During the past year, two President's Newsletters were circulated to all of our members. With the additional opportunity offered me by the Editors of the Newsletter to contribute a President's Page, I would like to discuss some vital internal issues with which I feel our Association has been concerned over the past fifteen years and how some of these issues have been resolved, not only during the past year but during the several years that I have been a member of the Executive Committee.
In the late 1960's and early 1970's, there was increasing concern expressed about a decrease in applications for Association membership as well as for psychoanalytic training, a trend which began in the early 1960's. We had also become more acutely aware of the fact that many of our institute graduates were not routinely applying for membership in the same numbers as they had before 1960. Apprehension was expressed that our scientific activities as regards theory development, clinical practice and psychoanalytic research had fallen on barren times and that psychoanalytic creativity was at a standstill. The number of institute graduates who joined their local societies but did not apply for membership in our Association was said to number over 800. When some of these discontented graduates were questioned, they spoke of their perception of the Association as being rigid, lacking stimulating scientific programs. They complained of the onerousness of the membership procedures following what they felt was a competent and rigorous education in accredited institutes. They resented the two year waiting period before they could apply for membership and even spoke of the lack of democratic representation in our Association. In the late 60's and early 70's, undoubtedly in response to these concerns, there were many discussions within the Executive Committee and the Executive Council. An Ad Hoc Committee was set up to evaluate our membership procedures and regulations. A study was begun on the advisability of certification procedures for our members. A very important Committee on Affiliate Societies was formed and a regular dinner meeting for all affiliate society presidents was set up to increase communication with our members.
During my tenure in office with the gracious help of our Central Office I undertook to obtain additional statistical information relating to our Association members, candidates in psychoanalytic training, graduate analysts who were not Association members, as well as the growth of societies and institutes during the past 20 to 25 years. I did this to determine whether the impressions concerning the decline in the number of applications to our institutes or the reduced rate of membership applications to our Association were indeed verifiable. Also, I hoped the statistics would help to determine whether the various actions taken by our Association would modify these disturbing trends.
It is interesting to note that in 1952 we had a total of 484 active members in our Association. Membership rose rapidly until 1960, an average of 50 new members annually. Although there has always been a constant increase in the membership of the American, this rise slowed in the latter half of the sixties (average of 28 new members annually), but again increased between 1970-1977 (average of 55 new members annually) to a total of 1537 active and life members as of December 1977. However, because of an increasing death rate, there has been only a net membership gain of 29 members per year in the past six years. As of Dec. 1977, because of the increased rate of membership applications, the number of non-member graduate analysts dropped from the oft quoted figure of 800 in the 1960's to 520, a figure still much too high. However, we should recognize that the increase in membership applications during the past five years may be correlated with our newly developed certification procedures. In 1978 there were 31 new certified members accepted with no net membership gain since there was a total of 31 deaths during the year. Future trends as regards membership are not clear at this time. Will our graduates be stimulated to apply for application to membership as they were between 1957 and 1967, an average of 52 new members yearly? This is still an open question.
The statistics also corroborate the impression of fewer candidates in psychoanalytic training in the 60's. In 1952 there were 832 candidates in training; between 1959 and 1967 the number of candidates in training fluctuated between 998 to 1047, but since 1967 there has been a steady rise to a figure probably close to 1250 in 1977. In the twenty-one years between 1957 and 1978, our institutes increased from 17 to 26, and our affiliate societies from 17 to 33, plus two study groups.
What is also significant is the fact that we are fast becoming an Association with a greater percentage of older members as judged by our membership statistics. In 1957 there were no Life Members; in 1962 there were 72 Life Members, 7% of our total Active Members; in January 1979 there were 266 Life Members, an increase to over 17%. In addition, the number of deaths per year is slowly rising. One other interesting group of statistics depicts the growth of the new types of members started in May 1973. Limited membership granted to graduate analysts who are not certified members (Associate) rose from 219 to 461 as of January 1, 1979 and the number of matriculated candidate members (Affiliates) rose from 280 to 621. The grand total of all of our different categories of members as of December 1978 was 2616.
To summarize from the statistics just given, one can conclude that since 1967 there has been a return to a continuing growth pattern in the number of candidates in training which parallels the increased number of institutes (26) and societies (33 plus two study groups as of 1978). This has resulted in more graduate analysts as well as in an increasing number of new members in our Association despite an increasing number of yearly deaths.
How can we account for the reduced numbers of applications for psychoanalytic training and the lower rate of membership applications in the 1960's? Also, how can we account for the increased interest in psychoanalytic training and membership applications in the 1970's? These changes have occurred despite the fact that in the 1970's there were probably fewer psychoanalytically oriented psychiatric residency programs as well as a reduced number of pyschiatric residents. In addition, this increase has occurred despite the fact that the average analyst now sees 4.7 analytic patients in contrast to 6.2 a decade earlier. It is true that the changes as indicated by the statistics in a reduced interest in psychoanalytic education or psychoanalytic membership began in the turbulent 60's with its emphasis on spontaneity, the drug culture, mysticism, interest in Eastern religion, and political radicalism. During this time, there was much criticism of “Freud's conservative bias,” especially his theories relating to women as well as the growth of competitive theories and therapies. However, in the 60's there was also a marked increase in general educational facilities with increasing funding and an increase in the number of students entering college and applying for graduate work. During the past five years there has actually been a decrease in the number of students entering college and physicians applying for psychiatric residencies. These latter statistics are contradictory to the increased interest in psychoanalytic education.
