Developments in Psychoanalysis at Columbia University. Proceedings of the Twentieth Anniversary Conference, Psychoanalytic Clinic for Training and Research, Columbia University, October 30, 1965. George S. Goldman and Daniel Shapiro (Eds.). New York & London:  Hafner Publishing Co., 1966.  357.

Reading a review is like looking at an unknown object through some special lenses. Knowledge of the characteristics of the lenses may help one figure out what one is looking at. Knowledge of the idiosyncrasies of the reviewer may help the readers of the review in obtaining a clearer picture of the book under discussion. There is no such thing as a fully “objective review.”

This reviewer is not only a practicing psychoanalyst and exegete of Freud but also a phenomenological researcher and methodologist. This combination of approaches to psychological phenomena and theories makes me highly critical of theoretical discussions which do not refer to any experiential data. Most recent papers in theoretical psychoanalysis more closely resemble the discussions of the medieval scholastics than those of contemporary theoreticians in either the sciences or philosophy. Aaron Karush's paper in the volume under review is no exception. In his discussion of Karush's theoretical formulations, Pumpian-Mindlin politely points out the absence of and need for supporting experimental or clinical data.

This volume represents an anniversary potluck. It consists of one theoretical paper, two clinical, three research, one sociological and one anthropological paper, discussions of all of these, and a summary both of these papers and of the history of the Columbia University training institute. Despite an attempt by the senior editor in his excellent summary chapter to pull these papers together, their connection remains rather loose.

A not atypical characteristic of undisciplined psychoanalytic style