Surface is a term often used in clinical theory, which seems to have eluded a reliable definition. Freud used the term mostly to denote the analysand's consciousness. This patient's surface does not always coincide with the data the analyst can observe, i.e., the clinical surface. It is proposed that clinical surface be understood, in contrast to other psychoanalytic concepts, as the clinical evidence that does not need conjecture to be grasped cognitively. The concept of "average expectable apperception" is introduced. Workable surface is defined as those aspects of the clinical surface that lend themselves well to the exploration of unconscious dynamics or genesis. Ideas about which surfaces are optimally workable vary according to different schools of technique. The advantages of considering clinical surface the objective anchorage of psychoanalysis as a positive science and of differentiating it from patient's surface and workable surface are discussed.

The author argues that although the topographical model is useful for understanding certain psychological phenomena, its technical applications pose certain problems. The model's inherent tendency to bypass the analysand's ego capacities and mix his or her associations with the analyst's own make it less than adequate. There has never been a rapid evolution of psychoanalytic technique, and topographical and structural concepts have been applied in an unclear way. It is inaccurate to think that making the unconscious conscious is mostly characteristic of topographical technique, for the structural approach is a more comprehensive method for attaining this goal. The difficulties in transcending topographical technique seem to be related to certain historical inertias and irrational factors that make it especially attractive. Among these are the appeal of its simplicity, the gratification of epistemophilic and narcissistic tendencies, and the propitious ground for the analyst's projections that is provided by interpretations. The role of suggestion in topographical technique, its therapeutic effectiveness and its syntonicity are discussed and two brief clinical vignettes are presented. The author concludes that it is mainly because of its magnetic regressive features that this technique has not been superseded by the structural approach.

The author argues that the technical advances stemming from Freud's (1923) introduction of the structural theory permit a more naturalistic and specific approach to analyzing unconscious conflict, thus facilitating id analysis. The earlier topographical technique underestimated the role of suggestion; often, it entailed interference with patients' capacity for self-observation, as well as with the exploration of their own drive derivatives. In order to illustrate the type of id material obtainable with a contemporary ego psychology approach, the author presents clinical vignettes and commentaries. It is recognized that clarifications, defense interpretations, and Gray's close-process interventions may need to be adapted to different cultural milieus.

The author argues that although the topographical model is useful for understanding certain psychological phenomena, its technical applications pose certain problems. The model's inherent tendency to bypass the analysand's ego capacities and mix his or her associations with the analyst's own make it less than adequate. There has never been a rapid evolution of psychoanalytic technique, and topographical and structural concepts have been applied in an unclear way. It is inaccurate to think that making the unconscious conscious is mostly characteristic of topographical technique, for the structural approach is a more comprehensive method for attaining this goal. The difficulties in transcending topographical technique seem to be related to certain historical inertias and irrational factors that make it especially attractive. Among these are the appeal of its simplicity, the gratification of epistemophilic and narcissistic tendencies, and the propitious ground for the analyst's projections that is provided by interpretations. The role of suggestion in topographical technique, its therapeutic effectiveness and its syntonicity are discussed and two brief clinical vignettes are presented. The author concludes that it is mainly because of its magnetic regressive features that this technique has not been superseded by the structural approach.

Consensus on the conceptualisation of 'interpretation', the most characteristic feature of psychoanalytic technique, has proven elusive. Attempts at precising the meaning of this term are reviewed. The role of intuition and suggestion in interpretation are commented upon. There seem to exist polarities in interpreting styles. It is the author's contention that these are mostly contingent on the practitioner's adscription to the topographical or the structural model of the mind. The tendency to interpret deeply unconscious elements would correspond to pre-structural technique, whereas the tendency to direct the patient's attention to preconscious manifestations would be characteristic of the structural orientation. Clinical material is provided to illustrate the divergence of underlying theories of technique. The topographical interpreting of Freud and his early followers is different from the interpreting used in contemporary structural technique. 'Deep' interpreting approaches continue to be used side by side with clarification-like interpretations. The reasons for this coexistence are examined. There are powerful motivations for the adherence to pre-structural interpreting. It seems to gratify the analysand's dependency wishes and the analyst's narcissism more directly. It also provides a less sublimated satisfaction of epistemophilic drives. Maintaining ill-defined the concept 'interpretation' facilitates the application of the topographical technique with its irrational gratifications.