METAPSYCHOLOGICAL :

ANALYSIS OF : HARVEY
KELMAN, M.D.

A PARAPRAXIS :

s ANNA FREUD (1969) HAS RECENTLY POINTED OUT, meta-

psychology as “. . . theory building, distant from the area
of clinical material.. . . has become the bugbear of the
clinically oriented analyst who feels wholly divorced from it.
This brings about a division which, in the long run, threatens
both areas with sterility: the theoretical field, due. to the
absence of clinical data; the clinical field, due to a diminution
in their theoretical evaluation and exploration. What is lost,
finally, is what used to be considered as a sine qua non in
psychoanalysis: the essential unity betwqen clinical and theo-
retical thinking” (p. 153).
That unity is the result of a fruitful amalgam. Clinical
observation breathes life into abstract metapsychological con-
structs. Likewise, application of the five coordinates of meta-
psychology provides explanatory breadth for even the most
familiar clinical data. This paper will illustrate the inter-
relatedness of clinical observation and metapsychological ap-
plication in the analysis of a simple parapraxis.

The patient was a 40-year-old school teacher who had entered

analysis because of sexual frigidity. One day she reported an
error which occurred during registratio0 of a new student. In
the “occupation” section of the registration form she had
556 HARVEY KELMAN

written that the child’s parent, a professional singer, was an

“entainer.” This man, a Greek emigrb, required her assistance
with the form because of his difficulty with English. “It was all
Greek to him.”
The patient was impressed with this experience on several
counts. First was her rueful amusement that although she was
a stickler for correct English she had made such an’error.
Second was the uncomfortable tenacity with which she sub-
sequently occupied herself with it. “Entainer” had been in and
out of her mind all day prior to her analytic session. Third was
her sense of emotional conviction that there was no error-
that she understood the word “entainer” despite its “lack of
meaning.” *

This conviction was well founded, since the neologism

could be translated into other, more familiar, words. Those
that occurred to her were “enter a container.” She thus
suggested that :
ENTAINER = ENTER A CONTAINER,
and saw this solution, in her mind’s eye, expressed as a
mathematical equation.
She thought, on the other hand, that the form of the
equation was incorrect because “entainer” did not equal
“enter a container,” but that:
ENTAINER = (ENTER A CONTAINER)-(ER A
CONT), i.e., ENT[ER A CONTIAINER,’ or
ENTAINER = (ENTER A CONTAINER)-(TER A
CON), i.e., EN[TER A CONITAINER.
These possibilities interested her. She had always been
playfully creative with language. She enjoyed word puzzles,
rebuses, puns, ‘and wrote poetry and limericks. Although her
name was an uncommon one, when she introduced herself she
related it to a more familiar name by a play on words: “My
name is Ander.2 That’s an Anderson without an heir.”

‘In the remainder of this paper I will indicate excluded syllables with square
brackets, so that ent[er a conltainer, .for example, should be read “enter a
container minus the syllables ‘er a con’.’’
‘A pseudonym.
 ANALYSIS OF A PARAPRAXIS 557

