Editorial

My Immediate reason for writing this editorial is to draw the attention of the reader to the fact that Andrew Samuels has resigned from the office of review editor because he wants to have time to enjoy family life and the experience of being the father of two young children. He has held the office of review editor for three whole years. He has brought to it his enormous energy and enthusiasm and has enriched it by his capacity to develop and cultivate bonds of friendship and interests that range not only over the various groups and factions within the school of analytical psychology, but stretch even beyond it. These are qualities that are particularly valuable in a review editor and I, personally, am indeed grateful to him. I hope that he will soon feel ready to rejoin us in our work in and for The Journal of Analytical Psychology.

Barbara Wharton has now allowed herself to be persuaded to take on this really time-consuming, delicate and responsible function. I have absolutely no doubt that she will make her own special, thoughtful and thought-provoking contribution and show herself to be indeed an excellent successor to Andrew. My sincere thanks go to both of them.

There are one or two points I want to include in these editorial comments.

Whenever possible I try to publish in the same issue papers that deal with similar or related themes, so that there is some kind of cohesion, at least in a part of each issue. Thus, for instance, in Vol. 32/1 (January 1987) there were two papers (Zinkin and Mahlberg) that related analytical psychology to theory and work done recently by researches in one of the ‘hard’ sciences (Bohm and Sheldrake), and two papers discussing the place of affect/feeling in the functioning of the psyche. Vol. 32/2 (April 1987) contained papers about clinical technique, while some of the papers in Vol. 32/3 were concerned with the exploration and discussion of some psychic processes; Vol. 31/4 (October 1986) had a distinctly comparative/anthropological