JAPA Review Articles: An Introduction

Much of the research relevant to psychoanalytic constructs of mental functions, structures, and the therapeutic interaction are presented or published in settings that are not frequented by most psychoanalysts. This is true for at least two reasons. First, psychoanalysis and related fields are still too distant in methodology and vocabulary (and may always be so) for it to be feasible for many people to be immersed in both. Second, the current climate of academic psychiatry and psychology compels researchers who want academic careers to publish in nonpsychoanalytic research journals. To bridge this gap, the research section will include reviews by experts from neighboring disciplines relevant to psychoanalysis.

Future reviews will cover topics in neuroscience, cognitive psychology, cultural anthropology, clinical psychiatry, and indeed any area that is important to our field. To make the information available to readers of JAPA does not mean that the reviews will oversimplify the complexity of the material or avoid being technical with respect to methodology. Review articles must have fidelity to the material.

The subjects of reviews are chosen because they are relevant to the intellectual life of psychoanalysis, not necessarily because they have application to clinical psychoanalysis. The field of psychoanalysis is more than the practice of psychoanalysis, just as psychoanalytic training is more than a trade school, and certainly JAPA is more than a trade magazine. Psychoanalysis is an intellectual movement that has influenced many other scientific and humanities disciplines for over a hundred years. Our interest in and collaboration with other disciplines are not only beneficial to psychoanalysis; they are equally beneficial to researchers themselves. Neuroscientists, cognitive psychologists, anthropologists, historians, and literary critics all have a great interest in psychoanalytic concepts and the psychodynamic model of the mind. This interest in—and admiration