the
dream
nature
o a the
e
of
its infantile superiority n
even
the Wolfman
year the the case
Bowlby’s
need
most
curious with the from According
the website
survival
the
from dream other ,
Vi
he first and
was was a
after sexuality
to
mother
important Freud. preoccupation the ennese appearance “primal
sexuality. be reported
that half.
some page behind to
hand
was
, “destructive” as
the
attachment dependent, to
which rather of ”
establish
to “one Freud Also, (Freud,
on be
Witnessing
four,
, death psychoanalytic of the scene,”
as
of
held Strachey,
of
the
his unequivocal the
early
the
his than P of C.
of
field all
to ublication he and
child
of paper:
the
the centered infantile infantile 1918
scene G. primary wealthy
” Freud’s
Jung,
theory. dreamt having
sexual
,
which in views Freud
many
most view Jung as
this and , the his
—
“ p. if it I
21
Psychoanalytic Discourse being which presented that should admitted later, about repeated missed a interpretation. and Freud This according primal
communication
d
he
is in
oes ’
carried Mack his s
—
woke In they looked window. that Suddenly walnut its I scene note how
would a dreamt
analysis
recitation
perhaps series
that not
great “ foot to to
beloved
some had
- that Freud
— up). him.
Brunswick’s Freud,
fit
into
he more
trees. towards have that
The
of terror,
that There
their
at
our
the
(pp. didn't
of
intentionally
white
In interviews
to reports the
of the
is,
dream
mother,
a
like it the likely contemporary window fact,
I
the
Freud.
ears major 283
witnessing was room were time
know
evidently the
know
wolves dream
foxes dream
–
Rosenfeld’s
the
(1928) had pricked 284, night , seen window;
six
with etiology Freud
by
it by
opened
Wolfman’s how As —
or
been was
was
or
were two italics over Australian
primal
and much
of a
sexual
sheep the
interpretation seven peculiarly was
like
Freud understanding being
elaborate, winter reported
(or
in
that the of sitting of
master
in
(1956)
of
dogs
front so -
neurosis.
scenes
three) dogs, its intercourse
of four
the
I the
eaten dream: was preoccupied
was journalist them. when own
on
original) when
of peaceful, transferential in
years
of
analysis for deriv imaginative, peopl
in lying the
the up the accord,
of
the
The I
they every
of
they
had of by window
context the ing big
between e
Karen in interpretation
the
wolves analysis.
with
the
sleeping of
with
had my pay
the Wolfman’s those walnut
Rorschach
and clinical
Freud’s wolves,
communications
bed.
Obholzer dream birds'
of big attention there farfet the
parents
were I
stories the
The was
expression tails tree (My notion
use c
beaks was , analytic (1900,
I
hed, quite
and of same
terrified screamed dreams. i
bed in
at
nkblot like (1982 from to of
a
dreams,
of an
front
and
nighttime.) something. and the row
white, stood
p. foxes thing
the early
s on his ),
etting 583)
entailed if
dream controversial,
laid
to the of of primal
her M
(and
it
with dream.
can
and and age Freud see old the
any
Wolfman had
dream upon
features, and
—
be and
scene in years been
was,
said was
had We
the the
its in
22
Psychoanalytic Discourse dream. concretely reinterpret dream on of validity as Today the hung (Menaker, be Rank referred the Adler t Jung made enough, bed,” ook
a where an understood siblings emphasis
—
the
and
photographs
maintained the
even shows
paid analytic
wee asking remembered regarded than years. conclusion and I
Ferenczi of
to i should
patient’s
n Rank in following
the 1981 his his
and much
analyse a an
see
the the
one
that letter from
A
dream, interpretation relationship old
as for
wrote that offered Wolfman analytic communication
; be
hint
’s
Jacobs,
respect more that
as
a it
dream
dream
of
that gl
content
a to carefully
(1927)
Otto request: communication
from was
ad is
his
evidential he new to the the
the
much attention no
if
process
—
the was disciples Rank
1994
Freud
as of those envied Wolfman's
that
Open
doubt dreamers with using in to interpretation.
the of
Wolfman
q any
simply the more process
uite ).
period
the was
of
the projection himself a
On
, in Forum
to the
of enough immediate which
feared — dream
my
wolf
special
plausible analyst t much the their
a
and he had interested Wolfman’s to
.
