Postscript and a New Synthesis

We have heard and now read a series of works purporting to present the view of one total, composite theory representing the theory of psychoanalysis as this crystallizes out at the end of the first century of existence of the science-discipline of psychoanalysis. A cross-sectional sample of clinical material has been presented, and has been subjected to theoretical appraisal by a variety of analysts. The views expressed have been discussed among the presenters and the audience. An overall, comprehensive theory combining all enduring and accepted contributions has been constructed and offered. It has been suggested that this amalgamated theoretical structure combining all aspects of theory better serves the field and the public than do multiple, alternative theories as these have been developing and commanding attention over a period of years.

Before closing and summarizing my view further, I would like to comment on three independent papers, chosen originally to be part of this Journal issue as separate articles, not part of this symposium, which were considered relevant and helpful to round out the discussion of this subject. As it turns out, for logistic reasons having to do with issues of priority of publication, two of these will be published elsewhere,¹ while the third, a paper of my own, appears in this issue following the symposium. I welcome these three papers for the additional light they throw on the subject, and will include a discussion of them all in this summary view. In this respect, I will be discussing two of these papers in absentia, much as I did the presented but unpublished clinical paper of Renik above. Both papers are Honorary