My passionate interest in psychoanalysis began over forty years ago. It was fuelled by my interest in philosophy, my college major, but even more by my curiosity about my own treatment. This combination led me to read a fair amount of literature, mostly searching for some theoretical substantiation to prove that my various analysts loved me most of all. Along the way, I encountered many interesting ideas. The changes in theory are well documented. Less noticed is the way in which those theoretical shifts have transformed psychoanalytic writing styles.

My journal reading began with the Psychoanalytic Quarterly, the International Journal of Psychoanalysis and the International Review, as long as it was in existence. During my psychiatric residency I subscribed to the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association and devoured The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Later I added Psychoanalytic Dialogues and Psychoanalytic Psychology to my list. Progress in Self Psychology was, of course, essential. When the American Psychoanalytic Association came out with the PEP CD-ROM and I could access all my old journals in an electronic form, I joyfully threw away the physical evidence of my interests. The storage space in my house expanded exponentially and I still had access to everything to which I needed to refer.

In the 1960's, when I began reading the literature, a stereotypical format existed for papers, which were usually variations of an underlying theme. Most current psychoanalytic candidates will be intimately familiar with this style. A paper began with a statement of its subject and proceeded to extensively review what had been written up to that point about the subject, with a particular emphasis on Freud. Many analysts have reminisced about how important it was in that era to show how an author's ideas flowed inexorably from the discoveries that had gone before. This detailed "review of the literature" was a badge of probity. There were to be no dramatic shifts or unexpected turns. Because all ideas had to be foreshadowed, creativity and individualism did not emerge easily. As is the case in many of the sentences I am writing now, papers were written in the third person and the past tense. The "I" of the author was an inappropriate intrusion. Papers created an illusion of scientific objectivity and the voice was often passive. Naturally, there was an extensive bibliography.

One of the concepts that underlay this style was an appeal to authority. I bring this out not as a political or theoretical point that many have already made, but as a description of the writing style that evolved from the ambience of the times in psychoanalysis. Was this style theory driven? Probably. Psychoanalytic sons were not to challenge the fathers and this left them little space within which to expand. Though women were also writing, they generally had to fit into this mostly male paradigm. In addition, still following Freud, we believed that psychology should be scientific, which also fueled the passive, third person writing style of the times.

Ralph Greenson's paper "The Working Alliance and the Transference Neurosis" [Psychoanalytic Quarterly 34(1965): 155-81] is one example of the style of psychoanalytic writing extant around mid-century. It is a classic paper read by many psychoanalytic trainees. To my mind, Greenson was a humanistic and somewhat original thinker. Yet in his article he takes great pains to show that his ideas are just a variation in emphasis on what has gone before. While there is a great deal of "I" in his clinical descriptions, he speaks from a position of knowingness or authority (apparent objectivity) and does not include much, if anything, about his own uniquely subjective experience.

This style of writing is still common today. I see a particular amount of it in the International Journal of Psychoanalysis. Beside it, a newer style also emerges. The "I" of the author is much more prominent, as are the opinions of the writer. With an emphasis on subjectivity, references to past literature and prior authority recede. Psychoanalytic Dialogues pioneered the use of back-and-forth conversations between authors, who use clinical cases to illustrate ideas rather than to prove them.

We are more comfortable with not knowing and tend to dwell more on what formerly would have been called countertransference. The tone of papers now is often relaxed and conversational. Another new paradigm is the personal odyssey. A particular example of the personal odyssey is "Working with Adolescents: A Time for 'Reconsideration,'" by Mark Smaller [Progress in Self Psychology 19(2003): 155-169]. While Smaller does situate his effort within the matrix of other work, he carries us along with him in his clinical experience in a way that feels intimate. Another example of the emergence of the subjective experience of an author is "The Role of Enactments," by Judith Fingert Chused in Psychoanalytic Dialogues 13(2003): 677-687. Here the theoretical importance of enactments has become not just a conceptual position, but a part of her style of discourse. She maintains that the involvement of the analyst with her analysand is ubiquitous in the analytic process and she also writes in a personal style that involves the reader.

Behind these shifts in writing styles is not only a new emphasis on subjectivity, but an expanded awareness of intersubjectivity as well; thus the presence of dialogs, including those with the reader.

I trust that you, dear reader, will find many examples from your own reading to fill out my thesis. To continue to elaborate might be ponderous. Each of us can have our own adventure ferreting out different types and styles of psychoanalytic writing. I have noticed that different journals have different proportions of old and new styles. What do you see in different journals?

In the style of the new subjectivity, I want to end with a personal concern and a plea. The concern is that every form of theory can become a constraint as well as a new path. My plea is that we not restrict ourselves to one style of acceptability for papers. The need for an author to "bare her soul" to prove her authenticity can become as much of a strait jacket as the necessary reference to authority has been. My personal odyssey has led me to try to be open to all ideas, both striving and failing and striving again, in a subjective, intersubjective, oedipal, conflictual relationship with myself and the world.