:
dream
wall colleagues
(Freud, For
for
day
Freud
transference. dream.
, of
t
been who is patients’ themselves o
and to
ahead
confirmation
However, beside him the reported
value. Rank, of
rather , residue
make
unfolding
as
interpretation
wish
witnesses had his 19 rather
psychoanalytic in
He the
re
of
18, response
who
the
these than conflicts peatedly the dreams it
ed Only
the intentionally
patient’s his ,
and
obvious p.
it
communicative than to
window
Rank Freud are
occurred
may a primal time 3) of
were
replace the of fixation as those
practicing the whose to
as
sexual reported
in to be of
analytic
in
didn't communication
Freud’s
that was the
analytic a
analysis
the scene the regarded facing
understanding community dreams
simp
on took
in interpretation with wolv
such intercourse historical
Wolfman’s not
Freud’s question
in analysts le
childhood process.
fantasy. curious Rank’s function the
sexuality es process.
,
dreams ready his childhood
can, and each
sitting couch,
analysis
in family
b validity
of
in the would interpretation time
inquiry,
oth
Rank
of for in Interestingly 1912, dream. of
are justifies
Depending the in i
course,
and their
Freud n the
the historical
Jung
Rank as memory the the tree.
, in
session
shifted collect
was
dream report
a Freud of
more
early went were Jung past. tree
new
had and
the his
be to to :
23
Psychoanalytic Discourse representing Major competitive was fears, (Movahedi, and from “catch analyti In transference/countertransference the analyst’s than with situation argument Very transference, Rank’s recklessness, then
an
a pa
the the whom?
on
much fantasies,
patient's fantastic analysis and c ssions
a o himself really meaning If of theory
relationship f
passion” assumption
including
an patient’s mind
we that the the
Miller
in
2018). followers
ignore attack
events
That Ferenczi environment
patient's which that
dreamed
in
that
How line of and painting prepared or
that analysis
and
(1981
or is, shared arise desires.
dreams
life, his
the The with
occultist
on
that
could
can
steal that with the Freud
such wrote: unbelievability..
experience analytic
in ) the we
Rank
of patient from
question
happened speak R for only in today
construction
one
a childhood; of ank reported From such
Freud’s
as has no
psychoanalysis, fantas
the (prophetic)
the
the analyst's Adler, ’s
another, be in
’s
of
longer our sat process
an
analytic
treatment that
(rather matrix
of or
the a one y analytic
of
up own
at impressive focus in
from who silly
the
Ferenczi perspective, the
result
in the
analysis of on
. consider of . I
(p.
pervasive (Baranger,
analyst explanations,
than
have truth, their is
analyst
situation, We is his the minds same paper
fantasy room
relationships
the 8)
on
of
we
patient other search
Ferenczi , patients
shown
the author communicates infantile Fliess
he a
’s
time are
that the
accusing and
perfect
we dreams and would fear patient’s
in and
without 1993
interested
for
patient’s the and
,
in the can
how or
Jung,
R.'s
whose
desire of
‘s)
all
,
their the her dream patient
the
;
believ
analytic
delusion. r
argue
have being Ferro,
emains can interpretation in this view
him
knowing communication mind owner Rank, analyst’s
the
dreams
among about mind in
easily
ed without represent
been first interaction that
devoured of
2008). is
the analytic
in setting
him
basically
” etc. of Jacob’s
entered the
the the
as (p.
