Psychoanalytic Controversies

The ‘Psychoanalytic Controversies’ section of the International Journal of Psychoanalysis was introduced in 2003 in order to provide a forum in which “cutting-edge controversies in the field” would be addressed (Gabbard and Williams, 2003). Its basic form was a position statement, a response, and a rejoinder to the response. The readership of the Journal could present their own views on the debate through posting them on the Journal's Internet site. Over the years a range of topics have been covered, which have aroused considerable interest among the readership.

I look forward to heading this section. In my view, it provides an important opportunity for understanding differences within the analytic community and allowing for a serious exchange regarding them. While one outcome of such exchange may be a broadening of perspectives so as to bridge or include opposing views, it may also lead to recognition that there exist differences so fundamental that opposition is inevitable. In either case exchanges on controversial, topical issues force us to re-examine our basic stances, assumptions, and choice of allegiances, and thus allow us to better ground, understand, and further develop our own positions as well as to maintain a meaningful dialogue with those who think differently. I think that such understanding of oneself and others is integral to the analytic enterprise and is essential to the pursuit of knowledge in a field in which common forms of empirical research and demonstration may play a more limited role.

Developing this kind of exchange within the Journal is not an easy task. To maintain interest and to deepen understanding it is necessary that the positions presented by the authors would not merely describe opposing stances that are already well known, but rather would engage the opponent and lead the reader to think anew. It requires going beyond prejudices and preconceptions in order to listen to and contemplate another point of view. Lack of familiarity wit