The Points of View of David Dean Brockman and Bernard C. Pacella in the Spring, 1984 Newsletter (“Do We Need a More Vigorous Public Relations Policy? Major Disagreement is Over Use of Media Professionals”) generated an unusually large response. Following are some of the letters we received from members, and a reply to them by the Chairman of the Committee on Public Information, Aaron Esman.
To the Editor:
I am responding to your article requesting responses to the dialogue between Drs. Brockman and Pacella. I am writing not only as the Chairman of the Joint Commission on Public Affairs of the American Psychiatric Association, but also as a person concerned about the future of psychoanalysis and the role of both psychiatrists and psychoanalysts in American society.
The two statements do indicate that the Committee on Public Information has been active and, according to the philosophy of the Chairman and the Committee, has been more or less responsive to the needs of the media and the attacks on psychoanalysis. Very often, responses from organized psychoanalysis have been too little, too late. It is my feeling that we need a more vigorous public relations policy for psychoanalysis, since we have, on many occasions, remained silent, while unfortunate statements have appeared in the press.
Such attacks are not necessarily blatant. As an example, recently Newsweek ran an article on phobias in which there were a series of antipsychoanalytic remarks. Though not the usual blatant, nasty remarks, one could easily sense the view that behavior modification, implosion therapy, other therapies, and medication are the appropriate treatments. They spoke about patients who had been in analysis for many, many years and other comments which would be in antagonism to the way we think of the phobic process.
These kinds of remarks must be answered. Newsweek is too prestigious and too widely read a magazine to let such comments go by.
Even Janet Malcolm, who is an excellent writer and has had a specific interest in the political side of psychoanalysis in America, has not always been even-handed in her dealings with us. We, of course, have contributed to her expositions by revealing ourselves to her in a way that often sounds very confusing and negative to readers who are not initiated into the ways of psychoanalysis.
I believe that every time something is said that is detrimental of the concepts of analysis, some response should be made. This is certainly more in keeping with the remarks of Dr. Brockman than those of Dr. Pacella. Freud would have been more responsive to these attacks. It is clear from his writings that he felt that a strong response was needed against those who would use a good offense as the best defense. Now is clearly not the time for judicious and cautious actions, as recommended by Dr. Pacella.
It is important for the American Psychoanalytic Association to develop position papers that would deal with some of the issues raised by Dr. Brockman. He is correct that the criticisms often take on a life of their own and that our silence perpetuates these criticisms. Furthermore, our own members are heard to voice these criticisms. The demand for measurable results can be dealt with. The demand by some of our members for purity in the analytic movement, as well as in analytic practice, is unrealistic and damaging to the field. Many members of the American Psychoanalytic Association are concerned about the economics of psychoanalysis and its viable future.
We seem to be entering an era in which reimbursement for psychoanalytic treatment is diminishing and could most likely become nonexistent. Some members are making valiant attempts to preserve the little that is left but without the full support and backing of our Association.
It is clear to me that some effort should be made to, at least, hold our ground and continue the good works that we are doing by reversing the continual erosion of credibility among the laymen and professionals concerning analysis. It is common practice for mental health professionals of all kinds to make damaging remarks about psychoanalysis as they put forward their own theories and therapies.
Many critics of psychoanalysis have no idea what it is as a theory or how it works as a therapy. We should be in the forefront of educating the public, providing good examples of how analysis can make people well, and join forces with other members of the medical and psychiatric professions to create a united front concerning the validity and acceptability of psychoanalysis as one of the psychotherapies currently in use in America.
It might be valuable for the American Psychoanalytic Association to explore using an organization such as the American Psychiatric Association, Division of Public Affairs, instead of developing its own independent public relations program. Additional staff to the Division of Public Affairs in the APA would give enormous depth to the coverage and the ability to respond for psychoanalysis which the American Psychoanalytic Association currently does not have.
While this clearly is not an idea that has been thought through and has no official sanction, it might be very valuable for the officers of the American Psychoanalytic Association to give this serious consideration. Professional public relations people can often do wonders to bring appropriate information and appropriate positions regarding psychoanalysis to the public's attention.
Paul J. Fink, M.D.
Philadelphia