The Philadelphia Psychoanalytic Society was founded in 1937 by Sidney G. Biddle, O. Spurgeon English, LeRoy M. A. Maeder, and George W. Smeltz. The Philadelphia Psychoanalytic Institute was founded three years later.
Soon after the institute's founding, the relationship between Biddle and English soured, due to both personality conflicts and theoretic differences. Finally, at a dinner meeting of the society in December 1949, Biddle and those allied with him split from English and his allies. Biddle and his colleagues founded the Philadelphia Association for Psychoanalysis. The original group was split about in half; candidates went with their training analysts.
The adversarial relationship between the two groups grew. Philadelphia has five medical schools; in each department of psychiatry, faculty from the two psychoanalytic organizations competed for analysands and candidates. However, many analysts had friends in the “other” group, and some efforts were made to bring the two groups back together.
A Liaison Committee was formed in 1979 and met annually to explore the possibility of joint activities. Initial progress occurred at a snail's pace. As the older analysts who had taken part in the original split began to retire, younger members saw less reason for the conflict, and things picked up speed. In 1996 at a meeting of the Liaison Committee it was suggested the two organizations consider reuniting.
The reasons were primarily pragmatic: With fewer candidates, and with an increased need for outreach, community education, and public relations, it seemed foolish to duplicate expenditures and efforts. Some members of both groups felt that there should never have been a split in the first place and wanted the Philadelphia psychoanalytic community to be a collegial, united whole.
Within both groups some members remained resistant to the idea. Resistance within the Philadelphia Institute and Society (PPI/S) centered on a difference in “cultures.” PPI/S functioned in an unstructured and libertarian manner. Its theoretical orientation was eclectic. PPI/S viewed the Philadelphia association (PAP) as more bureaucratic, formal, and “orthodox” and feared that if the groups were reunited, PAP's culture would prevail, ending the era of good feeling at PPI/S. Some individual personal antagonisms, built up over years of competition, still simmered. Nevertheless, the majority of members of both groups voted to explore the possibility of reunification.
At the association, a task force was established in 1996 to explore the potential advantages and disadvantages of reunification.
J. Alexis Burland, M.D., and Stephen E. Risen, M.D., are co-chairs of the Reunification Committee of the Philadelphia Association for Psychoanalysis and the Philadelphia Psychoanalytic Institute and Society.
In its monthly meetings, it became clear that the negative feelings toward PPI/S had no basis in reality and that there were too many advantages in reunification to let.old antagonisms stand in the way. By the end of the year, the association's membership voted overwhelmingly to proceed toward reunification.
The process took place on two fronts. A Reunification Committee was appointed, made up of nine members from each group (including a candidate representative). It was to act as a planning committee, to create a new organization specifically designed to meet the many challenges confronting psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic education in Philadelphia today.
The committee met monthly, starting in July 1997, and detailed minutes were circulated to both organizations' entire memberships. A series of polls were taken during this time; in each, roughly 80 percent of the members supported the process, but with an understanding that only when the committee had completed its work would a final vote be taken on the reunification plan.
Meanwhile, under the aegis of the Liaison Committee, there were more and more joint activities. The adult and the child/adolescent psychodynamic psychotherapy training programs were jointly run. The continuous case conferences in the child/adolescent psychoanalytic programs of both institutes were combined. Each year, two adult psychoanalytic continuous cases were co-taught by training analysts from each group. Cross-institute supervision increased for both adult and child/adolescent psychoanalytic candidates. The annual dinner dances were combined, as were the scientific sessions, with discussants from each group. An Alliance for Psychoanalytic Thought group, originally begun by members of PPI/S, added association members to its board. The two foundations began a conversation about their possible merger. In June 2000, the Reunification Committee concluded its deliberations and presented to both organizations its vision of a new organization. Though retaining the original 1937 charter to respect the shared early history of both organizations, it proposed the name be changed to the Psychoanalytic Center of Philadelphia.
The new structure was designed to maximize autonomy among its various constituent committees. A Coordinating Committee serves as the necessary Board of Directors, but each department under its umbrella acts independently: Departments of Professional Affairs, Outreach and Collaboration, Planning, and Psychotherapy Education, as well as the Institute. To further encourage autonomy, the structures of each department and the institute are only sketched in, with the understanding that each, when in place, would be free to design the details of its own internal procedures. Finally, after consultation with attorneys, the Reunification Committee proposed a sequence of steps to bring about a legal merger.
Resistance persisted among a small core group in both organizations. In the association, this was expressed as concern for the autonomy and independence of the new institute within the structure of the center as a whole. A faculty committee formed to review the proposed new by-laws. Procedures for electing officers, how training standards would be established, and the institutes control over its budget were closely examined. Eventually, after extensive dialogue and negotiation, concerns about the by-laws were resolved, and the association voted in favor of the proposal by a 90 percent margin.
Within PPI/S, fears remained that the collegiality and open-minded eclecticism of its organization would be lost. There were proposals to halt the process until some time in the future when perhaps the association would have changed its culture. Though the proposals to interrupt the process failed, they did unsettle the candidates. Finally, the society voted on the final proposal in July 2000, and the institute, after lengthy debate, voted in October. The reunification proposal was accepted by five-to-one and three-to-one margins, respectively.
While joint activities already in place continue, both institutes are still functioning separately while they first design, then set in motion processes for combining all classes and all committees. A team of officers for the new centers Coordinating Committee has been elected to oversee the transition, which is expected to take about two years.
At the Philadelphia Psychoanalytic Institute, in response to their anxieties, candidates were given the option to complete the education they had specifically requested when they chose to begin training at PPI/S. They will also be given the option to participate in reunification by selecting continuous case conferences co-taught by instructors from each group, or by selecting supervisors from the association.
It has been a long and difficult journey, with a great deal more to accomplish. We are realistic enough to know that the feelings of some members of both groups remain ambivalent and it will take time for that ambivalence to resolve itself. The Reunification Committee has served as a model for how our two groups can work together successfully. The most positive consequence of reunification is that most of the members of both groups are relieved and energized by the potential of having a united psychoanalytic community.