Drs. Meyers and Deutsch co-chair the Workshop on Women's Issues in Psychoanalytic Education
In December, 1979, the chairman of the Committee on Psychoanalytic Education established a new Workshop to consider issues in psychoanalytic education unique to women. Psychoanalysis, a discipline to which women have contributed on a basis equal to men, has always included women among its distinguished theorists. Nevertheless, while the education is designed to be the same for both sexes, it appeared likely to COPE that concerns in training pertinent to women did exist.
The Workshop on Women's Issues in Psychoanalytic Education, chaired by Drs. Helen Meyers and Barbara Deutsch, met for the first time in 1980. The original group of twenty women continues to participate enthusiastically, with others, including men, joining the activities. In all, some sixty individuals representing twenty-four institutes, spanning all levels of analytic careers, have contributed.
Over the first several meetings the Workshop determined that the potential issues to be investigated could best be subsumed under two broad categories, OUTSIDE and INSIDE. Outside issues would involve any overt discrimination and/or differential treatment related to gender experienced during the process of psychoanalytic education or practice, whereas inside issues would involve unconscious or intrapsychic manifestations. Outside issues might be approached with objective measures, such as questionnaires; inside issues would require a different format.
The Workshop began its work focusing on outside concerns. A general survey of institutes was created by Drs. Barbara Deutsch, Muriel Laskin, Helen Meyers, Barbara Rosenfeld, and Sara Vogel, with Dr. Lee Brauer doing the computer analysis. Two broad questions were addressed: Are different criteria used by the institutes in considering women in selection, progression, promotion, etc.? When and how are issues of female psychology included in the curricula? The survey was distributed to institutes in 1982. Specifically, the study consisted of a four-page questionnaire designed to ascertain data about numbers of women versus men in terms of admission, teaching, administrative activities, and appointment to supervisory and training analyst roles. Responses were received from twenty-three institutes, above 75% of the total. A summary of the results reveals that women are currently represented proportionately in most activities vis-à-vis their numbers among analysts (11%), including their participation as graduates, teachers, training analysts, supervisors, and administrators. However, because of their relatively small number, it is quite possible for candidates to have little or no contact with women teachers, supervisors, or analysts. No specific evidence of sexism or discrimination was identified. This study did not answer questions about the teaching of female psychology which would require further investigation.
A second study, devised by Dr. Elizabeth Mayer, has now been completed in three institutes, San Francisco, N.Y.U., and St. Louis, with Columbia completing its data gathering at the present time. The study is designed to address the following set of questions: How does the fact of being a woman affect referral and self-referral for analysis and for supervision? Are referrals made to women because they are women, and, if so, what factors influence this choice? To date, the data suggests that, contrary to popular assumption, women and men analysts are referred approximately the same number of patients. However, there appears to be a gender difference. Female analysts are referred a significantly higher percentage of female over male patients (approximately eighty women to twenty men), whereas male analysts are referred men and women in approximately equal proportions. Male analysts tend to refer female patients more often to female analysts, and male patients to male analysts. It appears, then, that referrals to women analysts take gender into specific consideration. The Workshop is in the process of evaluating the implications of these findings.
The third study related to outside issues has been initiated by Dr. Dorothy Holmes, on subjectively perceived gender attitudes of classmates, faculty, and the public at large. Specifically, the question addressed is: Do women in analytic training experience sexism as entering into the conscious and/or unconscious attitudes of those with whom they come in contact during the course of their training and their subsequent professional involvement? To date, a pilot study has been completed at the Baltimore Institute, and data is being collected from the Boston Institute. In the preliminary report there is a suggested difference in thoughts about gender discrimination among candidates as compared to more senior analysts. Additional findings will be reported at the New York meeting in December, 1986.
Issues grouped under the category of Inside required a more subjective approach. Members have presented theoretical papers which have then been discussed in the Workshop. Dr. Eleanor Schuker presented a paper on creativity in women, in response to a general question about the entire spectrum of women's contributions to the field of psychoanalysis. Specifically, the paper addressed the issue of why so few women write and publish in psychoanalytic journals. She noted that those who do publish are most often researchers in other disciplines. Dr. Helen Meyers presented a paper on issues for female analysts and female patients, involving such questions as the impact of actual gender of the analyst on the course of the analysis—are there special transferences and countertransferences expected and often missed?
In relation to the question of role models, the impact on the woman's education of female supervisors, training analysts, teachers, and administrators, Dr. Phyllis Tyson began a discussion at the New York meeting in 1985 on issues regarding supervision. A fuller consideration, shared by Judith Chertoff, Barbara Deutsch, Ruth Fischer, and Mary Ramsey, was presented at the Spring, 1986 meeting, dealing with the supervisory situation for female candidates with female patients, concerning preoedipal issues and issues of pregnancy. Further topics will include, first, an in-depth study of issues of pregnancy in the patient or the candidate analyst, as well as the import of the supervisor's gender on the handling of the issue; and, second, a study of issues of self concept in women as analysts. Additionally, the group established a subcommittee to create an annotated bibliography on the psychology of women and clinical issues in the treatment of women.
In summary, the Workshop feels satisfied that its work to date constitutes a solid beginning in dealing with substantive issues regarding women's education. It plans to continue to work through these issues in group discussion, refining its formulations for future presentations at meetings of the American, as well as in appropriate publications.