You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
What do we do with the Plurality of Perspectives Extant in psychoanalysis today? In this volume and the one to follow, we present both detailed clinical work between patient and analyst and 10 discussions taken from 10 different perspectives on this clinical material. Of what value is this exercise in clinical diversity? Does the clash of diversity inherent and unavoidable in differing psychoanalytic perspectives offer an opportunity for achieving an open-minded attitude toward clinical work? Given the importance of fit, can we determine whether an instance of comfortable fit stands out to the reader in any one of the clinical pairs offered here? Or have we just created confusion?
We obviously make the assumption that informed variety affords the clinician flexibility and responsible choice. Perhaps it is as Judy Teicholz (2006) suggests that although holding only one theory is indeed less confusing to the clinician and can be valuable in establishing an appropriate accord between a given patient and a given analyst, holding exclusively to one theory may generate a clinical impasse, with insistent inflexibility discouraging curiosity and a willingness to try new things. However, theoretical experimentation is not easy. Our theories become a part of our very being, our very subjectivity, our very selves. We cannot just put on new expressions of self. Also, comfort is an important consideration, and while some analysts are more comfortable with one theory, others prefer the theoretical freedom offered by variety. We must conclude, then, that while one theory does not fit everyone, one way of holding theory does not fit everyone either. We hope in the multiplicity of clinical choice we make available in these two issues to provide a sufficient breadth of possibility to satisfy the wide range of psychoanalytic practice among our readers.