It is easier to believe that the social upheaval in the 60's with anti-establishment attitudes certainly affected the number of graduate analysts applying to our national association. As we have heard, more of our graduate analysts in the 60's were openly critical of what they called our unscientific programs and our rigidity, and resentful of membership application requirements. It was late in the 60's and early in the 70's that action to modify membership requirements was undertaken by the American Psychoanalytic Association with the result that the two year waiting restrictions prior to application was eliminated. In addition, certification procedures were adopted which no doubt led to an increased interest in membership. Since 1973 we also inaugurated two additional forms of membership: a time limited associate membership to graduates of our institutes, and an affiliate membership for matriculated candidates in our institutes. Also, full membership for important non-MD research graduates was instituted. It is my personal opinion that many more graduate analysts will apply for membership if we would initiate a permanent associate membership with voting rights for those graduate analysts not interested in applying for certification. I hope that such procedures will be inaugurated in the very near future.
The Committee on Affiliated Societies, which arranges a twice-yearly meeting, stimulated much constructive communication and valuable feedback. As a reaction, our Association has become much more active in external issues: insurance, confidentiality, governmental relationships and closer ties with organized medicine and the American Psychiatric Association. The Committee on Associate and Affiliate Members carried out a similar function for those newer members of our Association who do not have voting rights. This Committee has also been active in maintaining liaison with the candidates and recent graduates organization, C.A.P.E. (Council for Psychoanalytic Education), which, since its inception, has supplied us with much valuable information relating to our candidates' interests. New program formats have been utilized and larger numbers of our members have been attending our discussion groups and panels. Our Program Committee has moved into successful educational efforts for the non psychoanalytic mental health professionals and have added distinguished professionals from other allied fields to our scientific programs.
While the above factors may have influenced our membership statistics, it is not clear in my mind how they could have stimulated our applications to institutes for psychoanalytic training and education. One important factor may have been the recent development of a number of small institutes in areas of the U.S.A. where previously there were few psychoanalysts and no previous availability of psychoanalytic training. These new psychoanalytic educators may be having a significant impact on many psychiatric residencies not previously in contact with psychoanalytic theory or practice. What is clear is that in such areas there is a greater pool of analytic patients.
In the past decade there has also been much ferment as regards new psychoanalytic theories and paradigms with suggested modifications in clinical practice. Some analysts have felt that we are in the midst of a revolution and a disturbing polarization. On the contrary, I feel we are creatively involved with an evolutionary process of great significance to our psychoanalytic development. All of this activity has spilled over to what I feel has been more interesting scientific meetings with a comfortable mix of experimental and clinical research papers in combination with clinical and theoretical papers, many of which are involved in the ongoing discussion of our changing theories and clinical practice. These changes, plus an increased interest in psychoanalytic research, may have sparked a greater motivation for psychoanalytic training.
This greater interest in psychoanalytic research is one of our Association's most important achievement in the past decade. Our encouragement for psychoanalytic research and the support during the past three years of the Fund For Psychoanalytic Reseach by annual solicitation of voluntary contributions from the Association members of approximately $35,000 has been most laudatory. It is my impression that the distribution of facilitating grants and the publicity stimulated by our encouragement of scientific efforts has already resulted in a significant increase in our research activities as indicated by the number of research papers given in scientific programs and published in psychoanalytic journals.
With the increasing recognition that all was not well with psychoanalysis in the early 60's, as indicated by the falling off in the number of candidates applying for training and the increased criticism in psychoanalysis from within and without, evolutionary changes were stimulated not only in the administrative structure of the American Psychoanalytic Association, but in our concepts of psychoanalytic theory, practice and research as well. The main thrust within our Association has been a modification of its membership requirements, a closer relationship to its affiliate societies, and increased involvement with the community and society which basically must support psychoanalysis. In terms of theory, clinical practice and research, I feel there has been a gradual relinquishment of metapsychological theories far removed from clinical observation to new clinical experiential theories better suited to the development of new therapeutic techniques and psychoanalytic research. Our research efforts have also markedly increased to add significant new concepts to our clinical observations.
Can it be concluded that these changes have been essentially responsible for the growth in psychoanalytic education and membership? I would like to feel that these statistics lend some credibility to the assumption that the recent changes in psychoanalysis as a developing science with a more clinical theory of personality and newly developed therapeutic techniques may have been in some measure responsible for the upward growth in our profession which had faltered in the 60's.
Alex H. Kaplan