Developments in Psychoanalysis at Columbia University (Proceedings of the Twentieth Anniversary Conference, Psychoanalytic Clinic for Training and Research, Columbia University, October 30, 1965): Edited by George S. Goldman, M.D., and Daniel Shapiro, M.D. New York: Hafner Publishing Co., 1966. 357 pp.

Rarely do we have an opportunity to observe a distinguished living institution stopped in its development mid-flight and thus made available to leisurely and careful inspection. Such an opportunity is provided us by this volume which commemorates the

twentieth anniversary of the founding of the Columbia Psychoanalytic Clinic for Training and Research.

The editors' introduction states that the individual papers reflect 'current work and concepts at the Columbia University Psychoanalytic Clinic… All papers are presented by staff members who are themselves graduates (or products) of the Clinic … [to] show the trends in the evolution of the clinic's theoretical, clinical, and research orientations, including the maintenance or change of position taken in the early history of the Clinic.' The discussants represent members of the national psychoanalytic community.

The special opportunity to enjoy the 'stop action' view of the Clinic provided by the present volume is enriched by the fortunate circumstance that we can compare it with a similar volume published ten years previously in 1956 to celebrate the Decentennial of the Columbia Psychoanalytic Clinic.1 There are significant similarities between the two volumes, but the differences are especially noteworthy. The 1966 volume is described as a 'second generation' volume. This is underscored by the fact that bibliographical references to the 'pioneers' are surprisingly sparse.

More interesting to note, however, is the shift in the evaluation of Adaptational Psychodynamics, the formulation presented by Rado as 'the basic component of a comprehensive dynamics of human behavior'. Referring to this Kardiner says in his paper in the 1956 volume, 'If you compare the information yielded by the libido theory as against the adaptational theory, one can see that the latter has yielded much useful knowledge and opened vast areas of empiric research'. In the 1966 volume Karush says, 'It must be admitted that adaptational theory