The Institute for Psychoanalytic Medicine of Southern California was founded in 1950, just four years after the establishment of the Los Angeles Psychoanalytic Society and Institute (LAPSI), from which the Southern California founders had resigned. Psychoanalysis in the Los Angeles area had begun to take root in the early 1930s, and in 1935 a study group was formed under the aegis of the Chicago and Topeka Institutes. Although the small pioneering group had been composed chiefly of lay analysts, the years of World War II and the immediate postwar period saw an influx of medical analysts, who wished to establish a relationship with the American Psychoanalytic Association. At that time, membership in The American was denied to nonphysicians, and heated discussions ensued until finally The American was induced to compromise by “grandfathering” in as members those lay analysts already established in Los Angeles.
Despite that compromise, and the establishment of a training program, considerable tensions continued. Disputes were both personal and ideological, with many of the newer physician members feeling that the Los Angeles Institute was rigid and authoritarian. By the same token, the dissidents were characterized as heretical and a threat to classical analytic training. It finally became clear that the differences were irreconcilable, and the dissident group undertook to form a new institute and society. Although one of Southern California's founders, Marie Briehl, was a lay analyst, the decision to adopt a medical name for the new organization was meant at least in part to differentiate it from the Los Angeles Institute.
Several of the founders of the “new institute,” such as Judd Marmor and Norman Levy, were already known for their antiorthodoxy and their desire to challenge what they and others at Southern California regarded as doctrinaire psychoanalytic shibboleths. An attitude of flexibility and openness to new ideas in the field, for some years the object of scorn by many who remained at the “old institute,” nevertheless became a cornerstone of the Southern California tradition. Franz Alexander joined SCPI in 1956 because he regarded its atmosphere suitably flexible to accommodate his thinking, teaching, and research. Many other analysts and candidates chose SCPI for similar reasons.
It was not until after the difficulties at the Los Angeles Institute over the “Kleinian heresies” that LAPSI became more progressive in its orientation, and the two American-affiliated institutes have since enjoyed a cordial and cooperative relationship. They have cosponsored scientific meetings, shared meeting rooms, and jointly sponsored the fledgling San Diego Society and Institute.
During the period of approximately forty years since SCPI's establishment, the founding group's liberal ethos has been perpetuated. Diversity of theoretical views is expected and encouraged. As a result, there has been no predominant theoretical “party line.” Classical, ego psychological, Kleinian, object relational, and self psychological orientations have coexisted, at times uneasily, and are represented in the leadership, faculty, and membership of the Institute. Substantial numbers of candidates were attracted by this ambience, and, reflecting a wish to encourage the extension of training beyond the field of psychiatry, the Institute's name was changed from “The Institute for Psychoanalytic Medicine” to its current one in 1962.
Consistent with this changed outlook, the Institute began to accept local scholars from a variety of academic fields as students in conjunction with The American's Research Training Program. As of this date, a total of fourteen research psychoanalysts (four with nonclinical training) have graduated from the Institute, placing SCPI first nationwide in number of research scholars trained. They have been able to carry on some clinical work as state-licensed research analysts, and many are active Institute faculty members. Currently there are five research students in analytic training.
Since 1976 the Institute has been accredited by the State of California to grant a Ph.D. in Psychoanalysis to its graduates. Institute members have been leaders and key participants in local residency and community mental health programs. An active Extension Division has provided psychoanalytically informed educational activities for mental health professionals, and a highly popular Advanced Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Program has provided seminar and supervisory education for clinical social workers and psychologists, a number of them having further progressed to full analytic training. At present SCPI is one of the largest of the American-affiliated institutes. The Institute is currently sponsoring the Arizona New Training Facility in Phoenix, which last September began its first classes.
In the fall of 1990, SCPI embarked on a series of major changes. At that time, reflecting a growing impatience with the slow pace of The American's policy changes regarding delinkage and the admission of nonmedical applicants, the Institute leadership prevailed on the majority of its Education Committee to proceed with the admission and training of nonmedical applicants without The American's approval. This action was followed by a series of meetings with the leadership of The American and the appointment of a subcommittee of its Committee on Institutes, whose task it was to interface with a “middle committee” of Institute faculty in order to address the crisis. The chair of the Institute's Education Committee resigned from his position but not from the Institute, and was instrumental in the creation of a new, free-standing institute, the Institute of Contemporary Psychoanalysis (ICP). The sudden and unheralded formation of that organization, developed largely but not exclusively by self psychology–oriented Institute faculty and a smaller number of like-minded LAPSI faculty, engendered widespread feelings of disappointment and bitterness. Two training analysts, an affiliate faculty member, and three students of SCPI have resigned. The remainder of those who joined ICP have continued in their SCPI functions, at varying levels of involvement.
