There is a lot of discussion in the prepared presentations in part 2 about the multiple conceptions of psychoanalysis, the plurality of theories, and whether this is an acceptable situation or one that needs to be transcended. Green presents a very nice review of why psychoanalysis has fragmented. He concludes that the compromise in the field today, a "pretense of tolerance, search for willy-nilly common sharings that are not very convincing and appear as life jackets to avoid sinking" (p. 126), prevents the collapse of the entire field. Kernberg, one of the most active participants in the meeting, repeats his already published arguments that psychoanalysis has created a serious problem for itself "by accepting, indeed enacting, its reputation as isolationist, elitist, and biased against empirical research" (p. 136). Scharff maintains that there is a major difference between the theory of Melanie Klein and British object relations theory, although they are frequently lumped together. Wallerstein brings up the book review by Bachant and Richards (2) in which they divided what they called "psychoanalytic metatheories" into five groups of adherents: 1) those who wish for a common ground, 2) those who advocate a multimodal approach to the phenomena of psychoanalysis, 3) those who want one total composite psychoanalytic theory, 4) a group that wishes to throw out metapsychology altogether, and 5) those who see the variant metapsychologies as falling into either drive-structural theory or object relational theory. This latter constitutes a dichotomy that contrasts the human ego as a pleasure-seeking organ with that of the human ego as an object-seeking organ, pursuing human relatedness.