Introduction

When Freud proposed, in The Interpretation of Dreams, that psychic reality was ‘a particular form of existence not to be confused with material reality’, he made a distinction which proved fundamental in the development of psychoanalysis as a body of knowledge. It implied an independence of spheres: psychic reality did not depend on material reality for its existence. Later in time but no less significant was the identification of the therapist's counter-transference as object of study, source of data (broadly conceived) and link with the patient's affective state.

But what is then validated in the clinical setting? How does psychic reality mesh with psychic truth, and how does psychic truth mesh with historical truth? What if they do not? Does it matter? Does the way that it matters change over time? And if so, where does the pressure for new conceptualizations come from? It could be said that clinicians are always presented with dilemmas about the ‘believability’ of patients' narratives; but that the question has rarely been posed with such fierce difficulty - for everyone concerned - as in the controversy of the last few years over ‘false’ (now ‘recovered’) memories of sexual abuse.

Our authors have the benefit of being able to reflect on this phenomenon after the first wave of social unease has died down (cf. also Mollon, this issue, pp. 397-9; Sinason, ed., forthcoming). The Journal thought it important to promote a dialogue between different perspectives, with their different vocabularies. In this way, perhaps, the essential features of a view may be more keenly perceived. To this end Fiona Gardner explores ‘psychic reality’ within the clinical framework as a force which may create doubt in the mind or acquire its own validity, and thinks through the conditions of that doubt. We reproduce part of a recent North American study by Bessel van der Kolk and Rita Fisler, which surveys the experience of traumatic amnesia as well as the literature on it; it is contextua