Debating well: Why don't we, and how can we?

This paper introduces the contributions of Alan Sugarman (US), Rachel Blass (Israel), Paul Denis (France), Luisa Perez (Uruguay), Bernard Reith (Switzerland) and David Tuckett (UK) to a debate on the question of how we can enable productive discussion about our scientific differences and why historically it has been so difficult for the discipline of psychoanalysis to initiate and sustain such discussions. By way of introduction the historical example of the Controversial Discussions in the British Psychoanalytic Society is briefly reviewed and several possible factors contributing to the difficulties are provisionally identified, including over-reliance on authority and tradition, eagerness to supervise on the basis of our own theoretical models rather than trying to understand those of others, the lack of clarity and consensus in our definitions of terms, a lack of mutual curiosity resulting in theoretical silos, an experienced threat to identity when adjustments to our positions are called for, and the lack of a methodology for undesrstanding and / or resolving differences.