Child analytic training became available in New York in the late 1930s with the arrival of a group of European-trained child analyst emigres: Berta Bornstein, Marianne Kris, and Margaret Mahler. Included in their ranks was Mary O'Neil Hawkins, an American who had trained in Vienna. Teaching was informal at first, with supervision arranged privately, and gradually evolved under the guidance of this group, all of whom aligned themselves with Anna Freud's ideas on child development and analysis.
Early child courses were offered informally to anyone interested—students, colleagues, visitors. The first such course was a lecture series given by René Spitz in 1940 and then expanded in 1941 and 1942. Called Early Child Development at first, and then Psychology and Psychopathology of Children, its content was based largely on Spitz's observation of infant behavior. Early on, a need was felt to balance this with a more clinical psychoanalytic approach. A course was given in 1941 on the psychopathology of childhood, and in 1942 Bornstein initiated a nine-lecture course on the clinical psychoanalysis of children. In 1942 an eight-lecture course on adolescence was also offered.
Efforts to balance the teaching of child development based on infant observation with instruction in clinical child analysis and psychopathology have evolved throughout the history of child analysis at the New York Institute. In 1956 these efforts were formalized with the establishment of a child development course in the child curriculum, alongside the already well-established clinical child analytic courses. The yearlong development course incorporated analytic psychology and psychopathology of childhood with observational studies of early child development. It included sections on early childhood, latency, and adolescence, and was taught by a variety of instructors, who brought to the endeavor their personal interests and research. Spitz and Mahler participated, as did various members of the Yale Child Study Center.
In 1941 the Continuous Case Seminar in Child Analysis was begun; true to its name, it continues to the present. First taught by Kris and Mahler, then by Kris alone, and then by Kris and Berta Bornstein, it was taken over in 1946 by Bornstein, who conducted it until 1958.
In 1944 Mary O'Neil Hawkins initiated a course and seminar on the psychopathology of adolescence, which she continued until 1966, when it was taken over by Elizabeth Geleerd. Hawkins is remembered by her students for her wide clinical experience with adolescents and for her practical advice in dealing with them and their families.
Berta Bornstein had become part of the Berlin psychoanalytic circle in the 1920s. A close friend of Otto Fenichel, she entered analysis with his help and participated in the seminar he conducted at his home. In the late 1920s she became a leading figure in child analysis, and in 1930 she arrived in New York.
Those who knew her agree that she had a special gift for understanding children and for formulating clear analytic concepts in her courses, supervision, seminars, and case studies. From 1946 to 1958 she was the dominant figure in child analysis at the New York Institute, teaching Theory and Technique of Child Analysis and conducting the Continuous Case Seminar. Even now her lectures continue to be the cornerstone of the Theory and Technique course, and her lasting influence is seen in the teaching and practice of child analysis at the New York Institute, with its basically clinical orientation.
In the 1950s the program continued to evolve and became more formalized. Bornstein was appointed chair of the newly formed Child Analysis Committee in 1953, the other members being Kris, Hawkins, and Mahler. These four became the first child and adolescent supervisors, and established the requirements for child analytic training: the Theory and Technique course, the Continuous Case Seminars in Child and Adolescent Analysis, and the supervised analysis of two children and one adolescent.
During the fifties, debate continued over the extent to which “nonanalytic” child development ought to be part of the curriculum. On the clinical side, first Bornstein and then Ruth Eissler taught an additional course called Psychology and Psychopathology of Children. Although early child development was not required, Mahler offered a special course on early ego development. From time to time other special electives were offered, as interested teachers made themselves available. Among these courses was an eighteen-session seminar by Edith Buxbaum called Clinical Data from Child Analysis.
Personal disagreements with Kris led to Bornstein's resignation as chair in 1958. Kris assumed the chair and from 1958 to 1966 taught the Child Seminar, assisted by Grace Abbate, who also taught the Theory and Technique course. Abbate expanded the course from Bornstein's twelve lectures to a weekly course extending the entire academic year. Hawkins continued teaching the Adolescent Seminar and later, when Elizabeth Geleerd succeeded her, taught a postgraduate Adolescent Seminar for several years.
During Kris's tenure (1958-1966), standards for training were refined. The responsibilities of the Child Analysis Committee were established, and its relation to the other subcommittees of the Educational Committee delineated. Advances were made in integrating child analysts into the adult curriculum; Sidney Kahr, a graduate analyst who was not a child analyst, was made a member of the Child Analysis Committee to advise on pedagogical issues and to facilitate the integration of the child and adult curricula. The practice of inviting lay analysts from outside the Institute to participate in the Child Seminar was also begun, with Marjorie Harley the first to be asked. This was not part of a program to train lay analysts, but a way of using their talents in Continuous Case Seminar presentations.
From 1961 to 1963 Leo Loomie, head of the Treatment Center and, like Kahr, not a child analyst, was included in deliberations of the Child Analysis Committee in an attempt to establish a child analysis division in the Center. These efforts failed, and even today child cases for candidates continue to come largely through private referrals.
Beginning in 1960, even greater efforts were made to integrate the child and adult programs. For seven years the chair of the Curriculum Committee (briefly Martin Stein and then Nicholas Young) attended meetings of the Child Analysis Committee. Over these years an understanding developed that the content of the child curriculum and choice of instructors would remain with the Child Analysis Committee, which functioned as its own curriculum committee.
In 1961 it was decided that the committee should function also as its own students committee for child analytic candidates. The Child Analysis Committee would consider admission of a candidate to the program only if the Institute Students Committee reported that analytic work with adult cases was progressing satisfactorily. Graduation from the child program was decided by the Child Analysis Committee, and the decision was then presented to the Educational Committee for review and approval. It was agreed that Student Committee reports from the adult program for candidates in child analysis would be sent to the chair of the Child Analysis Committee to help identify and correct educational problems.
