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.
With this issue, Adolescent Addiction, we end the second year of publication of Psychoanalytic Inquiry. Looking back, I believe it is possible to see how we have learned to use the instrument we have created. We began with a simple idea—to focus each issue of a journal on a single topic. In selecting subjects, it seemed to us that each year one topic should be central to psychoanalytic theory—Regression (Vol. 1, No. 1) and Aggression (Vol. 2, No. 1)—and second should be central to psychoanalytic practice—Empathy (Vol. 1, No. 3) and Termination (Vol. 2, No. 3). The third topic was developed from essays stimulated by an important, recently published book, e.g., John Gedo's Beyond Interpretation (Vol. 1, No. 2) and Henri Parens's The Development of Aggression in Early Childhood (Vol. 2, No. 2). Finally, the fourth topic was chosen for its general interest to a wide group of mental health professionals, e.g., Infant Research (Vol. 1, No. 4) and Adolescent Addiction (Vol. 2, No. 4). It seemed natural to approach each subject from the standpoint of an inquisitive investigation, examining what a number of different experts might contribute to our understanding. We determined that inevitably our approach would air controversies in our field, but it would not be our aim to pursue adversarial positions. Rather, our byword became diversity, and that opened up new possibilities that we have followed.
In each of our issues, we have invited contributions from authors known to hold different views—this was a natural requirement. But we have tried to go beyond that and achieve a wider diversity. In each issue, we have solicited contributions from authors at widely different points in their careers, including both some of the best-known authorities in the field and some young, relatively unknown authors (often candidates) who have demonstrated