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.
The clinical theory of psychoanalysis remains the weakest link in the psychoanalytic lexicon that leads to an understanding of what takes place in psychoanalysis. From the seven articles that comprise this issue, one can see that there are several areas in clinical theory that require change. If clinical theory is to be useful in addressing continual changes and transformations between conscious, unconscious, and implicit conscious, a linear theory is inadequate (Bromberg, Stern, and Levine). It is impossible to address the complexity of a psychoanalysis by one theory; several theories are needed that can operate in unison (Lichtenberg, Shulman, and Levine). It is necessary to include concepts of the whole person, which allows for consideration of values (Bornstein and Stern). A theory is needed to address not only parts, but also the whole of the patient (Bornstein), and the analyst's outlook on life (Stern). A clinical theory is needed that can help in creating protocols of comparison on how psychoanalysts conduct analysis (Tuckett).
Today, with our developing capacity to see facets of the clinical situation that were hidden from view in the past, we have moved from a relatively simple model of the clinical situation to one that actually is more complex than anyone could have appreciated. The more we can appreciate our limitations in understanding the clinical situation, the better we will be.
Melvin Bornstein, M.D.
Issue Editor