Epilogue

As editors of this issue on aggression we are gratified to have provided an illuminating exploration and exchange of contemporary views on aggression, illustrated in their application to clinical material. In this period of psychoanalytic pluralism, our purpose was an expansion of the debate on aggression rather than its resolution. Consensus was neither the goal nor the result of our efforts.

The presentation of each discussant's theoretical views on aggression proved both thoughtful and thought provoking. Applying these perspectives to the same clinical material demonstrated once again that what theoretical position we hold certainly does shape how we listen to, understand and respond to aggression in ourselves and others. On the other hand, as revealed in these same pages, the similarities and differences among discussants' views did not arrange themselves neatly along strict theoretical lines. Further, where there was disagreement between the participants, it was often more a question of emphasis than of incompatible viewpoints.

The rich contributions of the discussants have whetted our appetites. We find ourselves full of curiosity and hungry to know more about how their differences would be manifested in clinical practice. What kinds of language and interpretations would convey their particular understanding of and stance toward aggression? What would it sound like, for example, to “accept” or “welcome” or “celebrate” aggression?

Dr. Ornstein began this process by offering us a chance to see how she worked with and thought about Mr. Konig's aggression. Our hope is that other analysts as well will extend this process by presenting their own case material, revealing how they think about and work with aggression in the clinical setting. We believe that only by this proliferation of openness will we come to more fully understand the meaning of different theoretical views of aggression.