Prologue

The participants in this issue of Psychoanaltyic Inquiry, by agreeing to address the topic of interpretation and its consequences, have implicitly taken on the formidable task of discussing analytic process in relation to analytic technique—i.e., they are willing to say what they think actually takes place when a clinical analysis is successful and what role the analyst's activity plays in the sequence of events. This is perhaps something that every practicing analyst should be willing and able to do, but the fact is that relatively few do it. The whole question of how analysis works is regarded as notoriously elusive; and we tend to teach the practice of clinical analysis by example, in supervision, rather than with direct reference to systematic theory.

In the literature review that sets the stage for our symposium Jim Dimon outlines the complex implications of the topic. Common usage casts the interpreter in multiple roles: translator, creator, scientist, religious exigete. Dimon shows that each of these colloquial views corresponds to a trend within analytic theory, and he traces the thread of each trend through selections not only from what has been written about interpretation per se, but from the literature on psychopathology, therapeutic action, child treatment, and a variety of other relevant analytic subjects.

Each of the contributors to our symposium has a well-developed conception of analytic process, is able to articulate it, and brings it to bear in discussing technique. The topic of interpretation and its consequences is eminently clinical and specific enough to ensure a common focus, but also allows for significant latitude of