From the Editor

The role of a psychoanalytic journal is at least twofold: to reflect the state of the field and to contribute to leading the field in new directions. The former is the familiar project, both necessary and reassuring, and one that JAPA takes seriously. The latter is far less clear, because publishing work in areas that some find only tangentially related to psychoanalysis calls into question the boundaries of our knowledge base; for others it is precisely those boundaries that require ongoing reconsideration. Over the past three years at JAPA we have published a wide range of articles and essays that together reflect important work by analysts and analytically oriented therapists and researchers, and also, at times, push the field in new directions. These have included (this is by no means an exhaustive list) methodologically rigorous quantitative studies; a variety of innovative clinical writings; papers on the ongoing effects of the Covid pandemic on training, practice, and clinical theory; Winnicott in America; Lacanian neuropsychoanalysis; race and racism in psychoanalysis; the psychoanalytic body; and essays and memoirs from some of our leading analysts.

As Editor I firmly believe that our psychoanalytic purview extends beyond the clinic, and that the clinic is embedded in broader social and symbolic forces that cannot be ignored. That this emphasis raises important and complex questions, not only about the knowledge base of psychoanalysis, but also regarding the nature and status of boundaries themselves (inside/outside, surface/depth, and the like), is to the good, as we continue the ongoing project of both refinding and redefining psychoanalysis. Different forms of writing—in addition to the conventional psychoanalytic paper—also contribute to this effort, including interdisciplinary work, papers that review the state of the art of an important topic, and essays that explore a conceptual theme or problem.

For many decades, JAPA has benefited from manuscript sub