You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Like most human behavior, planning and thinking for the society ahead can be either a defensive resolution of the threat of change or the expression of an active, adaptive, and responsible coping with the reality of the times. Moreover, whatever value as anticipatory socialization the intellectual forecasting of the needs and adaptational resources of future situations may have, the constructing of a future is also a way of reconceptualizing and of reorganizing the present.
The broadest definition of health is that health, like illness, is behavior. Planning for the future of medicine in general and of psychoanalysis in particular involves necessarily the intricate and reciprocal interrelations of thought and action with reference to theories of human behavior and to the social structure of medical practice, education and training. The theory, practice and educational content and methods of a profession must change and adapt together not only intrinsically within each set of functions but also within the total pattern of their social institutionalization.
The history of the attitudes, motivations, and achievements of psychoanalysis in relation to the conception of an integration into coexisting behavioral knowledge, originally determined almost exclusively by Freud himself, is well known. After attempting to see whether his formulations of behavior could be mapped into the prevailing theoretical constructs of brain and of biology, Freud made a deliberate decision at about the turn of the last century to postpone the integration of psychoanalysis and neurobiologic theory. He understandably needed to escape, even as do many