Editorial

With this issue the Journal enters its second year. Like every well-nurtured one-year-old, it is finding its feet and its voice, and is busy exploring the environment. Complementing our stated Aims, the Editorial Board wishes the Journal's identity to embody enquiry. We see this manifested in fostering debate, and in providing an interactive forum, so far as is possible within the limitations of a twice yearly publication.

It is in this spirit that we are pleased to open Volume 2 with a number of articles that question assumptions about current thinking and practice in our therapeutic environment. A Couple Therapist Looks at the Wolf-Man, republished here as part of our tribute to its author, Robert Morley, who sadly died in 2011, presents a critique of Freud's appraisal of Sergei and Therese Pankejeff's couple relationship. In her Foreword, Elspeth Morley, Robert's wife and longstanding co-therapist partner, stresses the case Robert made for mutual differentiation and respect between couple and individual therapists. Perhaps the greatest respect that we, as practitioners, can pay to Freud is to see him, not only as a visionary thinker, but also as a man of his time. In Freud's time, when therapy with individuals predominated, couple and family therapies were in their infancy, if not, only just conceived.

Serendipitously, in Reviewing the case history of ‘the young homosexual woman’: Two different settings - two case histories? Rodolfo Moguillansky and Mónica Vorchheimer also consider a comparative view of Freud's work. They ‘bring to life’ his account of a family troubled by the meaning of their adolescent daughter's choice of sexuality, discussing it in relation to subsequent formulations by psychiatrists and family therapists. Like this article's imaginary psychoanalyst, we may wonder about the internal authority which is consulted when a therapist is faced with a family's or couple's troubling and conflicting demands; in what ways do Freud's observations of some n