The 1930s, 40s, and 50s were exciting decades for psychoanalysis. College students were becoming interested in Freud and reading his writings. PTAs were curious about how insights into the workings of the human mind could be applied to the raising and education of children. Psychiatrists, frustrated by the very limited effectiveness of such traditional treatments as bromides and baths, were intrigued by the possibility of a new form of therapy.
It was in such a climate that the Philadelphia Psychoanalytic Society was founded. Its beginnings go back to 1933, the year O. Spurgeon English returned from Berlin, where he had finished an analysis begun in Vienna. Commuting to
New York with fellow repatriates LeRoy Maeder and Sidney Biddle, he completed his training at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute. Along with George Smeltz, the three began to meet regularly for informal discussions and a bit of socialization. Finally, on October 27, 1937, the four of them founded the Philadelphia Psychoanalytic Society.
By this time other analysts had come to Philadelphia—Gerald Pearson, Henry Katz, and Paul Sloane—and were beginning to get analytic cases. By contrast, Spurgeon English had waited three months for his first analysand. In the meantime he had occupied himself with establishing a department of psychiatry at Temple Medical College and working part time at Holmesburg Prison in Philadelphia.
Maeder had been a staff psychiatrist at what was then Fairmount Farms. While there he studied law in his spare time and passed the bar. When he left for Europe to be analyzed, there was a mixed reaction from his colleagues at Fairmount. He was perceived on the one hand as wasting a very promising career and on the other as being very forward-looking.
As the group of analysts expanded, they invited speakers from New York and Washington to deliver scientific papers and teach courses. Visitors included Gregory Zilboorg, Lawrence Kubie, Louis Hill, Lucille Dooley, Clara Thompson, Sandor Lorand, Karen Horney, Sandor Rado, Carl Binger, and John Millet. On May 7, 1939, the Society was accepted as a constituent society by The American. At that time the group consisted of Biddle, English, Katz, Maeder, Pearson, and Smeltz, augmented by Kenneth Appel and Lauren Smith.
In 1940 the Philadelphia Psychoanalytic Institute was founded. Approved by The American, it shortly afterward was recognized by the IPA. Morris Brody was the new institute's first graduate, followed shortly by Robert Bookhammer.
By this time discussions had begun about the “correct” or “orthodox” manner of conducting an analysis. Differences in various cities led eventually to enmities and splits within the institutes. Minutes of the Philadelphia Society in 1941 report that Clara Thompson and William Silverberg presented to a scientific session a detailed account of problems leading to resignations from the New York Society and the establishment in that city of two new societies.
These same minutes make reference also to an attempt by The American to forbid more than one society in any geographic area. About that time, a lengthy letter was received from Edward Glover detailing a split in the London group into factions loyal to Anna Freud and Melanie Klein. The minutes seem to indicate that The American had held discussions about how to deal with splits; how fruitful the deliberations were is a matter of judgment.
In 1944 a candidates organization was formed and for some fifteen years kept enthusiasm within the Institute quite high. In 1946 the Psychoanalytic Clinic was formed for the twofold purpose of providing analytic treatment to those of modest means and of supplying candidates with suitable control cases. In the early 1950s it was required that at least one of a candidate's supervised cases be seen on a low-fee basis.
By 1947 there were so many applicants for training that it was decided to make the admissions policy more stringent. Applicants were graded A, B, or Unacceptable. All of the training analysts were struggling with full schedules. A real risk in such situations is that analytic principles will be compromised for the sake of expedience. There seems little question that this happened in Philadelphia and probably gave rise to acrimonious debate over what was to be considered “orthodox.” There is some reason to suspect that analysis came to be defined in terms of rules and numbers, rather than an understanding of the dynamics of the analytic relationship.
In the forties and fifties there were fewer analysts and proportionately more analysands. Today, by contrast, there are many more analysts vying for a share of the pool of suitable analysands. Also, drugs are available today that were unknown in 1950. Chlorpromazine was not available in this country until the early 1950s.
A portent of later trouble was a lengthy report filed in 1945 by Biddle on the need to define the “orthodox” manner in which to conduct training
analyses and teaching. The minutes are quite discreet, but seem to suggest the beginnings of a sharp division within the Institute, with much greater emphasis on the idea of orthodoxy. At one discussion (not reported in the minutes), Maeder is quoted as saying, “If I go to a party and find a student there, I'm not going to put on my hat and go home!”
Finally, at a meeting in 1949, open disagreement broke out, with each faction demanding that the other resign. Biddle and Pearson did so, and a bit later founded the Institute of the Philadelphia Association for Psychoanalysis. At that point a meeting of all the candidates was convened to explain to them what had happened and why, and to offer them a choice of institutes. Of the candidates who attended the meeting, none seemed to come away with more than a hazy notion of the reason for the split. Predictably,
all the candidates followed their training analysts when selecting an institute. Among the more important developments following the split was the arrival of Margaret Mahler as a member of the faculty. Under her influence and guidance a very fine child analysis program was developed.
The years since 1950 have exposed the Philadelphia Society/Institute to the same challenges, frustrations, anxieties, and rewards as the rest of the psychoanalytic community. Today, attitudes have undergone an evolution. At one time, candidates knew nothing of the workings of the Institute. They would know there had been a site visit, for example, but could learn nothing of its outcome. Today the report is circulated among the candidates. It is recognized that they are vitally interested, and that they are an important part of the Institute. Site visits themselves have undergone a major change, as is well known. At one time an examined Society/Institute was apt to feel it was being treated with imperious disdain. Philadelphia did not escape, having suffered one
site visit that was particularly devastating to morale. Although members disagreed with much of the report, their pride was hurt and recovery was a long, painful process. Eventually, however, the hurt passed and tensions subsided, and the organization became stronger and healthier. Now site visits are collegial experiences, with the opportunity to learn what is going on in other institute/societies in a way that is not possible sitting at committee meetings.
Today candidates serve on most committees of the Society, and on many Institute committees. Candidates' records are open to them and are not a dark secret, as was the case formerly. Candidates are urged to attend meetings of The American and are welcomed at meetings of Board and Council. Many analysts can still remember when it would be unthinkable for a candidate to attend such meetings. Indeed, at one time all of the scientific meeting rooms had guards at the door, and admission was impossible without a badge indicating registration.
Recently the Society has begun to experience a resurgence of interest and vigor. This may have to do with ongoing changes in the climate of health care. Committees are meeting regularly and keeping abreast of what is going on, and the candidates organization is once again active. Courses in psychoanalytic psychotherapy are being offered, attention is paid to fund raising and marketing, and a teaching affiliation has been set up with Russian psychiatrists in Moscow.
The only discordant note in this increasingly rosy picture is the sad news that Betty Klein, the Society/Institute's beloved and capable administrative assistant of many years, has been forced to retire because of serious illness. She will be missed by everyone, especially those who worked closely with her through the years, and came to depend on her to take up the slack and cover their deficiencies.
Today there is reason to think that former antagonisms between the Philadelphia groups are evolving into a healthy situation of cooperation and competition. As members of the psychoanalytic community, the groups share common goals, scientific endeavors, and social activities, and have worked together hosting the upcoming meetings.
J. Alexis Burland generated much of the information for this article. For the fiftieth anniversary of the Philadelphia Psychoanalytic Society he interviewed retired and senior members on videotape and transcribed their comments, which were published in a commemorative booklet.