Conclusions

To conclude my editorial task, I would now like to comment on the outcome of the Freud–Klein controversies in relation to the organizational anxieties and ‘solutions’, on the one hand, and the scientific or ‘doctrinal’ disagreements, on the other. As the reader will have realized, the problems connected with both of them looked at times like opposite sides of the same penny.

Today, with hindsight, it is possible for us to see the scientific issues concerned with possible developments in metapsychology and technique, detached from the emotional and interpersonal undercurrents present at that time, and to discuss them freely. But to many of the participants in the controversies included in this book, the possibility of an honest and open discussion of these issues was more problematical. The factors precluding some Members from putting their points of view or speaking frankly were movingly described in some of the contributions to do with changing the rules relating to the tenure of office in the Society and Institute. It was felt that those who held office had power in the Society and were in a position to promote or impede the professional progress of Members. They were often the source of patients, making Members unwilling to oppose their point of view for fear of losing future referrals of patients. While some Members felt like this, how could the Society have a frank and open discussion of scientific divergences?

This problem was described by Karin Stephen during the Fifth Business Meeting on 10 June 1942 (Section 1, Chapter 6).

While the present arrangements exist, there will always be Members who will be seriously handicapped in putting forward

Page 920

their views both on scientific questions and on the conduct of the Society, and there will always be quarrelling and ill-feeling. It may be argued that Members ought not to allow themselves to be intimidated by their officers, even as things are, and ought not to need external changes to fortify their courage. Possibly so