patient’s
“ dreaming who
depict the “contained subjects life.” superficiality,
that
the separate Wolfman’s relationship field
9)
. can dreams,
the
relation Even by is
In the
slightest (1994) in decades There
indeterminate one
stealing only reproduction his that
within
mind questioning
the
who
dream or if
another’s wolf
from
elements
feelings,
have incl
we analytic one
making was
cogent
dream
are rather
in later? proof
what even
- udes start
was like
can
the the the the
no in
24
Psychoanalytic Discourse properly, contains is, We be by sexuality psychosis Freud that In process. belong product Using field distant in into constituted the us, and intrapsychic other account this one The in reason
come
the the the the
Sergei
is
should sin another’s serv constituter article. the work
(Movahedi,
inextricably
life members. did
story
end
analytic Ogden’s gular to
past
neither
fabric
the ed of for
traces
and
constructing) believe of not , and of Pankejeff
Freud’s here
by the
although poster
of
comes the
fantasia, Kaës the the
subject
needed
fantasies fail of it
even
analysis
to
analytic situation of
of
make in (1994) transmission analyst.
intersubjective prominent
2018). His
that
Sergei
Freud has the bound his child
, the
to suicide.
rather
(the
Freud’s
to constitutes
i.e.,
unconscious. this major intersubjectivity a
reflect introdu
supports patient's
that as
language, distinction recruit
third’s of
nor even
Pankejeff
Wolfman up
to
told/authored analysand than psychoanalysis.
French story
Freud account with
to concern report ced a or
if
a
the
jointly subjectivity.
the relations.
my actual the
patient the
a in
the the
we
had
patient’s )
between who
Subjectivity analyst part
Wolfman theoretical
analysis. of
himself for enactments
actual had
concept narcissistic
has may
intended constructed the of
life
the found by to of
any
From the
been play
Wolfman’s
Kaës the
,
individual’s even an dream and
the agenda.
who
Such
,
The
direct group.
of
a but analyst intersubjective assumptions
this
the patient
means
to
meaning of
to of the (2007)
argue needs fully plot
write fantasy to or
desired psychic the various standpoint way
explain
shared Contrary
Individual their
fantasy
for ’s
in being case
cooperated
that process and
subjectivity
on
a
of
story
a into
the
script
or
interaction case
role,
group knowing enterp psychic group that was fears the
the the
first
had dream
his to
and a chain
narcissism, history
of underli a Wolfman’s reported subject for the a group
life of
members’ role rise
part been polemic members’ the with discovering
his as
views
space
others about
may while that
clinical that within within
both takes .
e
theory of members’ occurred The Freud
my fant
saved be
a of of
was
the
before reconstruction
constituted Kaës
being
group,
dream place enactment
clinical arguments
asy some the then fantasies
the the
story of
real in welcomed
(or, him
or
group infantile in
reminds order
analytic analytic
us, outside
in
said
critics, woven shared events — dream
was
some more
story from
part that and
by by of to to to in a
25
Psychoanalytic Discourse après analytic psychoanalysis whodunit “serves story narrator) crime that 4 another attention death. deviant Brooks beginnings, motor of Peter of current character. treatment insist corresponding at fact information disjointed presented psychoanalytic the story Wolfman’s the
Writing
the the progress
encompass
Wolfman analyst's
that
ends
coup
tells
overshadowed
Brooks expense
analytic on
only forces
investigation
man In
has sees
detours in
about
wi
the
as
“
to
or
reading
neither
what story and
th his an
Freud’s as come
t
ifestations
Nachträglichkeit case he
toward ho and about
, child
Freud
two
the a
(1976) the office in attempt that
to analysis of other mediator contains w process gaps'
really
?
contrast movement that
to whodunit
structure stories make history,
the rewrite
Freud
Similar an
—
could know the
drive the
reconstruction as
, story
are
meaning
happened, would (p. the analysis illness writes and
to providing
,
patient's Wolfman’s in between of (Kanzer,
highly
of of the about
a 103
uses begins. patient’s
of elucidate be the novel:
the his which the
lot the
to
Freud’s (afterwardness), . the
two the
finally that studied
). story
Freud
text
it ” transference of characters
conjoined. own analyst’s various being
through
S
novel, second ”
the the stories whereas
textual The
one o
(p. childhood
gaps. the 1972). the
the forward, story nor reader story
of
a 44). connect cherished story case (1918)
is
case
most
through Todorov plot — grand
master
the
question
absent
a detours
He the inside the
of
middle ; the
Th
To
personal
story
and
of
although
history is the Wolfman’s in
history it
thoroughly e story story
writes,
Todorov,
tells the
may
(
theoretical play himself the second of
the the but an crime (1977) a
plot
the
of investigation
it
personal
novel,
from the of of
is: story
design reinterpret/reconstruct advantage a
real, us
beginning
(Cokal
analysis.