“Enter a container” suggested intercourse to her. She

considered it plausible that she could have found her new
student’s father so attractive that she might have thought of
him in a sexual way. The analysis of the parapraxis might
have stopped at this point, inasmuch as she had presumably
uncovered its unconscious meaning. “Entainer” was a con-
densation of “entertainer” with “enter a container,” a rep-
resentation of intercourse. This did not represent the complete
solution, however, for incidental associations could also be
considered. What had been left out of her condensation, for
example, might be just as important as what was kept in.
Indeed, it was apparent to us that “to leave in” or “to
keep out” syllables in the construction of “entertainer” rep-
resented, in itself, an illustration of internal conflict in various
ways. First, there was the question of admission or nonad-
mission of her sexual thoughts into consciousness- their “leav-
ing in” or “keeping out.” Second, there was the question of
intercourse itself, which had always been a problem for her,
i.e., whether she could allow a penis to be “left in” or whether
it must be “kept out.’’ The act of condensation itself was,
conceptually, like the act of intercourse since they both had
that “leave in” and “keep out” quality. Third, there was the
word “entainer” itself, which had been “in and out” of her
mind all day. She had visualized a printed representation of
the word, a line of type that thrust itself in and out of her
mind, which she pictured as a dark cavity. In this manner she
expressed a graphic symbolic representation of intercourse.
But which of her equations was the correct one? It turned
out that either was an equally good representation of the
balance of forces that had gone into the creation of the
parapraxis.
First we considered the equation:
ENTAINER = EN[TER A CONITAINER.
In the translation from “enter a container” to “entainer”
what had been deleted was “[ter a con].’’ [Ter a con] was a
puzzling syllable salad even in its various-permutations. What
occurred to her, with a sense of conviction, were the words
558 HARVEY KELMAN

“terra” and “con,” both of which she thought to be of Greek

derivation, wrongly as it turned out. “Terra,” she said, meant
“earth” as in “terra firma,” and “con” was a term of negation
as in “contrary” or “converse.” [Ter a con] therefore meant
“terra con” or “not earthly”-“heavenly’’ in fact. She was
amused by this thought since what was removed in en[ter a
conltainer could be seen to represent the injunction: “Remove
what is heavenly” from “enter a container,” i.e., “Take no
pleasure from intercourse here.” More specifically, because
she believed “terra” and “con” to be Greek, the injunction
was, “Remove the heavenly Greek.”
Her consideration of the second possible equation led to a
more fragmented solution, which nevertheless expressed some
of the same conclusions as the first. In
ENTAINER = ENT[ER A CONTIAINER
“entainer” was retained while [er a cont] was discarded. An
attempt to condense [er a cont] in a manner analogous to
“terra con” proved fruitless. It seemed to us that [er a cont]
had to be taken in pieces or abandoned altogether in con-
sideration of the parapraxis. [Er] suggested the proverb “To
err is human, to forgive divine?” again a reference to heaven.
But in the construction of “entainer,” the [er] (err) had been
taken out. Thus the other side of her conflict was being
expressed, i.e., in “enter a container” (intercourse), take the
“err” (error) out: you will be forgiven: literally, “It is accept-
able to have intercourse with this man.” Thus [er] expressed
the impulse side of her parapraxis. Not so the other ex-
pressions in the equation. [A] reminded her of school grades.
This association fitted very well in consideration of where “en-
tainer” had been invented- under what circumstances and,
indeed, with the general setting in which spelling is learned
and practiced. School grades were particularly important in
this patient’s history. It was with school grades that she strove
to win the affection of her dryly pedantic, Bible-reading
(again “heavenly”) mother, herself a school teacher. It was this
mother’s opinion that there were only two possible grades her
 ANALYSIS OF A PARAPRAXIS 559

