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.
Dear readers,
The copy of Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review you hold in your hands is the first one since a couple of years, that is published in line with the publication rhythm of two issues per year. I would like to thank all the authors, reviewers, editors, and the responsible persons of the publisher house Taylor & Francis for all their efforts that helped to make this possible. We are really glad and happy that we are on track again!
The current issue offers a wide variety of topics. You may read theoretical or conceptual articles, e.g., on time and space, on homeostasis, on trauma and on dreams and dream interpretation, but also a clinical article on the importance of native language is included in this issue. In view of the current situation of the war in Ukraine following the Russian invasion, we think the article ‘On the side of good or evil’ is of high current relevance.
This is also the first article of the new issue. Thomas Jung discusses the consequences one is confronted with as a psychoanalyst when the question arises, which side one takes in a divided world in times of war: good or evil. Jung describes the clinical consequences that occur when a neutral position of evenly suspended attention is lost and how to deal with technical neutrality in such disturbing and threatening times of war.
In his theoretical text ‘Space, time, space-time - Psychoanalytical thoughts on time and space’ Bernd Nissen reflects on Freud's ideas on these concepts. In his considerations, the author arrives at a position where time and space are bound to ‘objectal’ experiences, which are related to early experiences of drive satisfaction and of loss. The consequences of how time and space can be conceptualized are discussed in the context of clinical examples.
Another conceptual article is by Vladmir Jovic and Sverre Varvin: ‘Traumatic events, posttraumatic states, and the debate on aetiology’ summarizes critically the debate on how to conceptualize trauma and which deficits can