The development of psychological medicine in Great Britain has been accompanied by a certain feeling of inferiority amongst psychiatrists and psychotherapists. This has shown itself in rivalry, at times brisk and even acrimonious, which may be understood as a striving to obtain the object which another is thought to be pursuing. This state of affairs arises when there is uncertainty of objective; and all will agree that the objectives have been ill-defined and at times nebulous. Here as elsewhere the familiar characteristic has been” muddling along somehow When we come to consider possible reasons for this, one feature stands out, namely, the lack of originality in our insular school of thought. We have produced no Copernicus to revolutionize our methods and systems, and so sweep away intellectual vested interests. To meet the needs at home we have built up a national debt by borrowing. Our source of inspiration has been largely Continental. Freud, a little bitterly perhaps, alludes to ‘1 the numerous psychiatrists and psychotherapists who warm their pot of soup at our fire — without indeed being very grateful for our hospitality “(I). The genius of Freud and of Jung lay in speaking from the heart and setting at naught traditional views. Their very different contributions have been so refreshing that many accepted, without questioning, the teaching of one or other of these pioneers. Others rejected in toto (and often unread) what was described as “the new psychology But a more hopeful note has recently been sounded in this country; for the question of method, or way by which we proceed to the attainment of some aim, has been the subject of numerous contributions; and less attention is being paid to the technique embodied in the method. In this paper certain suggestions upon methodology will be made; and the subject will be examined critically, especially from the clinical aspect.