The Analyst’s Exile

The author maintains that the image of exile belongs to the figure of the analyst as well as to the figure of the analysand, but in a special way. As a result, the analyst is never to be found where the patient seeks to place him or her; likewise, the analytic setting, an a topos place, is an area of transition and intersection between two strangers, and must always remain that way. For this reason, the search for a homeland as a realm of ultimate meaning, where the language spoken is free of ambiguity, remains by necessity and design dissatisfied and is continually re-initiated. The author contrasts the usage of metaphor as a rhetorical device specific to the special status of the analytic relation and the usage of metonymy as an unambiguous, definitive language which could function as that of an illusory homecoming, the author considers that the profound meaning of the exploration of the unconscious — in itself, an opus contra naturam — can only be grasped if the exiled setting of the metaphorical “as if” is maintained.