Editors' Introduction

In this issue we continue our survey of current developments in psychoanalytic technique as viewed from the perspective of “mainstream” psychoanalysis. We realize, as Dr. Leo Rangell (This Journal, Vol. 6, no. 4, 1997) has pointed out, that practitioners of the previous “mainstream” psychoanalysis may now be in the minority of psychoanalysts, on a worldwide or even national basis. Nevertheless no term other than mainstream seems serviceable at present, for several reasons. First, those in the “mainstream” have not as yet undertaken to discuss what other term might best describe their position. A recent discussion in a Princeton CAPS study group generated several alternatives, including “Classical,” “Post-classical,” “Neoclassical,” “Post-structural,” and “Conflict and Compromise Formation Psychoanalysis.” None seemed quite satisfactory, and the discussion will no doubt continue for quite a while. Another, continuing advantage of the term mainstream psychoanalysis is its “centrist,” or “basic,” or “fundamental” connotation. In our previous introductions, we have attempted to articulate these connotations as follows: Mainstream psychoanalysis emphasizes and wishes to preserve those aspects of psychoanalytic treatment that are both unique and fundamental to psychoanalysis, as distinct from those aspects that are common to any human relationship. It seems to us that many of the current theories elevate what is “more simply human than otherwise” over what is specifically psychoanalytic—as if the former were missing in the latter. A further advantage of the term mainstream is its metaphoric aptness in picturing psychoanalysis as a mighty central river giving rise to many branches, and contributed to by many subsidiary streams. For it seems to us that many of the proliferating “schools” of psychoanalysis are simply split-off part theories, or relatively minor in-flowing contributories, all of which can easily be integrated into mainstream psychoanalysis, or in some cases h