"Special Section: Contemporary structural psychoanalysis and relational psychoanalysis": Commentary.

Comments on the special section "Contemporary structural psychoanalysis and relational psychoanalysis" in Psychoanalytic Psychology, Vol 12 [1]. Spezzano states that the authors, individually and as a group, failed to do the research necessary to make their critiques useful examples of comparative psychoanalysis. Instead, their research consisted of classical theory and already-existing classical critiques of relational theories. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Commentary: Primitive splitting in the field of psychoanalysis.

Comments on the special section "Contemporary structural psychoanalysis and relational psychoanalysis" in Psychoanalytic Psychology, Vol 12 [1]. The articles highlight a problematic tendency prevalent in the field, among clinicians who declare (either explicitly or implicitly) exclusive possession of the genuine article of psychoanalytic knowledge in toto. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Donald Pond Spence (1926-2007).

Donald Pond Spence, distinguished psychologist and psychoanalyst, was born on February 8, 1926, and died in Princeton, New Jersey, on September 25, 2007, at the age of 81. He was an "inside" critic of psychoanalysis who supported its importance as a hermeneutic (interpretive) discipline but questioned its status as normative science. Spence served on review committees for the National Institute of Mental Health and the New York Psychoanalytic Institute. He was a fellow of the American Psychological Association (APA) and served as president of APA Division 24, the Society for Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology (1992-1993). In 2004, he received the Society's Lifetime Achievement Award. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Special issue on women, psychoanalysis, and gender: Editors' introduction.

Introduces this special issue of Psychoanalytic Psychology. This special issue on Women, Psychoanalysis, and Gender is a commemoration of the capability, influence, acceptance, and authority of women in the community of psychoanalysis. In this issue, we turn to both new and more established voices in an expanded arena of gender, culture, and psychoanalysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to "Commentary on the special section".

Replies to comments by K. Marshall, S. A. Mitchell, and C. Spezzano (see records 83-14401, 83-14402, and 83-14404, respectively) on the Special Section of Psychoanalytic Psychology, Vol 12(1), on "Contemporary structural psychoanalysis and relational psychoanalysis" and on the article by F. Busch (see record 1995-34118-001). The author expresses concern that most of the commentary failed to see his attempt to open a dialog between the respective adherents of structural and relational psychoanalysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Commentary on "Contemporary structural psychoanalysis and relational psychoanalysis."

Comments on the Special Section "Contemporary structural psychoanalysis and relational psychoanalysis" in Psychoanalytic Psychology, Vol 12 [1]. The author states there are many misreadings of the relational theories. He emphasizes the reasons the term relational was chosen for the theory, the conflict among different relational configurations, and the issues separating relational and structural theory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The trend toward convergence in psychoanalysis: Comment on the special section on structural and relational psychoanalysis and on the commentary.

Replies to comments by J. Benjamin, S. A. Mitchell, and C. J. Spezzano (see records 83-14390, 83-14402, and 83-14404, respectively) on the Special Section of Psychoanalytic Psychology, Vol 12(1), "Contemporary structural psychoanalysis and relational psychoanalysis." The author argues that the key issue is the failure to recognize not only the variations within both the relational and Freudian frameworks but the extent to which a convergence of ideas has been taking place between these 2 orientations and among all varieties of psychoanalysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Introduction to a new series of interviews on the future of psychoanalysis.

When Elliot first took over as editor of Psychoanalytic Psychology and invited Jeremy to join the editorial board, we met for lunch to brainstorm about new directions for the journal. One of the schemes we hatched was the idea of developing a special issue consisting of articles by prominent figures in the field, reflecting on the future of psychoanalysis. This article discusses some of the details of this issue. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Letter from the Section President.

Introduces this special issue of Psychoanalytic Psychology. Section III has had a vital history within the Division. Over the last several years, we have worked in a number of arenas to join women's issues and feminist concerns with the project of psychoanalytic psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Editorial note.

This editorial discusses the current issue of Psychoanalytic Psychology. This issue introduces a new section entitled Commentary. This section is reserved for reader response to articles published in the Journal. The Editorial Board believes that this section might enhance communication among colleagues differing in their views regarding theory and clinical phenomena in psychoanalysis and that it might facilitate increased appreciation of diverse approaches. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comments on the responses to the special section.

Replies to comments on the Special Section in Psychoanalytic Psychology, Vol 12 (1) by J. Benjamin, K. Marshall, and S. A. Mitchell (see records 83-14390, 83-14401, and 83-14402, respectively). The author addresses conflict theory, Kuhnian paradigms, principles of critique, and the need to focus on clinical issues rather than on theoretical differences when comparing the 2 strains of psychoanalysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Editorial.

At the conclusion of his tenure as Editor of the journal Psychoanalytic Psychology applauds the peer review process and thanks those colleagues who have undertaken the task of editorial review and whose contributions are as pivotal as those of authors in the success of any professional or scientific journal. He acknowledges that the journal must reflect the diversity of points of view and interests of the division membership, and that Division 39 has over the past decade, been beset with political controversy that appears to have been resolved for the most part. He congratulates the incoming Editor, Dr. Joseph Reppen, and notes the issues he feels that the Division and the Journal will face in the near future. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Scholarly debate or ideological brawl? Reactions to comments on the special section.

