Editorial

Dear Readers,

The Psychoanalytic Review starts its Volume 112 with the question: “Is Another Psychoanalysis Emerging?” Patricia Gherovici and Marisa Berwald present findings derived from the first step of a multistage exploratory research study aiming to document transformations occurring in the psychoanalytic practice. Despite the small sample size and its scope limited by English-language participants, the findings of the survey indicate that contemporary practitioners (themselves different than the family portrait of the profession tends to suggest) are available not only to the higher-income groups associated with the mainstream gender and sexualities, and racial and ethnic ideals of whiteness, but are engaged with populations historically considered underserved.

How is one to view the changing field? Would a post-Derridean map of geo-psychoanalysis—drawn in terms of regions rather than in terms of “centers” or national borders, locating psychoanalysis within the specificities of social, economic, and historical contexts—confirm that we are moving toward abolition of privilege by becoming inclusive? Along with its encouraging if preliminary statistics, perhaps the most thought-provoking result is the challenge implicitly expressed by the surveyed clinicians: to find an adequate vocabulary (their own words) by which to define minorities and economically disadvantaged groups. What clinicians seem to know how to find the words for, however, is the need for a thorough rearticulation of the psychoanalytic ethos.

The ethos of an inclusive clinic and ethos that underlies published (clinical) experience may not always live side by side. Following their contributions to Vol. 111, No. 2, June 2024, Indy Davis and Anaís Jimenez Martinez continue examination of articles published in The Psychoanalytic Review on the topic of race, introducing us to the period between 1931 and 1943. If years between 1913 and 1917 signal the shape of scientific reasonings and sentiments as record