Panel on 'Child Analysis'

Dr Ritvo opened the panel discussion by paying tribute to Dr Geleerd's memory. He reviewed her contributions as a child analyst, and in her various positions in national and international psychoanalytic associations; her role as a teacher and her many significant clinical and theoretical papers that have enriched child analysis over the last decades. Thus he shared with those present the deep sense of loss that all of us have experienced.

The Programme Committee of the International Psycho-Analytical Association planned that this panel use as a springboard for discussion Dr Geleerd's paper which had been published in the pre-Congress issue of the International Journal. In line with Dr Geleerd's paper and with the theme of the Congress, which dealt with new advances in psychoanalysis, Dr Ritvo suggested that the panel consider the role of direct observation in childhood in increasing our understanding of child development and the contributions of direct observation of children to technique and reconstructions in adult analysis. This might permit the correlation of Mahler's contributions, which stem from direct observation, with other data stemming from psychoanalytic investigation by treatment.

The discussion that followed explored many aspects of the role of observation, sometimes by way of a short statement, and sometimes by way of a prepared statement. Since there were frequent shifts from one point of interest to another, this reporter will take the liberty of summarizing these statements without quoting individual contributors, in the hope that thereby the central issues of the discussion can be highlighted.

First a statement was made by each member of the panel as to his own particular area of interest. This revealed the wide range of proposals that were to be available for the discussion to follow.

• 1The recommendation was made that one ought to explore the usefulness of observation in these different areas:

• a.the pre-analytic period, i.e. the first few years