Editors' Introduction

Recent years have witnessed the proliferation and crystallization of various “schools” of psychoanalytic thought. Freudians and Kleinians have been joined in their long-standing discussion by the newer voices from self psychology, object relations, intersubjectivity, to cite but a few of the more prominent.

Over time, the theoretical differences among these groups have been increasingly clarified, to the satisfaction of most. However, in the field of psychoanalytic technique, things remain confused. In what respect do these various theories lead to actual changes in psychoanalytic technique? Are we dealing with one basic technique and its many minor variations, or with totally different techniques?

This issue of our Journal is intended to contribute to conceptual clarification in this important area. Toward that end we are pleased to publish an interesting paper by Drs. Arlene and Arnold Richards, in which they present a clinical vignette, and then present their view of the contrasting approaches of the various schools to the same clinical vignette. In so doing, the Richards, as they take care to indicate, are striving neither for clinical validation nor for theoretical “proof” but for conceptual clarity. The discussants of the paper, representing as they do the various “schools,” in their agreements and disagreements with the Richards, contribute further to conceptual clarification. We are grateful to them for their thoughtful participation. The Richards, in their enlightening “response to respondents” continue the process of clarification. We invite our readers to participate in this process by submitting to us their own responses.

We begin the issue with a paper by Charles Brenner, M.D., in which he sums up his recent thinking on psychoanalytic technique, and in so doing, provides us with a clear conceptual “baseline” as to the technique which may now fairly be regarded as “standard mainstream” in North America—conflict and compromise formation.

We hope that our read