ABSTRACT
In this age of psychoanalytic pluralism, an age when, even within the broad contemporary Freudian framework, there is disagreement about essential aspects of psychoanalytic theory and technique, the practising analyst is faced with the problem of putting published material in some context. How is he or she to make sense of papers that state diametrically opposite opinions, often forcefully and dogmatically? Further, how is he or she to identify the commonalities as well as the differences between analysts? I propose to discuss two broad and overlapping ways of contextualizing the many papers and ideas facing us today. My aim is to make explicit major concerns, assumptions, and difficulties underlying basic Freudian points of view so that the clinician can place theoretical statements and technical recommendations within a broad framework. I will discuss modern conflict theory and an alternative emphasis within the continuum of contemporary Freudian psychoanalysis, which I will call modern structural theory. My emphasis here will be on modern conflict theory. I will save discussion of modern structural theory for the following chapter. I will make liberal 2use of quotes in my discussion to illustrate my points and to give the reader a greater “feel” for the analysts about whom I am writing.
