ABSTRACT
Of course, most of us did not share Gitelson's preference for emulating Diogenes; we coveted the rewards of public favor and have reacted to its loss with a decided sense of defeat. I believe this to be true of my generation of analysts, at any rate - those of us trained during the 1950's and currently serving as senior faculty in psychoanalytic institutes. Our natural reactions have run the full gamut, from the impulse to compel the attention of our colleagues (and a wider audience, if possible) through creative iconoclasm to the opposite extreme, the tendency to enshrine existing theories and procedures as if they were sacred texts and liturgies. It cannot be coincidental that the resultant loss of cohesion within the psychoanalytic community has occurred at one ofthosejunctures in the history of psychoanalysis - times of great ferment and change that seem to recur about once in every generation - when the scientific consensus that has long prevailed would tend to break down in any case. In other words, our loss of public favor probably reflects, at the same time, our diminishing clinical and scientific self-confidence.