Thus, by the early sixties the Child Analysis Committee, working in conjunction with the Educational Committee, had become an autonomous though integrated unit within the educational structure of the Institute. Decisions regarding the child analysis program were made by the Child Analysis Committee, which set requirements for admission and graduation of candidates and designed courses, subject to
approval by the Educational Committee. The chair of the Child Analysis Committee recommended child and adolescent supervisors. More recently, in addition to this, applicants who meet the committees requirements and The American's standards may request evaluation by the committee to become a supervisor. If acted upon favorably by the committee, the recommendation is presented to the Educational Committee, which makes the appointments.
Standards for training continued to be refined during Kris's tenure as chair. A flexible approach consistent with what the committee considered standards of excellence was the overriding principle. Basically, analysis of a minimum of two child cases and one adolescent, in which the candidate showed proficiency, was required. Each case must have been in analysis for at least a year. One latency and one prelatency child was preferred, as well as a mix of male and female patients and different supervisors for each case, but these requirements could be waived or modified by the committee if the student showed clear analytic proficiency with both children and adolescents and if there was a practical need to qualify new candidates in order to maintain the program's viability. A terminated case was not required for graduation.
In 1962 Kris and Abbate reviewed the qualifications of all child analysts who had been trained at the Institute up to that point. The Child Analysis Committee and the Educational Committee established the category of Qualified Child Analyst, based on fulfillment of the requirements. Seventeen of those previously trained were deemed to have met these criteria and were so designated. These included Grace Abbate, Ted E. Becker, Isidor Bernstein, Berta Bornstein, Lili Bussel, Maurice Friend, Jules Glenn, Bertram Gosliner, Dora Hartmann, Judith Kestenberg, John McDevitt, Samuel Ritvo, Nathaniel Root, Albert J. Solnit, and Annemaire Weil.
Discussions arose at this time over separate qualification in adolescent analysis, and whether a course in that area should be included in the general curriculum. The membership was polled, and it was discovered that many analysts, with little or no special training, had been analyzing adolescents. After extensive consideration by the Child Analysis and Educational Committees, it was decided to continue adolescent training in the child program rather than introduce it into the general curriculum. Requirements were set for qualification in adolescent analysis alone, for those not wishing to take the entire child program. Required were the course in Theory and Technique of Child Analysis, one year of the Child Continuous Case Seminar, two years of the Adolescent Continuous Case Seminar, and satisfactory supervised analysis of two adolescents.
During Kris's tenure, efforts were begun to expose all candidates to child analysis and to identify and encourage those interested in undertaking child training. The development course was moved into the general curriculum, where child analysts now taught. Lillian Malcove, who had taken child training but did not practice child analysis, created a course called Universal Fantasies, open to all candidates, with the idea that it should be taught by a child analyst who would have encountered derivatives of these fantasies in analytic practice. Assisted by Ted Becker, she taught it for a number of years, eventually being succeeded by Becker and then by Edward Hartmann, who like Malcove had taken some child analytic training. The course, now taught by Theodore Shapiro, continues to stimulate candidates' interest in child analytic training.
In 1966, Kris's last year as chair, the Child Analysis Committee succeeded in convincing the Educational Committee to allow a child case to qualify as one of the three cases minimally required for graduation from the Institute. This was an important recognition of child analysis, the validity of which had long been questioned by many analysts who treated only adults. Attempts were made the same year to do something about the excessive length of child training. By arrangement with Nicholas Young and the Curriculum Committee, Thursday nights were reserved exclusively for child courses, and permission could be given to enroll in them as early as the second year. Qualified students were also permitted to take child or adolescent cases as their second supervised case. Even with these changes, however, child training continued to extend beyond the time required for adult training. There is a positive side to this, however: since child training is entirely voluntary, those who undertake it are a dedicated and enthusiastic group.
Kris's hand-picked successor as chair was Grace Abbate, who had assisted her for eight years. In the early seventies Abbate was herself assisted by Annemarie Weil and Lili Bussel, whom the chair selected as her successor in 1973. Bussel served until 1977, when she in turn tapped Ted Becker to chair the committee.
One of Abbate's special interests was subsidizing low-fee child cases treated by candidates. At her death she left a yearly sum to the Child Analysis Committee to be used for this purpose; the endowment has since been named the Grace Abbate Memorial Fund.
In 1971 Bussel took over the Adolescent Continuous Seminar from Elizabeth Geleerd, and the following year Becker began teaching the Theory and Technique course and the Child Continuous Case Seminar. He continued to teach this course and to chair the Child Analysis Committee until 1990. Standards for child analytic training had already been well established, as had the relationship of the Child Analysis Committee and program to the rest of the Institute. During Beckers tenure, emphasis was placed on the training of new candidates, teachers, and supervisors, and morale ran high. A 1983 site visit found the Child Analysis Program to be functioning on a high level, free from the dissatisfactions and dissent that at the time plagued the Institute as a whole.
Bussel taught the Adolescent Seminar until 1989, when Salvatore Lomonaco was selected to succeed her. Soon after, Philip Herschenfeld became his co-teacher. In 1980 Bussel spearheaded the establishment of a joint adult-child continuous case seminar in the general curriculum.
During many of the years that Becker was chair, he was assisted in his teaching by Donald Cohen. In 1990, Becker's recommendation that Cohen succeed him as chair was approved by the Educational Committee.
That same year, the Child Analysis Committee, in cooperation with the Curriculum and Educational Committees, created a new course for first-year students in the general curriculum. The course focuses on childhood neurosis and continues the Institutes tradition of providing child analytic teaching for all students. Stressing oedipal conflict and instinctual drive manifestations, it also rounds out the child development sequence with clinical material from child analyses.