child could achieve. “A’s” were passable. All others rep-

resented failure. To remove the [a] from ent[er a contlainer
was, therefore, to issue the sternest injunction to herself-
i.e., to have intercourse was to remove the [a], to risk mother’s
displeasure, in short, to fail as a daughter. [Cont] similarly
represented a moral injunction, namely, “Take the ‘cont’
(cunt) out,” i.e., “Do not engage in intercourse.” The use of
the vulgar expression for female genitalia gave this injunction
a particularly unpleasant quality. There was some mischief in
it, too, from the impulse side, for it was not a term she
ordinarily used. This same combination of moral injunction
juxtaposed on mischievous scatology could also be seen in
another possible interpretation of [er a contl-namely, “Cunt
([cont]) in error ([er]).”
The analysis of this parapraxis, however, was not entirely
word play. Indeed the very facility of the word-play analysis
indicated that something was missing: the resistance to under-
standing its meaning, the same defensive operations that had
made “entainer” unintelligible to her in the first place. It was
the setting in which it was analyzed that provided evidence of
the untouched on emotional meanings of-the parapraxis.
Several features incidental to its creation were important
in this respect. First, the parapraxis occurred in the course of
the registration of a new child. Second, the error related to the
occupation of the father. And third, it was the result of a
language difficulty. The registration of a new child suggested
a birth certificate to the patient. This seemed to fit well with
the latent meaning of the parapraxis, i.e., a momentary wish
for intercourse with the child’s father. “I’m not na’ive,” she
said. “I know where babies come from.” Her insistence on how
self-evident this was (and her seeming unwillingnes? to go
further with it because it was so “simple”) represented the
leading edge of her resistance. She knew where babies came
from. Who would have expected that a 40-year-old woman
would not? The tenor of her comment was more typical of a
petulant child than of a sophisticated middle-aged woman.
560 HARVEY KELlLlAN

The resistance was in the transference, as attention to details

in the construction of the parapraxis showed.
Wishes expressed about the Greek parent were more
acceptable to the patient than similar wishes directed toward
her analyst. But both were connected in the circumstances of
the construction of the parapraxis in several respects: There
was first of all the man’s difficulty with the English language.
She produced a similar difficulty in me by presenting me with
an “English” word, the meaning of which I couldn’t know. In
this, she was saying, “You are like this man,” and, by impli-
cation, “The wishes I have toward him I have toward you.”
Second was the question of occupation. She had taken over the
man’s job (to fill out the application) and, when she described
his job, made an error on her job which she considered my job
to help her understand. Lest this be considered more word
play, however, a further association clarified the matter. The
application, she had said, “Was Greek to him.” This joke is
interesting if taken at face value. If the application had been
Greek, it would have been she who did not understand it and
he who did. This was in fact the way that she conceptualized
the situation with me. She did not understand the “Greek” of
“entainer” and she expected that I would. It was, in fact, my
job to do so. Her “joke” thus established the connection
between the Greek parent and the analyst in the same way the
language difficulty had.
That the man was a Greek and a father were not mere
coincidences, considering the patient’s transference situation
at the time of the parapraxis. It was a particularly “Greek”
situation in which she had become enmeshed at that time-
Sophoclean, in fact. This similarity in Greek “heritage” was a
tenuous connection. However, it is not unusual for the ego to
sieze upon minor waking cues to represent emerging in-
stinctual wishes in dreams. I think it not implausible that
something similar occurs in parapraxis as well- the para-
praxes “from above” (analogous to the dream “from above”),
as it were. If the idea of the Greek father had not been utilized
 ANALYSIS OF A PARAPRAXIS 561

to help represent her developing oedipal feelings, someone or

something else would have.3 The ego, an opportunist, scav-
enges what it can in the perceptual realm to express (and to
suppress) the feelings aroused by current instinctual tension.
She considered her analyst intelligent and witty (entertain-
ing!), not unlike her iconoclastic father who retired at an early
age, stayed at home (my office is in my home), and literally
read every book in the local library. It was he, in fact, who had
been the source of her interest in word games and word play.
A large part of her charm for him lay in her ability to play
these games. In her erotization of language, word play with
her father, and with her analyst, represented sexual foreplay.
It was with words that she both sought intimacy with her
father and sought to avoid it.
Complementary countertransference compliance (Rack-
er, 1957) with her transference position was apparent in the
analysis of this parapraxis. Little note was made, at the time,
of the pleasure in chasing syllables and in verbal embroidery.
In this respect it is significant to an understanding of the
transference-countertransference interplay that we never con-
sidered the most obvious possibility in the analysis of her error,
namely that ENTAINER = EN[TER]TAINER, i.e., that she
had dropped a syllable from the correct word to construct the
parapraxis. To have done so might have cut short the more
pleasant lengthy consideration of her slip. It also would have
cut short a re-enactment which I am convinced contributed to
our eventual understanding of her transference reaction in a
more emotionally vivid manner than might otherwise have
been the case. What for another patient might have been a
sterile, even trivial, intellectual exercise was for her, because
of her background, a meaningful experience in the re-creation
of her past. Subsequent reflection on our “word play” strongly
brought to her mind similar situations with her father.

