Chapter 11 Britain after 1945

The strides made in child psychoanalysis in Britain in the period after World War II were considerable. It is true that the famous 1946 Barker Report envisaging the creation of one Child Guidance Clinic for every 20,000 inhabitants played a large part in this.1 This report also proposed a plan for the reorganization of psychiatric hospitals, in conjunction with the National Health Service, enabling the creation of day centres for outpatient treatment and post-cure services. Those in charge of psychiatric institutions then requested the assistance of psychoanalysts, and even went as far as proposing that the latter play a part in the training of psychiatrists. At the same time, an energetic debate was taking place in The Lancet concerning the advisability of the continued use of lobotomy and electric shocks as a form of treatment.

A number of the members of the British Psycho-Analytical Society agreed to become involved in this project. However, their participation was limited, owing to their limited number and to the fact that most of them lived in London. Of course, not all of them were interested in child psychoanalysis: some, such as Herbert Rosenfeld and Hanna Segal, chose to concern themselves with psychotics; yet others did not feel at all concerned by this movement towards a more open society.

The influence of the psychoanalysts of the British Society on the treatment of children was concentrated in a few places. We should mention the Tavistock Clinic, where the Institute of Human Relations was set up after the war, and which offered training in child psychotherapy. Many Kleinian psychoanalysts worked there, among them Esther Bick, Martha Harris and Donald Meltzer. We could also mention Anna Freud’s Hampstead Clinic, the numerous Child Guidance Clinics such as that at Paddington Green Hospital where Donald Winnicott worked, and the one at the East End Hospital, Kate Friedlander’s pilot clinic.

On a theoretical level there were three main currents vying with each