Editorial

As we officially assume the editorship of Psychoanalytic Dialogues, we face one of those junctures at which it seems natural to stop and reflect on the journey thus far—the accomplishments and the frustrations—as well as on future directions. At this time, we want to reach out to you, our readers, who have always seemed to us more of a community defined by a shared vision than a simple roster of subscribers. This vision was a project, in the shape of a journal—a project to breathe vitality into psychoanalytic discourse, to recognize creative thinking, to empower those with the courage to confront difficult questions while maintaining the intellectual rigor and academic standards required for theoretical evolution and advancement. It has been an active project, shared with all of you. In the evolution of this journal, many of the doubtful have become readers, readers have become contributors, contributors have become editors, and the face of psychoanalysis has changed in profound ways.

As we enter the journal's second decade of publication, our commitment to intellectual creativity, innovation, and rigor will remain unchanged. But we recognize that, at the beginning of its second hundred years, psychoanalysis is in a particularly paradoxical place. Intellectually, our field has never been so rich, so alive with well reasoned disagreement and debate, so free from the constraints of tradition for tradition's sake, so ready to ask the kind of bold questions that will prepare psychoanalysis to secure its own future. But as a therapeutic modality, a treatment option for those most in need, psychoanalysis stands more threatened than at any other time in its history.

Some within our field believe that the survival of psychoanalysis depends on a demonstration of political unity—on de-emphasizing theoretical diversity and debate in an attempt to produce a “united front” to the purveyors of managed care and health insurance benefits. Some suggest that highlighting differences am