SThis woman was psychoanalytically sophisticated. .Not only did she know
where babies came from, she also knew where Oedipui came from.
562 HARVEY KELMAN

A familiar transference meaning, the wish to possess her

father and to bear a child by him, was thus obscured and
illuminated by the facile analysis of the “entainer” parapraxis.
Another meaning of this parapraxis became clear only much
later in the analysis when the patient became more antic with
her analyst in a repetition of her attempts to cheer her dour
mother (to entertain her) into a state of increased capability to
supply emotional nutriment. In this context, to “enter a
container” can be guessed to have had another powerfully
poignant meaning.

The “entainer” parapraxis lends itself well to the following

metapsychological expansion from:

The Economic Point of View:

A familiar free play of ideas, a n elastic use of language, and a

tenuous playful associative process were amply demonstrated
in the formation and analysis of this parapraxis. It was
apparent that the energy of instinctual wishes mobilized in the
analysis sought discharge in the error in the mobile “chaotic”
form characteristic of primary process. Condensation was the
principal mechanism utilized in the formation of the para-
praxis. Displacement, from major elements of sexual conflict
to minor elements of verbal process, and the concrete symbol-
ization of her conflict were also present. Such features demon-
strated what Freud (1923) described as the typical indifference
as to the path along which instinctual discharge takes place, as
long as it takes place somehow.

The Dynamic Point of View:

Such indifference was not complete, however, since discharge
was not complete. Here, conflict entered the picture and
became evident in the analysis of the parapraxis.
 ANALYSIS OF A PARAPRAXIS 563

Her error had been a distortion of the word “enter-

tainer.” Her ability to be entertained by a man had been
significantly diminished all her life. Indeed, it was with
considerable anxiety that she entertained the concept of such
“entertainment,” although she had inklings by that time in
her analysis how much she wished what she also feared. What
intercourse she had experienced was either distinctly uncom-
fortable or devoid of pleasure. Her conflict was discernible
even in the act of condensation. The word “entainer” had
been “in and out” of her mind all day with a sense of
discomfort not unlike that she experienced during coitus. The
condensation itself, which demonstrated the conflict over
admission or nonadmission of sexual thoughts, was concep-
tually like the act of intercourse, where there was a similar
conflict .over the admission or nonadmission of the penis.
Similarly, analysis of the details of the parapraxis showed
each to be a significant element of her neurotic conflict. The
registration of a new student reminded her of her wish for a
baby. But the error in registration represented a negation of
this wish or, more correctly, a reminder of the unacceptability
of such wishes. That there had been a parapraxis at all was
evidence of the strength of this wish, which forced its way into
consciousness, albeit in disguised fashion. Each of the syllabic
alterations in the condensation came from one or another side
of this conflict. [Ter a con] meant that she was to forgo the
pleasure of intercourse (“remove what is heavenly”). [Er], on
the other hand, suggested an affirmation (remove the sense of
error, of judgment, from wishes for sexual satisfaction). The
removal of both [a] and [cont] came from the defensive side of
her conflict. They suggested both the punishment (no A) and
the remedy (remove the [cont] (cunt)) for her sexual wishes.
Even so, from the impulse side of her conflict, the use of the
vulgar term “cunt” represented a sly introduction of that
which had been enjoined against. This introduction of what is
forbidden in the proscription against it is a familiar compro-
mise, as in the statement “Quit you? damned cursing. It
sounds like hell.”
564 HARVEY KELMAN

The Genetic Point of View:

