Who Owns Psychoanalysis?

Two nations separated by everything except their language - this was Churchill's verdict on the US-UK (and probably his parental) relationship. But when it comes to the word ‘psychoanalyst’ the linguistic divide is as great as the cultural and geographical. In the field of psychotherapy, where the British like adjectives, Americans prefer nouns: we have psychoanalytic psychotherapists, they have psychoanalysts. In the US, as in Britain, the title psychoanalyst is not protected by law. There is nothing to stop anyone calling themselves a psychoanalyst - indeed it is common to see advertisements in the Californian alternative press of the type: ‘Colonic Irrigation, and Psychoanalysis - first session free!’

It is easy to sneer at such linguistic abuse - seeing it perhaps in Chasseguet-Smirgelian (1985) terms as the faecal world of the oedipally envious. In Britain we tend to smile in a smug way at such absurdities knowing that it could never happen here -rather as we do about tribal violence and religious bigotry, while turning a blind eye to what is happening in Northern Ireland. But with the advent of registration of psychotherapists, titles have suddenly become very important in Britain - as those caught up in the struggle between the Analytic section of the UKSCP and the Confederation of British Psychotherapists well know. A lecture trip to California allowed for a closer consideration of the American psychoanalytic scene and its implications for the UK.

Recently a group of senior Californian psychoanalysts decided to break away from the Californian branch of the American Psychoanalytic Association (APA) and to set up the Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis (ICP) (Breger 1992). Their directors include Louis Breger, Robert Stolorow and British-born and trained Victoria Hamilton; corresponding members include Christopher Bolas, Charles Rycroft and - to declare an interest - the author. The ICP is a ‘free-standing’ training organisation which, while fully ‘psychoa