Discussion

Protagonists of attempts to improve and revise psychoanalytic theory have an illustrious predecessor—Sigmund Freud. While such attempts in the hands of the so-called "deviant schools," "culturalists," "existentialist psychoanalysts," et al. have not infrequently drawn attention to neglected, or not yet arrived-at aspects of psychological problems, they have for the most part wandered off into the sterile sands of a consciousness psychology, or the morass of mystical vagaries.

With the latter-day critics who consist of psychologists thoroughly trained and grounded not only in their own discipline, which is far more rigorous and exacting than most psychoanalysts are aware of, but also in psychoanalysis, it is an entirely different matter. Such efforts must, to my mind, be looked upon by the analytic world with enthusiasm, for I have no doubt that if psychoanalysis is to grow as a science, analysts must cooperate fully with their fellows in psychology, such as the author of this paper. Others, of course, include such prolific contributors as George Klein, Robert Holt, Roy Schafer, Margaret Brenman, as well as the unique Erik Erikson. We all know, too, how David Rapaport advanced our knowledge of the theory of ego psychology. Within the ranks of psychoanalysts themselves, there are a few working toward the revision of the theory in the light of information theory and the advancing discoveries in neurophysiology. Whatever comes of all these attempts, such efforts must not be greeted with casual or polemical dismissal. Ultimately, a sound psychoanalytic