Commentary

This issue is unique in that it is comprised of contributions from six psychoanalytic colleagues trained in the twenty first century. On first glance the six papers present a variety and diversity that reflects the new landscape of psychoanalysis in this century. The authors’ names—Ackerman, Barahona, Goedert, González, Saketopoulou, and Tufekcioglu—suggest a wide mix of cultural and ethnic backgrounds. They have been trained in institutes across the country and appear to hold varying theoretical stances. Their bibliographies are very heavily weighted with readings from this century, unfamiliar to many of us. Psychoanalytic lexicons of terms which have arisen in the last decades—enactment, intersubjective, field theory—are the everyday dishes on which they serve up their ideas.

Closer reading confirms that their concerns are not the predominant preoccupations of analysts trained in previous generations. Noteworthy is the absence of the rancorous theoretical turf wars of the past. Is this a sign of the erosion of theoretical thinking in psychoanalysis that Ackerman bemoans? Perhaps, but I think not. While these papers as a whole are not heavily weighted

down by theory, this is not to say that this group of psychoanalysts is not interested in theory, or that they have no clear opinions about theoretical issues. They express fervent arguments for changes in psychoanalytic education and practice and challenge prevailing theoretical trends.

Ackerman argues that we should begin our training in psychoanalysis by immersing ourselves in the deep and rigorous study of Freud and be guided by a coherent and consistent theory of therapeutic action. Although Barahona does not say so in so many words, he would surely echo these sentiments as he articulates clearly his theory of therapeutic action in Bionian terms: the analyst becomes a container for the patient’s uncontained mental (beta) elements and transforms them into more formulated (alpha) elements, thus allowing the patien