T h e genetic roots of her conflict were likewise condensed in

the parapraxis, which was regressive in both form and con-
tent. Formally, it represented a retreat to magical and
concrete use of words. In content, it was a restatement of an
unresolved oedipal situation.
The printed representation of the word “entainer,” which
had come in and out of her mind, as well as the printed
equations she visualized in the analytic session related the
parapraxis to her father, a glutton for the written word and an
object of his daughter’s adoration. Her playfulness with
language, as demonstrated in the parapraxis and in its
analysis, originated with her wish to be pleasing to her father,
to be his sexual object, Even her playfulness with her name
(his name) originated in this wish. The Greek father as the
immediate “source” of the parapraxis (the parapractic resi-
due*’as it were) also underscored its oedipal quality.
With one exception, the syllabic play in the construction
of the parapraxis related to her mother’s forbidding position
in the oedipal conflict. That exception was [er]. Her associ-
ation had been “TOerr is human, to forgive divine.’’ This was
a reference to her mother’s religious preoccupation, a wish
that her mother would be truly Christian as she professed and
would forgive the errant daughter her covetous sexuality. This
feature was echoed in the patient’s original sense of conviction
that “there was no error” in her. parapraxis and in her
preoccupation with “heaven” and “heavenly” in the word
play, as if to say, “Perhaps mother will not deny me heaven,
will not damn me for my sexual wishes.”. All other examples of
syllabic deletions were related to the forbidding mother in the
oedipal conflict. Deletion of [a] was an expression of mother’s
disapproval of sexual wishes, as unforgiving as for “poor”
(non-A) school grades. Deletion of [ter a con] again reflected
mother’s religious point of yiew, this time with vengeance
 ANALYSIS OF A PARAPRAXIS 565

(remove what is heavenly: remove the possibility of heaven; be

damned). Rebellion against mother was expressed by the use
of the term “cunt” even while it was used in a way that would
comply with mother as a disapproving oedipal figure (“remove
the cunt” from “enter a container”).
Her rebellious assertion “I know where babies come
from” was likewise related to the genetic roots of the para-
praxis. In sessions.prior to the analysis of her error she had
questioned how her mother became pregnant. She spoke of
her disbelief that her mother could have enjoyed intercourse.
Such talk also reflected her early disbelief that her mother and
father would do the “dirty” things she had learned about from
schoolmates (a denial also that father would love mother in a
way that he would not love her). It was after one of those hours
that she wept angrily at her conclusion that mother must have
enjoyed sex while she had been denied that pleasure.
The parapraxis also illustrated, in the transference, the
current edition of her old conflict. Her analyst, because of his
wit, was also an entertainer. And, as previously mentioned,
the reproduction of the parent’s difficulty with English, the
interchangeability of jobs (it being “all Greek to him”), and
the coincidence of both the father and the analyst being at
home with her were all rich in transference implications.
Countertransference complementarity (“countertransference”
in the sense of “unconscious reaction to transference”) also
underscored the transference roots of the parapraxis.

The Adaptive Point of View:

The adaptive utility of the parapraxis was apparent on several

counts. One of her adaptive tasks was to do her job and fill out
the form. The sudden upsurge of a n instinctual wish, how-
ever, threatened maladaptation. Her error averted both that
possibility and the anxiety that would have been attendant on
some overt expression of the wish. Adaptation to the analytic
566 HARVEY KELMAN

situation, however, required that it not be quashed altogether,

since it was the function of the analysis, in part, to make her
aware of such wishes.

