Editorial

To work psychoanalytically means to embrace change. But is that always the case? Does a psychoanalytic way of thinking guide us to reach an understanding of who we are – our ‘true self’ – or does it encourage us to explore the complexity and instability of our identity, allowing for a more ‘dynamic self’, to use a term coined by Joshua May (2023)? Today, more than ever, as a profession and in our wider culture, we are confronted with questions about identity, which also emerge in our work with children and adolescents. It seems to me that the main question in our clinical work may be subtly shifting from ‘how can I understand myself more, so that I can be different and be able to change’, towards ‘who am I really’, or ‘what is my identity’.

Addressing issues of identity in depth is important and has been long overdue in our profession, particularly in highlighting power struggles and conditions of oppression. But there are also risks. One risk is the subtle societal shift of attention away from the idea of a self in flux, towards an idea of a self as a set of intersecting stable identities. A big part of our work as psychoanalytic psychotherapists is to try and understand through using our imagination and attention, even when our own identities differ – as they inevitably will – from those of our patients. Perhaps thinking of ourselves as having fluctuating unstable identities, rather than intersecting but stable identities, creates more space for understanding each other across our divides. This is an open area for us to continue thinking about as a profession.

Speaking of change and development: writing this editorial is poignant for me, as I step down this month from my role in the Journal after more than seven years. I leave this post reluctantly and with sadness, while at the same time knowing it’s the right step and feeling excited about the Journal’s future. I am confident that the JCP will continue to be the lively, welcoming space for dialogue and collaborati