I am pleased to be editing this second issue of what we hope you will agree contains some stimulating ideas about some truly controversial issues.
The major theme of this issue concerns organizational, educational, and institutional issues. Readers will find also a substantial exchange about narcissism, articles about Freud and anthropology, and Freud and anti-Semitism, and some ongoing discussion from our first issue about psychoanalysis as art or science.
Organizational and institutional issues have long plagued psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is infamous for its fratricidal disputes, struggles for the mantle, splits and dissension. Organizations and institutions can stymie and stultify as well as advance and facilitate freedom and creativity. Cult-like behavior, rigidification, sectarianism, insularity, intolerance, dogmatism and authoritarianism have featured in internecine struggles in psychoanalytic education, training, and organization, ranging from local societies through to international bodies.
Nevertheless, there have been many critiques of training paradigms and moves for reform, especially over the more recent past. The membership of the American Psychoanalytic Association, for example, has elected reform-minded leaders at many levels, and there is an impetus for change. Interdisciplinarity, tolerance and openness have substantially improved and there has been increasing pluralism in education, approach, and discussions. The problematic role and function of training analysis have come under increasing challenge. But ongoing structural problems remain which need to be addressed.
This issue contributes to such explorations. Have there been structural changes in outlook that advance the field, or have some of the same old problems of authoritarianism, intolerance and insularity continued to pervade the field, albeit under the surface? For example, is there something wrong with the conception of what constitutes ‘knowledge’ in psychoanalytic institutions that impedes real progress?
I want to warmly thank all the contributors for their thoughtful contributions which enliven and stimulate thinking and debate in a field that has so regularly been reported dead. I have been impressed by the enthusiasm of contributors for this new project.
We are living up to the title of the journal—The International Journal of Controversial Discussions—not only by structuring open dialogue highlighting controversial issues but by being international. A number of countries are represented. I am Australian, and we have contributions beyond the US from around the world.
This new journal exemplifies an open-ended and respectful approach to different perspectives. Disagreement and argument allow a way forward, and real ongoing discussion on controversial issues is essential to progress.
We trust that this journal helps to fill a need in progress in the field of psychoanalysis and hope that you will find these discussions and contests of ideas productive and valuable.