Wallerstein R S
Langley-Porter Institute, San Francisco, CA 94143.
Int J Psychoanal. 1990;71 ( Pt 1):3-20.
This paper carries further the theme I developed in my presidential address in Montreal, 'One psychoanalysis or many?' where I discussed the issue of what holds us together as psychoanalysts sharing a common discipline and science despite our increasing theoretical diversity. My response was that our common ground rested in our shared clinical enterprise in our consulting rooms where we relate comparably to the immediacy of the transference-countertransference interplay with our patients. In this paper I reconsider these perspectives in the light of the specific responses to them, including in the six pre-published statements for the Rome Congress which was dedicated to this theme of exploring our common ground; and I then apply these conceptions in my own comparative assessment of the three plenary clinical presentations of the Rome Congress, drawn from the three major world regions of psychoanalytic activity and presented by adherents of three of the major metapsychological perspectives in our field, the ego psychological, the Kleinian, and the object relational.
本文进一步探讨了我在蒙特利尔担任主席时发表的演讲主题“一种精神分析还是多种精神分析？”。在那次演讲中，我讨论了一个问题：尽管我们的理论日益多样化，但作为共享一门共同学科和科学的精神分析师，是什么将我们凝聚在一起？我的回答是，我们的共同基础在于我们在咨询室里共同开展的临床工作，在那里我们与患者的移情-反移情互动的即时性有着相似的关联。在本文中，我根据对这些观点的具体回应重新审视了这些观点，包括为罗马大会预先发表的六份声明，该大会致力于探讨我们共同基础这一主题；然后，我将这些概念应用于我对罗马大会三场全会临床报告的比较评估中，这些报告分别来自精神分析活动的三个主要世界区域，由我们领域中三种主要元心理学观点的支持者呈现，即自我心理学、克莱因学派和客体关系学派。
