WOLF MAN AND SHE-WOLF? AN ANALYSIS OF THE WOLF MAN CASE Şengül Yaşar Erverdi In psychoanalytic literature, the Wolf Man case is one of the key examples that opens a path not only into Freud’s theoretical framework but also into thinking about the nature of dreams and representation. This case presents itself as a text that reveals how the structural traces of childhood experiences return, how repression is symbolised through various pathways, and how the subject unravels around their own axis. Freud names the case based on the animal imagery placed at the centre of the dream. The white wolves sitting in front of the window evoke a sense of terror in the child, trigger awakening, and carry the marks of a fall outside the symbolic order. However, the dream here is not a simple sequence of images; it revolves around a lack, and naming that void is not equivalent to possessing it. According to Freud, the wolf is not a figure with which the subject identifies in the dream, but one that the subject distances through fear and repression. The harsh and castrating aspect of the father figure is represented through the gaze of the wolf; that is, what is named is not the subject, but the gazes from which the subject flees. In considering the figure of the Wolf Man, we must first question what function the very name serves. Although the name Wolf Man appears explanatory at first glance, it actually obscures many aspects of the core issue. This name functions as a stabiliser within Freud’s discursive order; yet rather than anchoring the subject to their own symbolic chain, it positions them in relation to an external image, to a figure circling within the dream, to a reference. Thus, the name does not establish a direct relationship with the subject, but becomes the name of a fear orbiting around them, a mediation. The wolf figure here is not only the bearer of a symptom but perhaps also an index that perpetually delays the possibility of a resolution. Whether Freud’s choice was truly to untie the knot of the unconscious, or to displace that knot into a new decentred plane, remains uncertain. Before addressing these questions, it is necessary to reflect further on the case itself. The issue at hand is not merely the appearance of an animal figure in a dream; it is also a representational level reshaped by Freud’s interpretations, carrying a certain cultural and historical significance. To consider it not as a symptom but as a naming strategy allows us to ask deeper questions about both Freud’s method and the relationship psychoanalysis establishes with the subject. One of the prominent discourses in Freud’s reading of the Wolf Man case is that the tension between a child’s anatomical sex and the gender position with which they identify can be observed from very early on. Gender discourses directed at the child through appearance, behavioral patterns, and societal expectations create distortions in their sense of self, and this produces symptomatic reflections aligned with the opposite sex. In the context of the case, the boy’s feminine behaviors were constantly emphasised within the family, while the sister’s dominant and masculine attitude positioned her more like a boy. In this way, the gender roles between the siblings appeared reversed, making it difficult for them to find a stable place within the symbolic order. This ambiguity prevents the child from determining their place on both a 1