As is often the case in the splitting off of new institutes from existing ones, opinions vary widely with regard to causes of the exodus. Many feel the cause to have been chiefly ideological (conflict versus deficit orientations), while others point to personality differences. Some feel that the creation of ICP reflected pessimism about the possibility of progressive change in The American. Yet others felt that SCPI was under the sway of a “geritocracy” that allegedly had been suppressing new ideas.
Since February 1991 the Institute has reconstituted itself by undertaking radical changes in program emphasis and governance. Under new leadership, a policy of working constructively with The American and its committees has been reestablished, in the hope that recent progressive changes in The American's relationships with component institutes will continue.
SCPI's training orientation has been changed from the conventional trade or technical school model to that of a graduate school. Concomitantly, the Ph.D. thesis has been upgraded to require a scientific paper of publishable quality. This is consistent with the
atmosphere of critical inquiry that has been established as a major theme of the Training School. Students are expected to be aware of the basic epistemological concerns in psychoanalysis, and spirited dialogue with faculty on issues of theory and technique is encouraged. Teaching and learning objectives are developed by faculty members for each seminar course as part of the syllabus and are negotiated with the students of each class.
Renewed attention to the quality of teaching has led to a series of out-of-town faculty retreats, featuring presentations by outstanding teachers (many of them research graduates of the Institute who teach in universities) and small group discussions. Evaluation by students of faculty performance has received increased emphasis.
With regard to governance, committees have been meeting to consider reorganization proposals anticipating a trend away from the conventional training analyst–dominated hierarchy to governance that is more broadly faculty-driven. Anticipating greater student participation in governance, students presently sit as voting members on all subcommittees of the Education Committee, and are represented, though without a vote, at Education Committee meetings.
There is general agreement that this new level of student participation diminishes the regressive aspects of the educational experience and fosters in students a greater level of responsibility for their own education—a hallmark of the graduate study approach. The impetus for many of these developments has come not only from university academics who are Institute graduates, but also from the growing number of nonmedical students, many of them familiar with the graduate school ambience. Another potential benefit of the critical inquiry orientation is the averting of ideological allegiances based on unexamined belief systems.
One of the most promising new developments in faculty-student collaboration at SCPI has been the establishment of several Psychoanalytic Study Centers, each headed by a senior faculty member and a senior student. These centers are designed to bring together faculty, students, and members who share an interest in some particular aspect of psychoanalytic inquiry. Seminars for analysts, courses for mental health professionals, research, and other activities are being conducted in such areas as Psychoanalytic Study of Women, Trauma and Dissociative Disorders, Creative Arts, Analysts' Subjectivity, Group Processes, and Religious Experience. Although connected to the Institute, the centers are essentially self-governing and self-supporting financially.
Another unique development is a close connection with the University of Southern California College of Letters, Arts, and Science. While a number of psychoanalytic institutes are affiliated with university medical schools, SCPI's liaison is being established with an undergraduate college. There is increasing intellectual interest in psychoanalytic ideas on the USC campus among students and faculty in the Departments of English, French, History, Film Studies, and others. An interdepartmental minor in Psychoanalytic Studies is being developed, spearheaded by Professor Mauricio Mazon, chair of the USC Department of History and a research graduate of SCPI.
With the establishment in the Southern California area of several new institutes that are not affiliated with The American, competition for students has considerably increased. SCPI has nevertheless been successful in attracting high-quality applicants for whom a “mainstream” psychoanalytic education affording exposure to the entire range of analytic thought, from classical to contemporary, and encouraging a spirit of critical inquiry is important. The Institute regards its connection with The American as an asset, and this attitude is conveyed to students—especially when progressive changes in the national organization can be demonstrated.
In summary, the Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute has continued to pursue its original goal of producing psychoanalytic clinicians exposed to the broadest possible array of analytic perspectives. As a result of recent developments at the Institute, students are also being trained to critically examine and evaluate changes in the field and are being encouraged to pursue ongoing collaborative study and research under the general auspices of the Institute.