This fourth issue of the IJCD revisits matters considered in the first issue of this journal: questions centering around viewing psychoanalysis as an art or a science or ideology. Some of the contributors discuss binaries and false dichotomies that do not advance the dialogue.

In regard to ideology and the danger of becoming a cult, Psychoanalysis has struggled because of its authoritarian roots. The shadow of Freud, the founder, falls over psychoanalysis organizationally, in its practice, and in its theory. Freud is notorious for having expelled those he considered heretics and forming a group of loyal supporters to defend the faith.

Organized psychoanalysis, including the American Psychoanalytical Association, has made considerable progress in becoming more inclusive; a prime example of this was its shift in position regarding nonmedical Analysis. There is also a more recent effort to achieve more diversity, to encourage individuals from underrepresented minorities to become candidates and members.

Our next major task is to replace the training analyst system with a system that allows each candidate to select their own personal analyst. The requirements for a training analyst was set up in the early 1920s by a committee chaired by Max Ettington but the requirements were actually written by Karen Horney and Richard Sterba. It is ironic indeed that when the American Psychoanalytical Association was re-organized in 1946, the Karen Horney group was excluded.

I am grateful for all the contributions to this issue including the responses to my paper.