Replies to comments on the Special Section in Psychoanalytic Psychology, Vol 12(1), "Contemporary structural psychoanalysis and relational psychoanalysis" written by J. Benjamin, A. Christiansen, K. Marshall, S. A. Mitchell, and C. Spezzano (see records 83-14390, 83-14392, 83-14401, 83-14402, and 83-14404, respectively). The author notes the tendency toward insult, vagueness, and indignation over scholarly investigation of the issues but reemphasizes the conviction that structural and relational psychoanalysis differ in their theories of pathogenesis, differences that need to be examined to arrive at an integrative theory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Editorial: Into the Second Century.

This editorial discusses the first century of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology and speculates on the second century of the journal. In the early decades of its existence, Abnormal clearly was quite different from the typical psychological journal of today. The articles in its inaugural issue reflect the fact that its early content was heavily influenced by Freudian psychoanalysis and other forms of dynamic psychology. The first major shift in the journal's course occurred in 1921, when its scope was broadened to include social and personality research. For a variety of reasons, this union of social, personality, and clinical psychology ended in 1965, when the content subsumed by the old, expanded Abnormal was resplit into two separate outlets: Articles on personality and social processes were redirected to the newly created Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, whereas psychopathology research was retained for the rechristened Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Abnormal has been extremely well-managed in recent years, and it has maintained its status as the top-tier outlet for basic psychopathology research. Accordingly, the editor does not see a need to institute any fundamental changes in its scope or content. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The relevance of Sigmund Freud for the 21st century.

This special issue of Psychoanalytic Psychology celebrates the 150th anniversary of the birth of Sigmund Freud on May 6, 1856. The 15 papers and one book review in different ways address the question of Freud's continued relevance. The contributors to this special issue approach the topic in multiple ways. Some authors stay close to the question, while other authors write on topics dear to them. All are, nonetheless, distinguished contributors to contemporary psychoanalysis and most need no introduction to the readership of this journal. Individual contributions to the special issue are summarized. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The return of the digressed: A reply to the special section respondents.

Replies to a series of commentaries on the Special Section of Psychoanalytic Psychology, Vol 12(1), "Contemporary Structural Psychoanalysis and Relational Psychoanalysis." The reply mentions comments by J. Benjamin, A. Chrisiansen, K. Marshall, S. A. Mitchell, and C. Spezzano (see records 83-14390, 83-14392, 83-14401, 83-14402, and 83-14404, respectively). In addition to noting a general tendency of the commentaries to rely on ad hominem remarks, the author emphasizes that although interpersonal relationships are important, psychoanalysis originally focused on intrapsychic dynamics. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Editor’s Note

The preceding Commentaries (see records 2007-05779-013, 2007-05779-014, and 2007-05779-015) are published as a consequence of a condition demanded by Drs. Altman, Davies, and Hoffman, and agreed upon by the Publications Committee of the Division of Psychoanalysis, that there be no response by Dr. Mills (see record 2006-03254-016) to their Commentaries published in Psychoanalytic Psychology. This stricture may not be in keeping with the spirit of openness of this journal under my editorship. Nonetheless, readers are free to draw their own conclusions as to the appropriateness of this condition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

What Did Freud Say About Persons and Relations?

History is bunk, declared Henry Ford; he wanted to sell new cars every year. For psychoanalysis history is not bunk; it is its very heart and guts. Like an individual or a nation, psychoanalysis lives its history and rediscovers it in every generation. Psychoanalytic pioneers, authors of new rallying cries and new theories, seem to think otherwise: History of psychoanalysis begins with them. The author suggests a different approach: to see the new as a historical continuity of the old. The advocates of the relational approach in psychoanalysis will be surprised to hear that Freud was a Sullivanian, even though--like the proverbial M. Jourdain who never heard the word prose--he never heard of the word interpersonal. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The return of the repressed: Psychology's problematic relations with psychoanalysis, 1909–1960.

When psychoanalysis first arrived in the US, most psychologists ignored it. By the 1920s, however, psychoanalysis had so captured the public imagination that it threatened to eclipse experimental psychology entirely. This article analyzes the complex nature of this threat and the myriad ways that psychologists responded to it. Because psychoanalysis entailed precisely the sort of radical subjectivity that psychologists had renounced as unscientific, core assumptions about the meaning of science were at stake. Psychologists' initial response was to retreat into positivism, thereby further limiting psychology's relevancy and scope. By the 1950s, a new strategy had emerged: Psychoanalytic concepts would be put to experimental test, and those that qualified as scientific would be retained. This reinstated psychologists as arbiters of the mental world and restored objective criteria as the basis for making claims. A later tactic (co-opting psychoanalytic concepts into mainstream psychology) had the ironic effect of helping make psychology a more flexible and broad-based discipline. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)