To the Editor:
I wish to register a strong dissent with an underlying assumption in the articles by Drs. Brockman and Pacella regarding the Association's public relations policies.
Reflecting upon my brief experience as a member of the Committee on Public Information, and my longer experience in relation to the American Psychoanalytic Association, I feel that current and future efforts of this Committee are seriously hampered by unresolved structural problems and division within the American Psychoanalytic Association. The CPI is, I fear, basically placed in the position of papering over cracks in the structure, and as such is spiritually and materially constrained in pursuing its goals.
Item: The Committee has produced, with a lot of work by the Chairman, by Drs. Arlene Heyman and Gerald Fogel, and with smaller contributions from the other members, a fine brochure about psychoanalysis, psychoanalytic treatment, and the American Psychoanalytic Association.
The writing of this brochure raised at least one painful question plaguing the American. Who is best qualified to do an initial consultation for a prospective patient on the question of “Do I need a psychoanalysis?” The question at once raised this issue: Should it be a medically trained psychiatrist, a psychiatrist-psychoanalyst, a Ph.D. psychoanalyst? (I do not recall if it involved the question of Research Candidates with degrees in non-clinical fields.) The Committee reached (to me) a satisfactory compromise: “It should be with a graduate analyst of an Institute accredited by the American Psychoanalytic Association who can suggest appropriate further medical or psychological consultation if needed.”
The problem is obviously not merely one of wording, but one of substance. Does the American fully recognize the ability of its nonmedical analysts to do such an evaluation or not? Judging from the frank and constructive discussion in the group, I would guess that the “American” (its members, its different committees) are divided.
Further, does the American truly recognize the ability of graduates of its accredited institutes to do such evaluations (and of course, to conduct the treatment)? The answer is yes and no, and no amount of good will or Solomonic wisdom on the part of the Committee on Public Information could afford an honest answer to this question.
One part of the American, the committee that certifies individuals, can and does declare that certain graduates of accredited institutes do not possess (and/or present) an adequate understanding of “what is psychoanalysis” or do not show evidence of their treatment of patients reflecting “analytic process.” Hence, it is a serious misrepresentation when the brochure recommends graduates of accredited institutes, but a committee of the American does not agree that the institute's stamp of approval of its graduates is adequate.
I myself, after having been involved in this brochure, do not feel free to use it, as it cannot possibly adequately represent what the “American” thinks —it thinks too dividedly.
These are only illustrations. The main point is that if some “Americans” are really good “Americans,” or possibly not even “Americans” at all, how can the “American's” Committee on Public Information speak honestly on issues involving who is qualified?
A corollary of this line of thinking is that, for the time being, a public relations, or media consultant would be in a bizarre position. Which “American” or “Americans,” which psychoanalysts, would he be able to tell the media are qualified, or are doing good works?
Until the organization comes to greater cohesion on these issues and relents on one part persecuting another part, until “private information” becomes saner, “public information” is severely compromised. The family that does not trust its own members should be properly cautious in hiring a public relations firm to represent the family.
Thank you for publishing the initial articles by Drs. Esman, Brockman, and Pacella, which stimulated these reflections, and which represent the position of three men who have seriously struggled with a variety of issues relevant to the American and its public.
Bennett Simon, M.D.
Boston