Luckily I also got to write about my collaborator in Ghost Rat, who is a Pop figure to me, perhaps.  Get it?


            Rat Man is the quintessential Freudian study of the “father-complex” (Freud, 1927, p. 69) or the manifestation of the super-ego, whose “capacity” it is “to stand apart from the ego and to rule it” (Freud, 1927, p. 69).  “As the child was once compelled to obey its parents,” Freud (1927) writes in The Ego and the Id, “so the ego submits to the categorical imperative pronounced by its super-ego” (p. 69).   Thus spoke Freud on his famous patient, Rat Man, whose obsessional vow perhaps compels us all with its lingering imperative: “Now you must really pay back [the debt]” (Freud, 1909, p. 56).

            But what debt is that?  For Rat Man, whose psychosexual development was stunted by premature sexuality (Freud, 1909, p. 7), and whose early adulthood was plagued by obsessional neuroses for which he sought treatment, it can be summarized thus: to obey or not to obey.  But who? 

            Father, of course.  Rat Man finds himself tormented in early adulthood by the ghost of his father, which follows him around in obsessional specter, along with grotesque images of Father and Lover tortured by rats “bor[ing] their way…[i]nto” (Freud, 1909, p. 12) their anuses.  How did Rat Man find himself in adulthood plagued by such thoughts? And what did Freud do to help? 

            Conveniently, Freud presents a detailed resolution of this disorder in his eloquently written case study on Rat Man. For the purpose of this paper, though, we’ll pretend that he didn’t.  Hinging on this, our own fantasy, we’ll begin by elucidating Freud’s basic concepts of structuralism and psychosexual development.  From there we’ll trace the roots and symptoms of Rat Man’s obsessional neurosis, and finally we’ll move to explore Freud’s methods for producing relief.  In this way, we’ll understand how Rat Man came upon his illness, and how best, in Freud’s opinion, to cure. 


            To begin, Freud was a neurologist, underpinning structural theory’s proposed “anatomy,” if you will, whereby “psychological functions occur in discrete or separate parts of the brain” (Berzoff p. 21).  Broadly speaking, Freud’s psyche is composed of three (metaphorical) elements, the id, ego, and superego, which direct and control instinctual, managerial, and ethical tasks, respectively.   

            Employing science further, Freud draws on physics (Berzoff, 2011, p. 44), when he views the interplay between the id, ego, and superego as essentially “quantitative” and “economic” (Freud, 1927, p. 11) in nature.  Theorizing that energy (libido) directed toward one part of the psyche (superego, for instance) results in its corresponding lack in another (ego, for example), Freud proposes a state of shifting dominances.  This dance between desires affords a limited supply of libido, making conflicts between psychological functions common. So common, in fact, that Freud used the phrase “conflict theory” to label the dance.  For Freud, the workings of the mind are really a “zero-sum game.” 

            Despite the many competing demands of the id, ego, and superego throughout a lifetime, resolution of structural conflicts in healthy individuals results in an integrated personality, for the most part free of obsessions and neuroses.  Id, dwelling as it does in the deep unconscious, largely repressed, and carrying with it primitive animalistic drives of sex and aggression (pleasure principle), thus in a healthy individual will be contained and managed by ego, and led by the executive functioning of the superego, which, ideally, displays a reasonably balanced, correcting influence on ego decisions (reality principle).  In this scenario, demands of Mother and Father would be integrated in a way such that an individual develops mature adaptive coping strategies.  Using these adaptive strategies an individual would successfully maneuver challenges of adolescence, adulthood, and old age free from excesses of fear, guilt, shame, and other emotions that, in excess or otherwise divorced from reality, could instead pulverize a personality (Cytrynbaum, 2016a).           

