You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
It’s become an unofficial ritual. Every two months for the past four years, we four editors in chief turned our attention to this column. As we’ve written before, our original intention was (and remains) to use In This Issue to chronical the journal’s manner of decision-making and self-examination. As we have encountered process issues, ethical questions, controversial policy choices, or simply perplexing editorial decisions, we have used this column to elaborate how we resolved matters so that each issue came together as a step toward shaping a joint mission. When there was an incident to respond to, or a world event that captured our attention, we often linked the articles In This Issue to whatever that prompt brought to our minds.
We’ve tried to avoid being thematically repetitive, yet often as now, the troubled world we find ourselves in and the deep psychoanalytic issues and split complementarities that our current context has brought to the fore, are painfully recalcitrant. At times like this, we often wax personal and then wonder how to map our personal reactions onto a story about the journal’s ongoing being.
This installment of In This issue began as a goodbye conversation. We met as a team of four joint editors for the last time and marveled at how much we have been able to accomplish in terms of broadening the journal’s reach while also taking account of the importance of our shared legacy. When we began working together, the four of us each had a particular angle on psychoanalytic theory and practice that we brought to the table. At this moment, when Jack Foehl and Amy Schwartz Cooney are about to step down, we realize how much we have grown through difference and dialogue to the point that our angles now seem something more like vectors tracing ever-broadening arcs of relational perspective. When we were recently asked to review proposals for a symposium, it struck us that authors proposed innovations based solely on political commitments as if the histor