Frequently, vitriolic, derogatory, and hostile communications directed towards psychoanalysis and Freud are referred from the Central Office to the Committee on Public Information for consideration. The Committee's policy is to evaluate each comment, decide if a response is appropriate and worthwhile and, if so, to select a respondent from our membership living in the same geographical area, and ask him to reply. These responses are carried out by individuals and do not represent an official statement of the American, unless consultation with the Executive Committee, Board or Council decides otherwise.
The Committee on Public Information would like to share with the members of the American its concern about the value of such defensive tactics, and to consider constructive, positive means to enhance and inform the public of how the application of psychoanalytic principles contributes to understanding human behavior.
The important current issue of the value of long term one-to-one treatment is under forceful attack from local and federal government, third party payers, insurance companies, and numerous groups inimical to psychoanalysis.
How to educate the public of the benefits of analysis and its various applications focuses on one controversy in the American. Some members believe that the primary function of analysts, to treat patients, can best be accomplished if the analyst remains as anonymous as possible. They believe successfully treated patients become our most effective P.R. people. Few would disagree with this conclusion.
On the other hand, others believe that when we disseminate information about human behavior either in the press, T.V., radio, or nonscientific publications, we should identify ourselves as analysts. This group does not believe that such exposure would essentially interfere with the individual analytic treatment situation. They contend that our unique understanding of the subject matters under consideration stems from our analytic knowledge, and we should not hesitate to point this out and utilize this positive approach to communicate it to the public. In addition, they point out that many analysts apparently are not reluctant to be identified by their affiliation or rank with their medical schools, hospital appointments, or other affiliations.
The conflict of anonymity tends to stir up ambivalent feelings which may be manifest or latent. The group that prefers anonymity may feel that when one identifies oneself to the public as an analyst, it represents a form of personal aggrandizement or advertising that runs counter to the classic psychoanalytic stance. This ambivalence may partly explain the
inactivity of some of the Committees on Public Information of our affiliate societies and institutes.
At such a critical time, it seems essential that efforts be made to bring this issue out in the open, and it is hoped that it will be discussed in the local societies and institutes, and that summaries of these discussions will be forwarded to the Committee on Public Information so that we can understand better how to deal with this problem.