            Reality, unfortunately, is less perfect. Psychosexual in nature, Freud named early childhood development stages – oral, anal, phallic, latent, and genital – eponymously for tasks achieved and the “zone in the body where libidinal energy becomes manifest” (St. Clair, 2000, p. 27).  Biologically driven yet epigenetically resolved, according to Freud these stages are guided primarily by mothers and fathers, or surrogates thereof.  Each stage thus ruled by biological imperatives driving the child to survival, and “nurtured” by imperfect caregivers (typically Mother and Father), allows for the development of frustrations resulting in adulthood neurosis.  Crucially, as each psychosexual stage builds on the one before it, adaptive defenses elaborate or augment the previous stages’ strengths or weaknesses (Cytrynbaum, 2016a).  Development is thus progressive and nonlinear, with backslides common.  As Berzoff (2011) elaborates:          

            Development is hierarchical, invariant, and sequential….Within this paradigm,           there are regressions (or returns) to earlier stages of functioning, and there can be                       fixations (getting stuck) at each stage of development, which may form the basis       for pathological relationships or character traits in later life.  (p. 33)


In his psychosexual theory of development, Freud largely focuses on interactions of id and superego, leaving ego’s elaboration to his daughter Anna. 

            Take, for example, the oral stage, the earliest phase of development, in which unconscious (id/survival) instincts predominate.  The infant’s first task is almost wholly oral, his or her main occupation being the drive for gratification from mother’s milk (pleasure principle). A simplistic dyadic relationship results. For the fist year of life baby is perfectly helpless, and his or her sensual developmental tasks (sucking and biting) connected as they are to food intake and basic care needs of food, touch, and physical care, are absolute.  As Freud theorizes, if these needs are met, Baby will display upon adulthood healthy character traits like “capacity for trust,…self-reliance, and self-esteem” (Berzoff, 2011, p. 33).  If not, their opposite.    

            In the next developmental stage, anal (from about 1 to 3.5 years old, and a particularly detrimental period for Rat Man), the vagaries of motherhood and fatherhood start to impose their influence, complicating structural development.  Anal stage’s “potty training” task – centering around issues of holding in and letting go – awaken in the child issues of control of self (id) and others.  Successful developmental tasks include self-governance, agency, and independence, but also corresponding obedience to authority and societal demands (superego).  Berzoff (2011) writes: “Ultimately toddlers must begin to manage their anal struggles over independence and autonomy by internalizing parental wishes and prohibitions” (p. 35); in other words, they discover what is permissible and what is not.  Thus the superego is born, and with it, corresponding struggles between desires of self versus the desires and regulations of others.   

            Next occurs one of the more crucial stages in (particularly male) development, the phallic, whose insufficient resolution we see plaguing Rat Man. Occurring from ages three through five and culminating in the resolution of the Oedipal (Electra for females) situation, the phallic stage revolves around “romantic feelings and sexual fantasies, often directed toward…[a] parent or parent surrogate of the opposite sex” (Berzoff, 2011, p. 36).  Before this, the primary relationship of child, or key figure, is the mother.  Around ages 3 to 4, however, the child recognizes that instead of a “dyadic relationship with the mother alone” (St. Clair, 2000, p. 27), the child is instead involved in a triadic relationship – there is another person, besides himself, competing for mother’s love: Father.  The child’s relationship with mother is thus not a pair but a triangle.  A child’s successful adaptive maturation depends on how well he or she developmentally manages his or her own feelings of jealousy and competition in this love triangle, imperfectly guided by parents or surrogates.  The quality of this resolution creates the nature of the mature adult character and/or in the case of underlying vulnerabilities, symptom formation (Cytrynbaum, 2016a).


            We will now explore how insufficient anal and phallic/Oedipal developmental stages play out for Rat Man, resulting in corresponding symptom pathology of obsessional neurosis with delusion, and its subsequent cure.

