ABSTRACT
Psychoanalysis has been employed outside the consulting room since its inception. This might be as a conceptual tool to think about culture, society or politics, or as one of the theoretical frameworks in the development of multidisciplinary areas of study, such as the psychosocial or the psycho-cultural. The partitioning of psychoanalysis into “applied” and “clinical”, depending on its functions, focus and geographical zones of practice, often has the added effect of elevating one type of psychoanalysis – “clinical” – above the other – “applied”. Gourguechon’s stance is potentially a controversial one, in light of the Goldwater rule, which dictates activities “unethical” that involve giving a professional opinion on people in the public arena. “Applied psychoanalysis” clearly differs in its context, focus and aims from “clinical psychoanalysis”, according to commentators. The clinic is “the crucible for its concepts and its practices”.
