The Psychoanalytic Process

I am happy for a number of reasons with the choice of the nuclear subject of the psychoanalytic process for one of the two Symposia at this second Pan-American Congress.1 For one thing, this continues the trend established at the first Congress to address ourselves to basic and central issues. Not only do such issues lend themselves to the most fruitful and profitable discussion but they also serve best as a ground on which to compare and contrast the views of the two great psychoanalytic cultures. In addition, however, it is to my mind of particular importance today carefully to define and to keep intact the essential core of our theory because of encroachment from two opposite directions: one, from the field of neuropsycho-biology, in which significant advances have been made, viz., "The New Biology of Dreaming", the neurochemistry of behaviour in general, the biological factors in the psychoses, and the burgeoning field of psychopharmacology; and, per contra, from the field of community psychiatry.

Both of these, welcome and promising fields in themselves from the point of view of advancing knowledge as well as application, present us with a challenge. A constant refining of our theoretical core would be in order even without such external pressures. These pressures, however, make such a periodic re-assertion and redefinition imperative, both from the standpoint of our internal clarity and impetus as well as of maintaining optimum relationships with our contiguous and complementary disciplines.

For my own contribution to this discussion I will return to interests previously developed and to several previous papers which I hope will prove to be useful and relevant in developing my present theme. One of these was a contribution to a panel on Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy (1954) and the other two (1963) on the dynamic sequential events in the unfolding of unconscious intrapsychic conflict.

As a point of departure I would like to go back to a sentence from the