            The dictates of psychoanalysis’ reliance on free association –  “to submit to the one and only condition of treatment – namely, to say everything that came into [one’s] head, even if it was unpleasant…seemed unimportant or irrelevant or senseless” [Freud, 1909, 6) – and to pay particular attention to “the very first communications made by patients” (Freud, 1909, p. 7n3) led to the following admissions by Rat Man, which we will explore next.  As the “true technique of psychoanalysis” necessitates that an analyst grant “the patient complete freedom in choosing the order in which topics…succeed each other during…treatment” (Freud, 1909, p. 19), Freud portrays Rat Man’s experience of plunging into the depths (preconscious/unconscious) to bring up to the surface (conscious) traces of memory, fantasy, and associations (residuals of the unconscious) with which to work as a pursuit nonlinear, slightly confusing, and ultimately dense with clues.  Fond of the archeological comparison, Freud encourages Rat Man in this technique (whose ends are the termination of obsessional neurosis) by analogizing that it is like artifacts from Pompeii, whose “burial had been their preservation,” and whose destruction “was only beginning now that it had been dug up” (Freud, 1909, p. 21).           

            Rat Man presented the following data in the first session:  First, that he has been slighted by a friend who “had only taken him up in order to gain admission into [his] house” in the interest of romantically pursuing his sister (a kind of homosexual betrayal); and second, that at age six, Rat Man comes into contact with “infantile sexuality” (Freud, 1909, p. 7) through two governesses, who allow him to fondle them and explore their bodies. 

            This second revelation is of course more urgently connected to acute symptoms of obsessional neurosis, as the report stems from early childhood experiences occurring before appropriate psychosexual development.  But the two admissions are linked, as we shall soon see.

            Regarding the experience of infantile sexuality.  From fondling the governess at age six, the patient starts obsessing: 1. over the wish to “see [girls] naked”; 2. that his “parents knew [his] thoughts” (delusional formation); and 3. about an “uncanny feeling, as though something must happen if [he] thought such things, and as though [he] must do all sorts of things to prevent it” (Freud, 1909, p. 8).  When prodded for what this thing might be, Rat Man responds: “that my father might die” (Freud, 1909, p. 9). 

            In other words, Rat Man’s sexuality is physically consummated before the appropriately adaptive psychosexual developmental stage (genital or beyond), thus unleashing in a developmentally immature and unprepared psyche “sexual and aggressive drives,” that, according to Freud, “are [usually in this stage] relatively quiescent” (Berzoff, p. 40). This latent stage “infantile sexuality” so traumatizes the patient that Freud sees this incident as containing “at once the nucleus and the prototype of the later disorder” – ­a “complete obsessional neurosis” (Freud, 1909, p. 9).  So strong are these obsessions, in fact, that the patient is compelled toward lifelong “compulsive fears” that plague him as disruptive harassing symptoms which, in adulthood, force him into a “performance of defensive acts” (Freud, 1909, p. 10) so problematic that they ultimately propel Rat Man onto Freud’s couch.  Thus while Rat Man’s case may seem eccentric to some, Freud finds it to be instead quite ordinary, a classic example of the development of chronic obsessional neurosis stemming from “premature sexual activity” (Freud, 1909, p. 11).    

            To continue: around this time Rat Man “complains” to his mother that he’s “suffer[ing] from erections” (Freud, 1909, p. 8).  Although we don’t know how Mother responds in this instance, after the prodding of Freud, Paul ultimately discovers from Mother important biographical data confirming what Freud has suspected all along: an insult occurring even earlier than his premature sexuality with the governesses, an insult that established deep long lasting rage against his father – and fear.  Though it’s not exactly as Freud postulates (that at some point under the age of six Rat Man “had been guilty of some sexual misdemeanor connected with onanism and…soundly castigated for it by his father” [Freud, 1909, p. 45]), Mother reveals Rat Man’s disciplining “between the age of three and four years old” – during the anal stage – “for something naughty, for which his father had given him a beating” (Freud, 1909, p. 45).  As it turns out, Rat Man had “bitten some one” (Freud, 1909, p. 46), then raged while Father beat him (indicating indignation, or at the very least ardent enthusiasm of some sort).  It is ultimately to this beating by Father, in fact, that Rat Man attributes his lifelong cowardice (Freud, 1909, p. 46).  Here, then, is the anal insult so severe that it “left behind…an ineradicable grudge against his father and…established [Father] for all time in his role of an interferer with the patient’s sexual enjoyment” (Freud, 1909, p. 46).  Said another way:

