You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The way in which the Scientific Discussions were resolved and the administrative and educational problems settled down did not follow the prognostications of Edward Glover. He of all the participants to the debate seemed to be out of touch with the historical reality and the institutional status of the British Psycho-Analytical Society and of its future likely developments. His forecasts were apocalyptic and ferociously one-sided. Klein and her followers were not expelled, but Strachey's wish for an open forum did not materialize either. The Society re-organized itself into three different groups even at a scientific level after a while (King 1981).
It was of course not an easy solution and compromises have their negative aspects too. At one moment Sylvia Payne, who had been elected President of the Society, worried about the tensions, and wrote to Ernest Jones on 1 August 1945:
I think that Anna Freud has several very weak character traits & I am sure that she will not hesitate to try & get what she wants without considering the opinions of those who differ from her. I fancy that her father was the only person who could prevent this, and as she must have taken over Freud's determination to keep psychoanalysis isolated and to allow no-one in who has character traits of omnipotence, I cannot see any hope of compromising in any way. Unfortunately, we have the same omnipotence in Melanie and this is really why her work has made so much trouble; it is her personality.1
And Glover in one of his letters concerning his resignation wrote to Payne on 24 January 1944: