Smith: Perhaps we could begin by talking a bit about how the Psychoanalytic Quarterly got started. Who were its founders, and what were their goals?
Renik: The Quarterly was the first psychoanalytic journal to be published in this country, founded sixty years ago by four analysts: Bertram Lewin, Gregory Zilboorg, Dorian Feigenbaum, and Frankwood Williams. If you read the statement of purpose in their first issue, it is clear that the original editors had a specific task in mind. Psychoanalysis was becoming extremely popular in the U.S., and while the enthusiasm was welcome, it also gave rise to a certain amount of confusion. Analysts with clinical experience felt it would be useful to establish a forum for the discussion of selected, clinically relevant ideas.
Smith: Has the Quarterly's editorial policy changed over the years?
Renik: Well, I'd say the clinical focus is one thing that has remained constant. I mean “clinical focus” in the widest sense. For example, the Quarterly welcomes papers on applied analysis—studies of art, literature, social phenomena, and the like, from a psychoanalytic perspective; but we do look for those applied analytic papers that generate ideas an analyst can bring back to his clinical work, use there, and test against his observations.
The Quarterly has always tried to address the interests and concerns of the clinical analyst. Even more important, though, is an empirical attitude that seems to me to have informed its editorial point of view. If you look at what gets published in the Quarterly, I think you'll notice a distinct disinterest in theorizing for theory's sake. The underlying, implicit assumption has been that the value of a psychoanalytic proposition is best measured by how well it takes account of what can be observed in the treatment situation. The Quarterly tends to favor papers in which ideas are illustrated via presentation of evocative clinical material.
Of course, the particular ideas discussed have changed considerably over time, and even the assumptions made about how clinical observation takes place. I thought the recent special issues on object relations and psychoanalytic process, and the series of position papers on the future of psychoanalysis that has just concluded, for example, were very instructive in this regard. Some pretty thorny issues got raised—the relative insularity of American psychoanalysis, the limitations of single-case studies as opposed to systematic experimental research, and so on.
Smith: Since there are so many psychoanalytic journals on the scene now, with a new one appearing every few years it seems, are there additional ways you could characterize the Quarterly's special role? How does it differ from the others?
Renik: The Quarterly is free-standing; that is to say, it is accountable only to itself; it isn't the official journal of a psychoanalytic organization, nor is it published by one. Of course, that cuts two ways: we don't get first call on papers from national meetings and international congresses; but at the same time, it isn't part of our charge to be representative. The Quarterly has a well-deserved reputation for fine scholarship, and for having an outstanding Editorial Board that is not trendy in its approach. For all these reasons, the Quarterly is an ideal vehicle for presentation of new ideas to the analytic community. Readers can be sure that when an innovative paper appears in the Quarterly, it has unusual merit. Also, they can depend on its being relevant to everyday analytic experience. Quarterly papers can be erudite, but they are not often obscure. The reason for this, I believe, is the emphasis on clinical observation we were discussing a moment ago. The Quarterly has developed an identity linked to thoughtful clinical analysis.
Smith: Do you see yourself altering or adding to editorial policy in any way?
Renik: I'd guess that every new editor of the Quarterly views his major responsibility as maintaining the journal's high quality and prestige; and I'm sure that, inevitably, each editor winds up carrying out that responsibility in his own individual style. At this point, what I have most in mind is a wish to widely inform readers about the Quarterly's truly progressive character. I think some people misperceive the Quarterly as conservative or narrow. This is a misconception I would very much like to correct. It's also one that is usually held by people who do not, in fact, read the Quarterly, having assumed on the basis of something they'd heard that we are not forward-looking enough for them. Time and again I've recommended to such people that they pick up an issue, and heard from them that they were surprised and delighted by what they found. The Quarterly's editorial readers are rigorous, but we place a premium on novel ideas and particularly value substantive contributions from outside the mainstream.
Smith: How far outside the mainstream? Are there any limits to the theoretical or technical positions you would consider publishing?
Renik: Not a priori. Our only criterion for what we publish is that it be useful to the clinical interests of our readers. If a paper effectively challenges existing concepts, so much the better.
Smith: It seems significant that you've been chosen to be the new editor. Your own interests are grounded in structural theory, but I can't imagine anyone who knows you thinking of you as conservative. Perhaps that mix of ingredients characterizes the Editorial Board of the Quarterly as a whole.
Renik: Yes, exactly—and thank you!
Smith: Speaking of which, how is the editor-in-chief selected? And how many have there been since the beginning?
Renik: Let me respond to the second question first. Raymond Gosselin was the Quarterly's first editor-in-chief. After him came Bertram Lewis, then Gerard Fountain, Jacob Arlow, Dale Boesky, Sandy Abend, and now me. So I'm glad to say that of the seven, five are actively at work. The Quarterly has a Board of Trustees that makes all final decisions about personnel, including selection of the editor-in-chief. The Board is composed of senior editors, and much of what is presented to it for consideration is the outcome of wide discussion, formal and informal, as you might expect.
Smith: In practice, then, editorial matters are often handled by consensus.
Renik: Yes. The Quarterly's Editorial Board is a wonderful group. One of the joys of my job, as you can imagine, is working with them. The other thing that needs to be mentioned is that Josephine Shapiro, our Managing Editor, is responsible for much of what reaches the Quarterly's readers. She's a superb copy editor. She also functions, essentially, as a publisher, arranging for layout, printing, and the like. In fact, there's no end to what she does, all of it with a fine hand that shapes the journal. If you want to get some idea of the nature of her work, pick up one of the Quarterly's cumulative indexes. You'll see that it goes far beyond a list of title subjects and key words. Someone has read all the published articles, reviews, and abstracts, understood what's in them, and cross-referenced their contents comprehensively and accurately. That's Jo.
Smith: I've used those indexes without knowing who was responsible. They are remarkable. As the new editor, do you have any special projects in mind?
Renik: Not yet. We are planning to solicit brief communications, especially from younger analysts, having to do with the particular interests and problems involved in beginning analytic practice: conversion from psychotherapy to psychoanalysis, fee reduction, dealing with patients who turn out unsuitable for analysis,
etc. We're hoping to solicit a number of cogent papers, centering on clinical vignettes, that address such issues. But that's more a general editorial enterprise than a discrete special project.
Smith: It's a timely one. Best of luck as you begin to contribute to the Quarterly's evolution in your own style.