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.
This book is a collection of eighteen papers which were presented at the Congress in 1971. The subject naturally follows the Congress, which concerned itself with aims in analysis, among other topics. Each paper is short, the reading time being limited to about half an hour. Though this is a format which might promote a lively congress, there is a feeling that development of the theses beyond the time limit would have been of value. Such development no doubt did take place in the ensuing discussion, but the reader is unfortunately excluded from this. The question arises, therefore, whether there might not have been value in also publishing the discussions, either in the same book or separately. It remains as it is, an existential record of eighteen analytic attitudes in 1971. This could be regretted because the subject, assuming as it does that ‘Aims in analysis’ is, as some contributors point out, of huge importance, is allied to the imponderable questions of happiness, contentment, fulfilment, health and sickness. But perhaps it is not, and that the presentation of disparate views in one congress and now book is aim enough in itself, without seeking elaboration or resolution of the questions raised, if any exist.
The question of success or failure of the Congress then is: how well does it keep such questions alive? And that this book is alive with thought is without doubt. The contributors could have confined themselves to a very narrow clinical discussion of the topic, but they do not. Some of the papers come across as thumbnail credos, interesting but unsubstantiated; good topics for discussion, but seemingly with a wide variation in premise from paper to paper. Words like analysis, psychoanalysis, therapy and treatment seem to be used at times interchangeably, and at others exclusively. Likewise, the process of analysis is analysed, but it is as though it means differing things to different authors. In the reading this leads to ambiguity, though, no doubt at the