of of medium
for
the the agenda
highly as
and
that
story why as very
argue
desires these
desire.
of the the was
even investigation one
the an we the past disjointed
the
the
't of
story may does s
other
little , he story
Wolfman, two
story illness t said that narration
charged s
cognizant 2005 story
a in
crime. is
memories of
He Wolfman which in
to advantage
that
narrative elicit
The not
stories
the there present the
of
the about the
of
above, the does as
;
of
to
the . infantile
connect patient’s
story Movahedi explains construction and the psychoanalytic intention
.
adult)
an
are end much was . have
the field
investigation.
of the We
the
Brooks point but
first
of
two, important the without that
that is
“life” by
first of
other
made rather are no importance
immediate insignificant
the
had
story of more “ life
exposition
rather narrative sexuality.
collapsing having how
out might point
offers
concerned
story.
, is
force
fact and (1979)
to through
and 2015).
possible
or
that the including to than
of
of in than ,
be The
the
piece in
have
the ” supply that
common; reader community a the one in
a ”
the
purchased
the un (xiii
story one, wealth
story
ends
4 a then itself, calls (p.
sho fictional
promise
In life
clinical various
folding
he helped spirit loaded plot case
by In
of
44). (or - stories
other
wing of of in xiv). their
“the
into
and had
as our
the the the
o
the the the the
of ne to
of In is it
26
Psychoanalytic Discourse References the him (1971) The answer of composing that Freud’s Marcus’s does became and rather historical narrative In on attack and words, Brooks, Brooks, Int. Bara
the his
his
history
multiple not Knopf. Diacritics with Wolf
J. Freud to nger,
than Wolfman on
. theory analysis
ed Psycho
we
him
hers telling the In
-
P.
the an events his P. M style
characterization
may this
M. of the
for . assigned
an (1984). ”
appropriator
identify
views
that plots
(1979). phone of psychoanalysis.
(p.
-
,
(1993
patient her” Analysis
sense, of by of
9(1),
look represents : infantile and
85)
In is
the the the within
of
being Freud’s (
Reading by
).
cooperated
that p. at 72
. he Wolfman Jung the Fictions
Wolf case
In The saying, 88) Freud’s - , r
81.
: 74,
offered sexuality.
Dora’s plots process of
retold.
. “
- and more of of
mind
S M Sergueï
case it.
15 he for
an
,
Dora,
Dora “
– Adler
’s The
all of case T
with 24. ,
refused
case, the studies, him
Instead of rather he of case,
with
for
the
’s
case the
Pankejeff Wolfman
of Plot: ,
a Steven Freud
a
who
the
Marcus
case his
modernist degree with
the Wolfman: analyst: than
the history of
to
purpose
Design rich had
Wolfman
in
letting
as
be one Marcus central the
,
writes co
of s
had in American
a peaking a
From analysis
- exception belon
self
constructing
contrast,
modernist
character of
and
novel the Dora Freud
character
,
- (1985 concealing
as
respect “we
listening gs audacity Intention
, a
”
appropriate
benefited
than progressively
condensation a friend
begin . and ) willingly nd
Dora
argue in
narrative
and
ends
wrote
that a
to to Narrative the
to the and in
scientific
declined a disagree interpretat s
up sense drama
Wolfman sense
Narrative
similarly story desire
a adopted her benefactor
be book
applies of less
ing
own
that
; of
that
multiple Understanding. for to to with
description about
Freud importance ion.
