Construction
Construction is a clinical and theoretical concept in psychoanalysis referring to an analytic operation in which the analyst formulates a provisional reconstruction of the patient’s psychic history and unconscious structure when direct memory is fragmented, repressed, or inaccessible. Distinguished from interpretation, which aims to clarify latent meaning already present in the patient’s associations, construction involves the active synthesis of hypotheses that integrate disparate clinical material—such as dreams, resistances, and transference phenomena—into a coherent narrative framework within the analytic process.
The concept is most closely associated with the later work of Sigmund Freud, particularly his essay “Constructions in Analysis” (1937), where it functions as a reflection on analytic technique under conditions in which historical accuracy cannot be reliably established.[1]
Definition and distinction from interpretation
In psychoanalytic usage, construction denotes the analyst’s effort to assemble a plausible account of unconscious psychic processes by organizing clinical material—free associations, symbolic formations, behavioral patterns, repetitions, and gaps in memory—into an intelligible configuration. Construction is invoked when the patient cannot remember decisive experiences directly, or when recollection alone fails to produce analytic movement.
While interpretation typically focuses on elucidating unconscious meaning already present in speech, dreams, or symptoms, construction operates at a broader level. It embeds individual interpretations within a tentative historical or structural narrative, allowing the patient to relate to unconscious material that cannot be accessed through recall alone.
Importantly, construction does not claim factual certainty. It is a hypothetical and revisable formulation, tested within the analytic process through the patient’s affective, associative, and transferential responses.
Freud’s contribution: “Constructions in Analysis”
Freud introduced the concept of construction explicitly in his 1937 paper “Constructions in Analysis,” written late in his career as a meditation on analytic method. By this point, Freud had come to recognize the limitations of earlier technical ideals centered on remembering repressed material as intact memory.
In this essay, Freud distinguishes construction from interpretation by characterizing it as an active, synthetic operation required when interpretation alone proves insufficient. He compares the analytic task to that of an archaeologist reconstructing an ancient structure from scattered remains: the original form can never be fully recovered, but a coherent reconstruction can nonetheless be achieved from surviving traces.[1]
Freud stresses that the validity of a construction is not determined by historical verification, but by its effects within the analysis—its capacity to mobilize affect, loosen resistance, generate new associations, and advance the analytic process.
Construction, memory, and psychic truth
A central implication of Freud’s account is that memory in psychoanalysis is reconstructive rather than archival. The unconscious does not preserve the past as a literal record of events; instead, early experiences survive in distorted, displaced, and symbolic forms shaped by repression and unconscious logic.
Construction acknowledges this condition by shifting the criterion of analytic truth away from factual accuracy toward psychic truth. What matters is not whether a constructed narrative corresponds exactly to historical events, but whether it articulates unconscious determinations in a way that becomes analytically effective.
This view challenges positivist assumptions about memory and history, emphasizing instead the dynamic and symbolic nature of psychic life.
Theoretical meaning
From a theoretical perspective, construction addresses the problem of how psychoanalysis can work with indirect traces of early experience—particularly in cases involving early trauma, preverbal development, or unconscious fantasy structures that organize the subject’s relation to reality but resist conscious formulation.
Where interpretation may clarify the meaning of a dream or symptom, construction situates such meanings within a broader psychic configuration, offering the patient a new way of relating to their unconscious history. Construction thus operates at the level of structure and narrative, rather than isolated meanings.
Clinical application
In clinical practice, construction is especially relevant when:
- the patient’s memories are sparse, contradictory, or inaccessible;
- defensive structures block associative work;
- early or preverbal experiences are implicated;
- analysis stalls due to repetition, acting out, or resistance.
In such situations, construction allows the analyst to intervene without relying on direct recollection. The analyst proposes a tentative narrative grounded in the patient’s material and observes the patient’s response. Acceptance, rejection, or modification of the construction all provide valuable analytic information.
Contemporary psychodynamic approaches, including short-term and focused therapies, often emphasize the importance of forming a working narrative that reorganizes the patient’s relation to the past and facilitates therapeutic change.[2]
Variants and debates
The distinction between construction and interpretation has been the subject of sustained debate within psychoanalysis. Some clinicians regard construction as a necessary extension of interpretation, particularly in complex or severe cases. Others caution that construction risks introducing suggestion or theoretical bias, potentially shaping the patient’s narrative to fit the analyst’s expectations.
These concerns highlight the ethical dimension of construction. Because the analyst participates in shaping how the patient understands their past, constructions must remain grounded in the patient’s material and be continuously tested within the transference relationship rather than imposed as authoritative truth.
Later revisions and critiques
Later psychoanalytic thinkers have engaged critically with Freud’s concept. Wilfred Bion de-emphasized reconstruction of past events in favor of attending to the containment and transformation of emotional experience in the analytic present.
Jacques Lacan offered a more radical critique, rejecting the idea that analytic truth consists in constructing a coherent narrative of the past. Lacan emphasized the primacy of language, repetition, and the emergence of the subject of the unconscious, arguing that constructions risk reinforcing ego-based illusions of unity and coherence. From a Lacanian perspective, analytic truth is structural rather than historical, and construction must be subordinated to the effects of speech and interpretation within the Symbolic order.[3]
Legacy and significance
Despite internal disagreements, construction remains a significant concept in psychoanalytic theory and technique. It reflects a shift from viewing analysis as the simple uncovering of latent content toward recognizing the creative, relational, and ethically complex nature of analytic work.
Through construction, psychoanalysis acknowledges both the limits of memory and the necessity of hypothesis, offering a model of therapeutic change grounded in narrative formation, structural insight, and the patient’s evolving relation to unconscious life.
See also
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Freud, Sigmund. “Constructions in Analysis” (1937), in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 23, trans. James Strachey (London: Hogarth Press, 1964), pp. 255–269.
- ↑ Gabbard, Glen O. Psychodynamic Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 5th ed. (Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2014), pp. 45–48.
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. “The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire in the Freudian Unconscious,” in Écrits, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: W. W. Norton, 1977).