Dr. Theodore Shapiro, Professor of Psychiatry and Director of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Cornell Medical College, New York Hospital, and current Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, was the invited speaker at the Psychoanalytic Forum in Montreal in May 1988. The Forum is planned by the Committee on Associate And Affiliate Members (a joint committee chaired by Dr. Malkah Notman). It is structured to allow for informal discussions on various topics with well known senior analysts. Dr. Shapiro was asked to speak on “Psychoanalysis and Academia—Reconciliations.”
Dr. Shapiro sketched the history of how and why psychoanalysis developed mostly independent of academia first in Europe and then here in the United States. After World War II, when there was increased interest in and enthusiasm for analysis, analytic ideas were well integrated into medical school and psychiatric residency curricula. At one point one third of 120 residency programs were chaired by analysts. But in the 1970's and 1980's there has been a decreased involvement of analysts in academia, and today fewer than ten of the department heads are chaired by analysts. Dr. Shapiro gave several reasons for this including (1) decreased monies generally at a time when there are an increasing number of competing psychiatric subspecialties and (2) an increased emphasis on academic research. But he is not discouraged about the present situation. He reminded the audience that five recent presidents of the American Psychoanalytic Association have been academicians with strong analytic identities, and four recent American Psychiatric Association presidents were trained analytically. He encouraged analytic clinicians to persevere patiently in academic settings as teachers and supervisors and not retreat to the isolation of the institutes. But he stressed that analysts must find better ways to show that analysis is clinically efficacious.
Dr. Shapiro gave a personal account of his own career, and how he has combined strong academic and analytic interests. He began with an account of his interests in college and described his experiences in medical school, psychiatric residency, post-residency and analytic training, sharing how he eventually integrated his humanistic, psychiatric and psychoanalytic interests through a study of linguistics. He feels that Freudian scholarship is thriving in university settings today, and analysts should not withdraw from the exciting possibilities of interdisciplinary contacts.
The remainder of the meeting was devoted to questions from the floor as the audience solicited Dr. Shapiro's views on areas as divergent as psychoanalytic education, the question of lay analysis, the interface of analysis and neurobiology and the types of articles acceptable to the current editorial board of the Journal. Regarding psychoanalytic education, Dr. Shapiro urged that analysts not withdraw to “cultivate their own gardens”, but continue to dialogue with researchers in all branches of medicine as well as with scholars from the social sciences. Regarding the question of lay analysis, he urged that some way be found so that all analysts have some experience working with in-hospital patients in order to strengthen clinical skills and knowledge. In answer to the questions about journal articles, he encouraged his younger colleagues to submit articles to the Journal. Even if the article is not accepted, it is reviewed and returned with recommendations. He warned that too great a narcissistic investment in one's own creation serves as a formidable resistance to writing. Analysts should think of their writing simply as a way of sharing ideas with colleagues with the hope of getting some feedback.
Although the Forum is organized with associate and affiliate members in mind, all members of the American are invited to participate in these informal discussions with senior colleagues.