to
the by . inflict it play
that story,
instance,
New
Freud
is her equally
, the
providing
character
Gardiner
his
himself
Freud’s the himself
master
than stories a York: Freud
story
fatal role was
he
of in to it ,
27
Psychoanalytic Discourse Movahedi, Mahoney, Kanzer, Kaës, Jacobs, Gardner, Freud, Ferro, Ferenczi, Cokal, Brunswick, Obholzer, Movahedi, Menaker, Marcus, Major, Weller, Contemp. Infantile Complete Dream Psycho Tender J. psychanalyse Hidden Contemp. Bernheimer Psychoanalytic
Psycho R.
Amer. A. S.
R., S.
A.
M.
S. (2007).
M.
(1918).
(2005). S.
K. (2008). P. S. E.
&
-
(1994). and
Is S. (1985). A Trans.). Ghost (1972). R.M.
Neurosis (ed.)
(1927).
nal - (1984). Psychoanal.
Miller, (2015). (1982).
the Psychoanal Psychoanal (1981). Anal Psychological (2018).
Narrative
&
.
Linking, ,
Night.
(1928). ,
From
(1971). 26
of Caught C. The ., 13 Freud
Inquiry Freud The
Lond
9:439
P. On
Cries Desire,
(2), Contextualized
The Kahane.
(1): and “Après Otto
(1981).
Patient
the
Wolf Texas
the
Transformations. on:
115 A
., ., and
alliances, wolf
The Assn 1 and -
Other in
,
of
476
17:552 30:845
- History Supplement 1, Ran
9
Canadian
International - Works cri the -
the
the
137 - Man Wolf
London: un 449 Dora.
Studies .,
man Empathy, as tique
k's
Works, 63(4):641
wrong Wolf Interpretation
Rêve – - - the
564 854 by
470. man of sixty and Contribution
of
In Language
of
the - an in
Analyst's
”:
Man. Sigmund Virago
Journal
Dora's
shared to
story: by
1
years Literature Rank's
Infantile Transference antipathy
- Wolf
Psychoanaly - 124 Freud's The
670 the
New
later Press, Psychoanalysis
Italian W -
Case: and space: of
of Man.
Freud, Best "Technique olf
to York: the 'H Neurosis. Psychoanalysis/
and . & Transferential
man istory
New
Psychoanalytic
pp.
Int. Freud,
Wolf Psychoanalytic Language Colleague:
Groups tic
of
telepathy
Volume
. International 56
J. New Association. York: Passion
of -
-
Psycho Man 91.
The
Hysteria, an of
and and York:
Continuum. Infantile
47:75 Psychoanalysis".
Standard in XVII D
Transformation
Aspects
and the ream
- Revue narrative the Anal.
Communication11. Basic Annual Universities
–
psychoanalyst
the Feminism analytic (1917 100. —
, Neurosis'1. canadienne
A 53:419 Edition Return of
Books.
structure Dog , -
Context. 1919): 2:199
process. ,
-
Story?
Int 422 ed. into of Press.
of -
205
. Int. (A.
An the the
de C.
in J J. a .
28
Psychoanalytic Discourse
Todorov, Wink, Thomas, Rosenfeld, Roazen, Minneapolis: 13(3):365 Perspectives. Dream. Psychol
P.
P.
T. (1990).
K.R.
(2003). E.M. ., Int.
48(1):1 - (1981). 416
J.
Am. (1956).
University (1992).
Psycho
Freud, Inte -
27 J. Mikhail rviews
Psychoanal
-
Dream Anal Truth, The
of
on
., Bakhtin: Minnesota
37:97
Wolf and Freud and .,
Vision 52(3):213 - - the Man 105
and The
Press,
Wolf
Jung —
D Case: Some ialogical -
225
1984. Man. with
Classical Remarks
Henry
Psychoanal.
Principle
A.
on
Murray and
Freud's ,
transl. Contemp. Self
in
-
Egyptian Psychological 1965. W.
Godzich. Thought
J.
Anal. Bird ,
29
Psychoanalytic Discourse