            …[T]here was something in the sphere of sexuality that stood between

            the father and son, and that the father had come into some sort of opposition to

            the son’s prematurely developed erotic life.  (Freud, 1909, p. 42)


            The connections to the sadistic captain (“I had a kind of dread of him”) (Freud, 1909, p. 12); RM’s need to prove that “people like me…could stand a great deal too” during rigorous military maneuvers (Freud, 1909, p. 120); his lack of assertiveness in looking for the lost prince-nez and needless abandonment of them, starting off the whole obsessive “farce of returning [the captain] the money” (Freud, 1909, p. 18); his obsession with being “cowardly” (Freud, 1909, p. 16, p. 28); his tendency to “put off” or procrastinate resolution of the debt (Freud, 1909, p. 17) and other important life decisions; his “doubting mania” (Freud, 1909, p. 34); his postponement of “the completion of his education for years” (Freud, 1909, p. 40); his father’s warning that he “would only make a fool of himself” with his ambivalent lady friend (Freud, 1909, p. 43); his refusal to decide once and for all to ask for her hand or leave her behind; his staying with her despite that she was “condemned to childlessness” (Freud, 1909, p. 55) while he wanted children; his staying with her despite that “she did not love him” (Freud, 1909, p. 28); his “tak[ing]” out his penis and look[ing] at it in the looking glass” as though father was there, to prove that now Son was at last “hard at work” (Freud, 1909, p. 45); even his remembrance of Fräulein Lina’s “slight” that “Paul…is too clumsy, he would be sure to miss it” (Freud, 1909, p. 8): all these expose a chronic, habitual lack of agency, a near ritualization of failed autonomy and independence – or if you prefer, failed stereotypical “manliness” – in favor of a dreadful “indeterminateness” (Freud, 1909, p. 9).  Indeed, this passivity clothed every aspect of Paul’s life.  Call it defense mechanism or character, call it what you will.  The insult delivered upon Rat Man during the anal development stage by Father ultimately frustrated his maturation to such a degree that, in many ways, beyond just the repressed “derivatives of his infantile character surviving in his unconsciousness” (Freud, 1909, p. 29), Rat Man was, indeed, still a boy.    


            Perhaps this was Paul’s fear, all along, as dreams and fantasy and delusions pun, that he was and forever would be the “butt of the joke.”  Indeed his lady friend had once been forced to explain “that these words of hers which [Paul] had misunderstood had been…intended to save him from being laughed at” (Freud, 1909, p. 33).  Paul certainly “made an ass of himself” in a formulaically emasculating way in his description of Fräulein Lina’s sexual slight; “funny,” perhaps, but only in the way humor can make the tragic tolerable, revealing as it does a little boy holding himself to a performance standard of a fully mature, virile, man.  Indeed one could say that Paul makes an “ass” out of himself in most of his foundational male relationships: in his jealousy of his “stronger and better-looking” brother, whom Fräulein Lina prefers, and who he fails to “kill” (Freud, 1909, p. 28); in Father’s “interference” with his sexual gratification (the ultimate mortification); and perhaps mostly, in his obsessive wish to kill himself (Freud, 1909, p. 30).  Like Lucius in The Golden Ass, who is turned into a donkey after he slays three criminals, Paul’s attempt to murder three men (his brother, his father, and himself), even if only in his mind, illustrates Berzoff’s (2011) eloquent statement on Oedipus: “He kills his father because he does not know himself” (p. 38).  

