Letter to the Editor

First of all, I wish to thank Susanne Lunn for writing and the Review for publishing her fascinating and excellent paper on The Psychoanalytic Room (Lunn, 2002). She does approach the questions of the place for psychoanalysis in the 21st century: “through the lens of the concept the psychoanalytic room — a concept which has much in common with the psychoanalytic frame”.

What I wish to add to her paper as well to a discussion, that I hope will continue, is that psychoanalytic frames are created in an external room of social reality with the aim of elucidating, understanding and formulating the internal, psychological reality that governs our views of ourselves and our relationships with others. Within a limited and chosen time, the analyst extends his particular ability to remain open to whatever may pass between the analysand and himself; himself and the analysand. It is an exclusive relationship, also in the sense that it gives temporary (during the course of the session) precedence to the symbolic meanings of events, without, however, denying the actual reality that exists both within and outside the consulting room. It is an exclusive relationship, because it is simultaneously constant and questioned, striving to establish reliability, while at the same time allowing and affirming ambiguity. We have to acknowledge that we are already framed by the frame that we try to establish for the psychoanalytic interaction. We are bound up with a social reality and must (in order to look after, affirm and retain our working space) clarify and explain that which happens within the analytic frame to the world around us — thus, also to the larger community that accepts or rejects psychoanalysis: a society that protects the social fabric, or tears it to shreds; where solidarity and long-term planning is encouraged, or where planning is viewed as a game of win-or-lose all.

Our attention should also encompass an effort to examine the motives for one's commitment and the limits to o