Determinants of Licensing in Psychoanalysis: Exclusivity and Pluralism

Professional and political interests in psychoanalysis are intersecting in the recent development of state licenses in psychoanalysis, particularly in New York State. The implications are significant for those who maintain that psychoanalysis is an independent profession as well as for those who profess that psychoanalysis is continuing education in the mental health professions of social work, psychology, psychiatry, and nursing. Mainstream organizations such as the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA), the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA), and the Confederation of Independent Psychoanalytic Societies (CIPS) have argued against licensing and any implications that psychoanalysis is an independent profession. Organizations that have been instrumental in seeking out licensing are usually independent societies and institutes that are not affiliated with mainstream groups. They have argued what may be regarded as a pluralistic approach to psychoanalysis and have been mostly affiliated with the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis (N.A.A.P.). Since many of the members of these societies are not psychiatrists, psychologists or social workers and, as a consequence, are not otherwise licensed, they have been inclined to seek licensing in psychoanalysis for professional and economic reasons. Some of these institutes (such as Jungians, Adlerians, and Moderns) have different training “standards” than those considered the norm and, as a result, have not been found acceptable by mainstream societies and institutes. There are other institutes that have training “standards” that are similar to these mainstream institutes but have chosen to support a pluralistic position because they advocate psychoanalysis as an