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.
As we celebrate APsaA's centennial year, a group of analysts who root themselves in the Freudian tradition have given us a collection of papers that continues the spirit and rigor of the Controversial Discussions of the 1940s (see King and Steiner 1991). In an effort to articulate a contemporary Freudian perspective and possibly “a new Freudian synthesis,” each author was asked to explore and then to express how the work of the first and second generation of psychoanalytic theorists had shaped their thinking and practice. The contributions of Ferenczi, Winnicott, Loewald, and Kohut are considered foundational to this new synthesis. Not surprisingly, three questions quickly emerge as central. How can we integrate our understanding of the therapeutic impact of the relationship with the analyst in its many dimensions with our understanding of the roles of interpretation and insight? How do we integrate our understanding of the functioning of the dyad and of childhood trauma with our understanding of intrapsychic conflict? Can we integrate our understanding of narcissistic and self states and pathologies with our understanding of fantasy and unconscious conflict? As the discussion unfolds, a fourth question comes to mind. At what point is it useful to say that there has been a break with Freud's ideas?
Andrew Druck begins with a focused and critical review of the evolution of conflict theory. His carefully and beautifully articulated critique establishes the theoretical context in which a contemporary Freudian perspective has been forged and so provides a setting for the clinical contributions. Loewald's ideas are fundamental here. The classical emphasis on drive, defense, and compromise formation is relatively silent as the emphasis shifts to internalization, integration, and the transformation of primitive mental states. The conflict model gives way to a