Editorial: Farewell

You who read me, are you sure of understanding my language.

It has been a huge privilege to have held the editorship of this prestigious journal, established under the directorship of Freud, and a particular honour to be the first woman editor of the IJP. But above all, it has been a great pleasure to work with wonderful colleagues.

The challenge for the IJP has always been to uphold the essential principles of psychoanalysis while recognizing and engaging with important developments in the field. From its beginnings, psychoanalysis has faced attacks, its practice has been easily eroded. Ernest Jones pointed out that the more pernicious attack is the one that comes from the inside, when the ideas of psychoanalysis are accepted but “their meaning diluted until it [psychoanalysis] may be regarded as ‘harmless’” (Jones 1920, 4).

The opposition, Jones wrote, comes in the form of:

various seductive catchwords that appeal to attitudes or principles entirely legitimate in themselves, such as ‘resistance to dogma,’ ‘freedom of thought,’ ‘widening of vision,’ ‘re-adjustment of perspective,’ and so on. That this opposition may not only be displayed by outside antagonists but may assume subtle forms also amongst those having a nearer acquaintance with the subject. (Jones 1920, 4)

As the field of psychoanalysis grows, how do we distinguish between what is genuine development and what is defensive? The debates and exchanges around this question are ongoing, and the careful study of clinical material can further the conversation, although we cannot ever expect resolution when discussing unconscious forces.

Some general agreement recognizes significant developments in psychoanalysis, such as a greater exploration of the earliest time of life - that “Minoan-Mycenaean” epoch that Freud anticipated in women (Freud 1932, 282), or even an exploration of prenatal life and the caesura of birth, as well as intergenerational transmission. Recent developments have included in