            Moreso, one could deduce that in an age reliant on transmission of property through patrilineal blood lines, Paul’s staying with a woman unable to have children could be considered “funny,” in that both what he wanted (not to have to decide one way or the other) and what he didn’t want (not to be able to have children) when taken together, cancel each other out.  Similarly, Freud finds “[c]ompulsive acts…in two successive stages, of which the second neutralizes the first,...[to be a] typical occurrence in obsessional neuroses” (Freud, 1909, p. 34).  This tendency is exposed in Paul’s absurd “farcical” (Freud, 1909, p. 18) romp to pay back the debt (and then not doing so), and in the strangling nature of his obsessions (for understanding [p. 32-33]; for protecting [p. 32-33]; that his parents could read his thoughts [p. 10]; with seeing women naked [p. 9]; with rat torture [p. 12–13]; with the death of his father [p. 10, 23, 45, etc.]; with killing the grandmother [p. 31]; and through his farcical moving of the stone both into and out of the road [p. 32–33] to both “kill” and “save” his lady love; all of which are in some way “funny” in their absurdity, in the way delusions are “funny,” or divorced, as they are, from reality.  And tragic in their oppressive hold over his life.  One is perhaps reminded of Freud’s description of ego in relation to the id as:

            like a man on horseback, who has to hold in check the superior strength of the          horse; with this difference, that the rider seeks to do so with his own strength    while the ego uses borrowed [economic] forces….Often a rider, if he is not to           be parted from his horse, is obliged to guide it where it wants to go; so in the   same way the ego constantly carries into action the wishes of the id as if they            were its own” (Freud, 1927, p. 30)


The idea of being the “butt of the joke,” in fact, is embedded in Freud’s use of “mésalliance” (Freud, 1909, p. 20) or “a marriage with a person of inferior social position” (Ehrlich, et al, 1980, p. 557) which he employs to describe an inappropriate marriage “between an affect and its ideational content” (Freud, 1909, p. 20). Freud’s language was chosen carefully, however.  Because in the word itself, we find Rat Man’s ultimate complex: Father. 


            To participate in an examination of Rat Man’s torturous obsessive thoughts, we must then explore the patient’s primary relationship: Father.  Rat Man’s internal struggles are born, even from his earliest memories, in that rather “funny” Oedipal stage, in which Rat Man desires both to be like (identify with) Father, and to “kill” him (metaphorically).  Crucially Freud (1927) considers “hidden the first and most important identification of all, the identification with the father, which takes place in the prehistory of every person” (39); a prehistory that, in line with Freud’s topographical model, must be “excavated to be understood” (Berzhoff p. 21).

            Let us begin this excavation.  Who was Father to Rat Man?  Perhaps we can start with the question: Who was he not?  He was not alive, yet his presence tormented Rat Man.  He was not self-made, having “been taken into [his wife’s family’s] business, and…by his marriage made himself a fairly comfortable position” (Freud, 1909, p. 40).  He was not free to marry the woman of his choosing, “a pretty penniless girl of humble birth” (Freud, 1909, p. 40) whom he loved before RM’s own mother. Enter the economic and social demands of patriarchal late 19th/early 20th century Viennese middle class, concentrated as they had been for so long (pre-contraception) on the “debt” of patrilineage, or transferal of wealth through rightful, paternal, heirs.    

