Epilogue

Freud's theory of a psychoanalytic psychology portrays the mind as a closed intrapsychic system. However, the description of the therapeutic relationship, the source of the empirical data for the theory, emphasized interaction and intersubjectivity. Neither Freud nor the analysts that followed him have ever adequately been able to bridge the intrapsychic and interactional realms.

Gill and the authors of the papers in this issue continue to create a reconciliation of the intrapsychic and interactional realms. All the contributors believe that the difference between Gill and themselves is one of degree of emphasis between intrapsychic, interaction, and intersubjective. But Gill, in his bold response, claims that his position is not based upon differences in emphasis. Contrarily, he is advocating a different definition of transference—a definition that includes a social perspective incompatible with a definition of transference that does not account for the actual interactional component of the relationship. Thus Gill continues to approach a new paradigm for psychoanalysis wherein the central motivational unit is interaction not drive discharge. Our issue ends with no concensus, but given the stimulus provided by Gill and the essayists, we can be certain that the immediate future of psychoanalysis will be rich in growth and creativity.