The Structural Point of View:

The distinctive “fingerprints” of the id, the superego, and the

ego were apparent in the construction of this parapraxis. The
stamp of the id was clear in the graphic representation of the
word “entainer,” which thrust in and out of the patient’s mind
in a vivid symbolic version of intercourse. Likewise, the wish
for a baby, which became associated with the registration of
the new student, was an expression of id impulses mobilized by
the instinctual tension generated in the analytic situation. The
action of the superego was apparent both in the construction
of the parapraxis (where all the syllabic deletions were seen to
contain the implicit moral injunction “take this out”), and in
the patient’s attitude toward it (in the rueful amusement of a
. . .stickler for correct English. . .” or in her discomfort as
‘ I .

she occupied herself with the slip throughout the day). One
syllabic deletion, [er], originaied with a more benevolent
attitude of the superego (ego ideal) associated with (her
mother’s) religious convictions (“To err is human, to forgive
divine”). While the ego was active principally in the synthesis
of other diverse structural ingredients, it also lent its own
distinctive quality to the parapraxis. The manner with which
the patient occupied herself with the error all day, her
preference for words (and even for print), her visualization of
words as puzzles, and her facility for puns, double entendre,
and word play, all illustrated the tenacity, intellectuality, and
playful whimsey typical of her general ego “style.”
In addition to their distinctive contributions, the id, ego
and superego combined in a structurally overdetermined
counterpoint. In a general sense the id’s pressure for admission
 ANALYSIS OF A PARAPRAXIS 567

of sexual wishes to consciousness was opposed by the super-

ego’s moral censure. Several syllabic alterations, however,
contained elements from both id and superego. The deletion
of [cont], for example, represented a superego injunction
against sexual activity- “take the ‘cont’ (cunt) out.” The use
of the vulgar colloquialism in such an injunction, however,
represented the rebellious voice of the id buried in the stern
command of the superego. The ego’s defensive posture was
clearly at the behest of the superego in what was a highly
moralistic predicament for the patient. But collaboration
between the ego and the id was also evident, especially as
demonstrated by her conviction that the parapraxis was no
error despite its “lack of meaning.” From the side of the ego, it
was the result of her belief, developed in the working alliance,
that all behavior had meaning.

This example demonstrates both the psychological and the

metapsychological richness of even a simple mental product-
one word. Freud, in an attempt to infer such richness, chose
for the motto of The Psychopathology ofEveryday L(fe (1901)
the following lines from Goethe’s -Faust:

But now the air is so full of these ghosts

That no one knows how to escape their hosts.

It is interesting that even in this selection he created a para-

praxis and thus illustrated the phenomenon he had set out to
explain. In the letter to Fliess in which Freud (1887-1902,
p. 325) suggested the motto, he misquoted Goethe:
“But now the world is so full of these ghosts. . .”
(my italics) and thereby expanded the domain of the uncon-
568 HARVEY KELKTAN

scious “ghosts” as he was to do for the next 39 years. To

would-be cartographers of that strange clinical “world” of
“norekda1”s (Freud, 1900, p. 296). “S[E]INE”s (Erikson, 1954)
and “entaincrs,” metapsychological formulation contributes
the essential surveyor’s level.

REFERENCES

Erikson, E. H. (1954). The dream specimen of psychoanalysis. This Journal,

2:5-56.
Freud, A. .(1969), Difficulties in the path of psychoanalysis: a confrontation of
past with present viewpoints. The Writings of Anna Freud, 7:124-156. New
York: International Universities Press, 1971.
Freud, S. (1887-1902), The Origins of Psq.choanalq.sis: Letters, Drafts and Notes
lo LVilhelm Fliess (1887-1902). New York: Basic Books, 1954.
(1900), The interpretation of dreams. Standard Edition, 4 and 5 . London:
Hogarth Press, 1953.
(1901), The psychopathology of everyday life. Standard Edition, 6 .
London: Hogarth Press, 1960.
(1923). The ego and the id, Standard Edition, 19:12-66. London: Hogarth
Press. 1961.
Racker. H . (1957). The meanings and uses of countertransference. In: Transfer-
ence and Countertransference. London: Hogarth Press, 1968, pp. 127-173.

Submitted September 21, 1974

1212 Edgervlle Road,
Silifer Spring, hlaryland 20910 .