Your interesting articles in the recent American Psychoanalyst (25/2) on the problems of psychoanalytic institutes in Los Angeles seem to us to call for a response, especially the piece by Janet Hadda.
As we see it, the recent division in the Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute was between those who chose to be members of the Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute only and those who became members of the Institute of Contemporary Psychoanalysis but who also retained membership in the Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute. Dr. Hadda belongs to the latter group, and we believe her article presents a point of view differing considerably from that of the former group.
First of all, your readers should be aware that a large majority of the Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute members did not join the Institute of Contemporary Psychoanalysis, and so it seems obvious that only a minority of our members share “the disappointment with recent development within the Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute and with respect to the American.”
Dr. Hadda also refers to “continuing and exacerbated fights within the Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute” and to “the divisive atmosphere at the Institute.” We are convinced that had it not been for the minority group's unilateral and disruptive actions, the above-noted conditions would not have occurred. Instead, Dr. Hadda's article would have the reader assume that the founders of the Institute of Contemporary Psychoanalysis were somehow victims of a hostile atmosphere for which they bore no responsibility.
Dr. Hadda's article further implies that the Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute has been slavishly subservient to the American Psychoanalytic Association. We categorically reject this implication. Our institute has a long history of effective struggle for local autonomy and liberal educational policy against pressure for centralized power from the American Psychoanalytic Association. At the same time, it is institute policy to support and strengthen the American Psychoanalytic Association by vigorous efforts to modernize and democratize its structure and function.
The Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute, from its inception, has strongly advocated the advancement of psychoanalysis, theoretical and organizational, in an evolutionary manner. Most of our members support this approach. This policy enables our institute to integrate new theories and techniques without subordination or repudiation of the traditional knowledge that has always been essential.
What does the future hold for the Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute? Obviously, we cannot be certain. The secrecy involved in the formation of the Institute of Contemporary Psychoanalysis and the precipitous nature of its announcement created great concern in many of our students and members. However, we do know that our more recently matriculated students are enthusiastic about the Institute and the training it provides. Furthermore, we have just accepted a new class to begin in September 1991. And a happier ambience is being restored. Therefore, we have confidence in the future of the Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute.
The Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute is moving toward a more flexible curriculum and a more representative governance, in which faculty and students will have an appropriate voice.
While we regret that the recent past has been painful for many people, we hope that, with time, all of us will learn valuable lessons and that we will achieve greater understanding of ourselves, our colleagues, and our organizations.
Samuel Eisenstein, M.D.
Joseph M. Natterson, M.D.
Daniel C. Siegel, M.D.