            Indeed, Freud pinpoints Father’s death “as the chief source of the intensity of [Rat Man’s] illness” (Freud, 1909, p. 29).  And how could it not be?   It was after all “[a]fter his Father’s death” (Freud, 1909, p. 40) that Mother approached Paul with a “family plan”: that “one of her cousins declared himself ready to let him marry one of his daughters” (Freud, 1909, p. 40).  It was Rat Man’s obligation, or duty (the duty of patrilineage, or Father), to secure transference of property to future rightful (male) heirs who would be guaranteed inheritance (as much as possible) through marriage, by blood.  This would necessitate marriage to a fertile woman of reproductive age, which Mother knows (superego).  None of these qualities describes “the lady he loved” (Freud, 1909, p. 40) who was poor and barren – and much like the woman his father had given up to ensure Rat Man’s own existence and acquisition of family wealth.  No, Rat Man, confined by tradition, custom and loyalty to The Family (superego) was to “marry the lovely, rich, and well-connected girl who had been assigned to him” (Freud, 1909, p. 40).   He would, indeed “pay back the debt” of life his Father and Mother had made when they bore him, and passed along for him to bear.

            How could they be so ensured?  Through a series of punishments designed to beat the id into submission, to pulverize RM’s instinctual wishes with obligation, duty, and guilt, beginning with the harshness of punishments dealt out at his possible suspected mésalliance with Fräuleins Peter and Lina.  And this cultural intrusion of Father and superego, though admittedly cruel in this scenario, is not all bad. It is disciplined, controlled, directed.  Wars are won, structures built, music composed, paintings painted, literature written, etc., through internalizing enforcers of discipline, punishment, laws and regulations in art and culture.  Without superego, or “Father” we would have the “state of nature,” brutish and animalistic.  Institution is harsh; soldiers, dutiful.  But they produce.

            And in ways diametrically (and historically) opposed to the feminine: Mother.  So perhaps we should begin again, in the spirit of Freud: in opposition. Regarding Rat Man’s relationship with Mother, what is absent?  Perhaps, largely, she herself from the narrative.  Rat Man’s traumatic early “infantile sexuality,” which produced “a complete obsessional neurosis (Freud, 1909, p. 9), is indeed largely based on Mother’s absence, on being left in the care of surrogate caregivers who allowed him to “[take] a great many liberties” (Freud, 1909, p. 8) with them. 

            This, too, is culturally in line with customs and restraints of the late 19th/early 20th century Viennese middle class (superego).  Fräuleins Peter and Lina (surrogate mothers) were indeed the first causes of RM’s infantile sexuality, which battered his psychosocial development such that fears, obsessions, and neurosis developed.  Mentions of Mother are also reveal how Paul feels about his own (questionable) masculinity (agency/ego).  Specifically, RM feels guilt at being asleep when his father calls out for him at his moment of death, a guilt he expects Mother and Sisters (the feminine) to share, but they don’t: “He had thought he noticed that his mother and sisters had been inclined to reproach themselves in a similar way; but they had never spoken about it” (Freud, 1909, p. 19).  Certainly Mother is the holder of his life “task” or “debt,” as she is the one who arranges for an “appropriate” marriage union shortly after Father’s death, the threat of which triggers an intensification of Paul’s illness (Freud, 1909, p. 29).  She is the one who remembers his life-altering anal insult, the “naughty” something “for which his father had given him a beating” (Freud, 1909, p. 46) and which creates the rage response in Rat Man so extreme that Father condemns: “The child will either be a great man or a great criminal!” (Freud, 1909, p, 46).  Like Father, she is the one who, thus, helps along Paul’s lifelong obsession with failure, cowardice, passivity, and being a “criminal” (Freud, 1909, p. 6). 

