You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The decision of the Editors to invite four prominent colleagues to write discussions of my remarks was a most felicitous one. I hope others will be prompted to express their views on this important issue and that the Journal will see fit to publish them.
The views expressed by the four discussants are quite divergent and, I suspect, fairly representative of current attitudes of analysts. The statements speak for themselves and I have no intention of elaborating any response. However, since others may wish to comment, I would like to clarify a few points where I believe my statements have been misinterpreted by one or another discussant.
Beres interprets the contrast I draw between the practitioner and the researcher as implying a dichotomy between clinical work and research. This is obviously a misinterpretation. Most analytic research is clinical, but not all clinical work is research. The contrast I meant is between the practitioner, whose major preoccupation is with psychoanalysis as a method of treatment, and the researcher, who deliberately takes advantage for scientific study of the circumstances afforded by a therapeutic analysis or who applies the psychoanalytic method or his psychoanalytic knowledge in nonanalytic situations (e.g., observation of children) toward the solution of scientific problems. I do not see how anyone could contend that the psychological style, personality characteristics, as well as the underlying ethos optimal for these two approaches are identical, though we might well wish they were.