Editorial

I

One of Freud’s important but elusive thoughts was there is a bond or conjunction (ein Junktim) between the clinical work and the theoretical activity of an analyst. In German, ‘ein Junktim’ is a term that is used above all in jurisprudence, meaning a particular connection of two legal norms that may be applied only together so that there cannot be one without the other. Freud writes, in Strachey’s translation:

In psycho-analysis there has existed from the very first an inseparable bond between cure and research. Knowledge brought therapeutic success. It was impossible to treat a patient without learning something new; it was impossible to gain fresh insight without perceiving its beneficent results. Our analytic procedure is the only one in which this precious conjunction is assured. It is only by carrying on our analytic pastoral work that we can deepen our dawning comprehension of the human mind. This prospect of scientific gain has been the proudest and happiest feature of analytic work. Are we to sacrifice it for the sake of any considerations of a practical sort? (1978, Standard Edition XX, 255)

The question remains, however, what does Freud actually mean with the Junktim-conjunction between cure and research and, and even more importantly, how should we conceive of this connection within the present day psychoanalysis. I want to formulate a few thoughts on this burning issue.

II

Already the fact that Freud uses the term Junktim may indicate that he does not have in mind any obvious relationship between the two instances, clinical work and acquiring psychoanalytic knowledge through research, one that would be easy to spell out and teach for everyone involved. Freud was acutely aware that here lies a key problematic for psychoanalysis, whose justification and general acceptance depend on the Junktim, and he worked with it all through his career, without formulating any definitive account.

Freud’s guiding thought was that clinical work and theoretical activity of an