Editorial

The April issue of the Journal offers an impressive and significant collection of papers that reflect upon and contribute to the pioneering history of analytical psychology while, at the same time, enriching our contemporary clinical perspective; these papers expose and respond to the vulnerabilities, challenges and concerns of our times. A key psychological vein of this issue is the innately creative and potentially healing capacity of psychic energy that flows towards renewal, whether it be through adaptation to an inner condition or to the collective. As individuation does not happen in isolation, it is important to also consider the affective symbols, metaphors and images found within groups and cultures that facilitate a sea-change in collective consciousness.

We begin with two significant papers by Marchese et al., a group from the University of Palermo's Psychiatric Polyclinic Unit. For nearly 15 years the team has diligently investigated schizophrenia and the psychotic process through various treatment approaches and this is their contribution to the analytical lineage on the subject.

In the first paper, ‘Psychosis, symbol, affectivity 1: etiopathogenesis and treatment through analytical psychology’, the authors show how the fundamental affective and symbolic quality of psychosis intersects with contemporary neuroscience and psychiatric perspectives. Using a neurodynamic process, the research is rooted in and expands upon Eugen Bleuler's and Jung's early work at the Burghölzli and later John Weir Perry's research carried out in Berkeley, California, where the affect and encrypted psychological meaning was emphasized. Notably, the study corroborates and strengthens original analytical research and theoretical conceptualizations that set it apart from the traditional psychiatric approaches to treating schizophrenia.

In the second paper, ‘Psychosis, symbol, affectivity 2: another perspective on the treatment of psychosis’, the authors further distill the clinical