Academicism, Romanticism, and Science in the Psychoanalytic Enterprise

Over ten years ago, psychoanalytic inquiry devoted one issue (vol. 1, no. 2) to a series of commentaries on my then-recent book Beyond Interpretation (Gedo, 1979a). In my response to those critiques (Gedo, 1981), I tried to articulate the complex feelings stirred up by such attention to one's work, and I shall refrain from repeating such a litany of gratitude, pride, amazement, and despair here. I trust that, in any case, my emotional responses to the essays in this issue will be clear from the manner of my presentation. Suffice it to say at the outset that, in the interval since 1981, a decisive change has taken place in the attitudes of commentators on work as radical as mine has been: whereas, a decade ago, the burden of proof was placed on the person who dared to challenge the conventional wisdom, all of the contributors to the current effort seem to agree that at present there is no consensus about fundamental matters within psychoanalysis, so that unusual viewpoints may deserve as much attention and respect as any others. It is a refreshing change, at long last, to receive the benefit of most doubts.

Almost without exception, the essayists have surveyed my writings carefully and have grasped my intended meanings. This sine qua non of the best scholarship is particularly notable in Rodgers' superb synopsis of my past work, the only “fault” of which is its