ABSTRACT
The language of psychoanalysis is inextricably bound up with the metaphors of surface and depth. Any attempt to review the ubiquity of these metaphors would necessarily be endless, but an outline of some of the main areas of usage might include the following: topographical distinctions between the surface of consciousness and the depth of the unconscious, the surface or manifest content of the dream versus the deep or latent content, the notion of the depth of the transference as indicated by either developmentally or functionally regressive states, and the presumption of deep psychic structures whose operation underlies or gives rise to our surface subjectivity. However, metaphors have a way of outgrowing their original uses and taking on a life of their own, entailing all sorts of conceptual consequences that go unchallenged because they go unnoticed. The reification of psychic processes into metaphors of psychic “structure,” intimately entwined with those of psychic “depth,” is one that has begun to undergo increasing scrutiny, and authors such as Schafer (1976) and Stolorow (1978) have encouraged us to become conscious of its implications.
