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 practice of psychoanalysis has changed from the inside-out since Freud and Breuer engaged in their early experiments with the “talking cure.” No longer do we seek to detect in patients a set of symptoms, from which we can drop a line to an etiology in infancy, and from there draw another line back up to a cure in the transference. Rather we tend to understand the other’s difficulties as embodied and situated in worldly situations, including the clinical situation. The analogy to drama is no longer a matter of applying plot templates from ancient texts such as Sophocles’ Oedipus but rather finds a powerful and useful point of comparison in the processes of writers and actors in the moment of spontaneous, interactive creation.
There are losses and gains in this shift of metaphor from medicine to drama. Analysts gain freedom and vitality at the expense of an illusion of control. We cannot put all our trust in a manual any more than the actor or writer can put all their trust in a manual. We can find pointers and illustrations – there are many in this issue – but the art is mastered mainly through practice.
Daniel Goldin, MFT, Psy.D.
Issue Editor
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Daniel Goldin, MFT, Psy.D., serves as editor of Psychoanalytic Inquiry and associate editor of Psychoanalysis: Self and Context. He has written numerous articles for Psychoanalytic Dialogues, Psychoanalysis: Self and Context and Psychoanalytic Inquiry. His book Storying: Bringing Nature, Nurture and Culture Together in Psychotherapy and Everyday Life will be published by Routledge early next year.