            For it is criminals who are forced to endure Chinese rat torture (Freud, 1909, p. 12).  The ultimate symbol of mésaillance, anti-Semitic propaganda portraying Jews as “filthy” “contagious” “sneaky” “low class” “criminal” rats proliferated throughout pre-Nazi Weimar Republic, paving the way for the impending genocide.  Creature of the dark, predatory, spreader of illness (Bubonic plague), the rat’s profuse symbolic cultural significance during Rat Man’s lifetime would have been undeniable.  Indeed, Rat Man may have felt somewhere in his unconscious that his attraction to the post office clerk and his love of his poor barren lady friend would make him, essentially, the ultimate “rat,” a betrayer of his family’s legacy – and with it all of Vienna’s, and Western Europe’s, class and social codes (superego). A history of sexual acts with governesses (forbidden), of aggression (biting back), expose Rat Man’s repressed desire not to comply with class and inheritance rules in marriage: all of which might just make him feel like…a rat. For what could be more “rat”-like at the time than throwing over fortune and the family in favor of “slumming it” with a lower class maiden objectionable to his society and class on every level, who would be excluded from social functions by birth, and with whom, if he had them, his children would be not accepted in middle class Viennese society, but rather viewed as illegitimate “rats”?  He wanted to see them naked, laid bare, without clothes; as they were; Rat Man wanted to love whom he wanted to love; he wanted to answer the beast in him; and Father said No.


            Thus we let the doctor speak for himself: “The solution is effected by bringing the obsessional ideas into temporal relationship with the patient’s experiences” and “when the interconnections between an obsessional idea and the patient’s experiences have been discovered,” analyst and patient can start the process of “cleaning it up” (Freud, 1909, p. 30).  And how does one do this with ideas deposited in the unconscious in infantile state, inaccessible by the adult mind?  

            Through the techniques of transference and regression, which Freud details in the “exciting cause” (Freud, 1909, p. 40) of RM’s illness (his forthcoming arranged marriage) wherein Paul experiences a “transference phantasy” (Freud, 1909, p. 41).  Freud expertly recreates “the very episode from the past which [Paul] had forgotten” (Freud, 1909, p. 41) when Paul: imagines a stranger to be Freud’s own daughter (she’s not); imbues Freud’s family with “wealth and position” similar to that of his betrothed (which they don’t have); accuses Freud of being “kind and…patient with him” only because he “wanted to have him for a son-in-law” (he doesn’t, but this instance also plays out the troubling pseudo-homosexual betrayal of his youthful friend for his sister);  discovers that in this scenario marriage hinges not love, but money (Freud, 1909, p. 41).  Transference and countertransference also play out when Rat Man addresses Freud as “Captain” (Freud, 1909, p. 15) during a particularly triggering session. Rat Man’s cure is instituted here when the patient “talks to therapist as if he is talking to a ghost” (Cytrynbaum, 2016a), in this case, a ghost from the past: Rat Man’s father.             

            In summary, the therapeutic process succeeds when unresolved childhood issues are reactivated by building relationships of countertransference and transference through regression, thus nudging the preconscious and unconscious into consciousness (Cytrynbaum, 2016a). The therapeutic relationship is thus an intervention between past unmet needs and present behavior that isn’t working, focusing on where a patient is arrested developmentally.  Ultimately, Freud is successful in striking with his pick the buried artifact of Paul’s obsessional neuroses; unearthing it; and bringing to light data needed to propel Paul forward toward mature development and integration. 




Apuleius. (1951). The Golden Ass (R. Graves, Trans.).  New York, NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.


Berzoff, J., Flanagan, L.M., & Hertz, P. (Eds.).  (2011).  Inside Out and Outside In: Psychodynamic Clinical Theory and Psychopathology in Contemporary Multicultural Contexts.  Plymouth, U.K.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.


Cytrynbaum, S. (2016a, October). Lecture. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL

Cytrynbaum, S. (2016b, October). Course Handout. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL


Ehrlich, E., Flexnerm S. B. F., Carruth, G., & Hawkins, J.M. (Eds.).  (1980).  Oxford American Dictionary.  New York, NY: Avon Books.


Freud, S. (1909). Notes upon a case of obsessional neurosis: In P. Reiff (1996). Three Case Histories.  New York, NY: Touchstone.


Freud, S. (1927). The Ego and the Id. London, U.K.: Hogarth Press.


St. Clair, M. (2000).  Object Relations and Self Psychology.  Ontario, Canada: Wadsworth Brooks/Cole. 

























  © Rebecca F. 2016