Abstract
Hanna Segal's original paper in 1957 on symbol‐formation is a classic. It makes clinical observations of concrete symbolic equation and theorized the contrast with normal representation. In the process of developing the most accurate and most useful theory of symbol‐formation that psychoanalysis possesses, Segal brought the psychoanalytic symbol into connection with the wider meaning of symbols in linguistics and other academic disciplines. It is less well known that she modified the theoretical conceptualization of her observations in the light of Bion's development of the theory of container‐contained. Perhaps because of the clinical usefulness, little serious criticism has been made of either the original theory or its modification. In this paper, an appraisal will be made of these major conceptualizations. This paper looks again at the theory she used to make the distinction between normal symbols ‘proper’, or representations, and the concrete symbolic equation associated with the primitive or psychotic defences.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
