Epilogue

As is evident, there is considerable variation in the theoretical orientation and focus of interest among the contributors to this issue, but each is in agreement concerning the necessity to conceptualize the role of development in psychoanalytic theory and practice. It would seem appropriate, then, to conclude with some comments about the place of development in the history of the field.

Historically, development has been so integral to psychoanalysis that when Rapaport and (Gill, in 1959, attempted their formulations of the definitive points of view in metapsychology they seriously considered not delineating a separate developmental point of view at all, it seemed so pervasive. From one perspective, therefore, psychoanalytic development is psychoanalysis. For example, the concept of the sequence of libidinal phases, their progressions, regressions, and fixations, was for a very long time viewed as almost synonymous with analytic thought. Over time, additional developmental concepts were integrated into the central paradigm, including the progression from pleasure principle to reality principle, development of the ego, and formation and maturation of the superego. Lines of development of object relations and self and their indigitation are more recent additions to the body of psychoanalytic thought. Moreover, adult development has gained increasing recognition as a useful concept. In sum then, the history of its developmental theory is remarkably close to a history of psychoanalysis per se. This may explain why these papers incorporate such diversity, yet display a unity of the theme.