In recent years the Berlin Wall fell, the Cold War ended, and the American Psychoanalytic Association has been shedding the “siege mentality” that dominated its politics for more than half a century. During the 1930s, the rise of Hitler and the Nazis was only belatedly recognized as a danger to the entire world. The heroic mobilization of the Allies required a new kind of world leadership focused on defeating such a powerful and evil enemy.
The success of that effort, at great cost to the Allies, left its stamp on post-war leadership, an outlook that endured for fifty years. A Cold War orientation, based on the fear of an Evil Empire and the risks of surprise attack, dominated world politics. Apprehension influenced decisions both domestic and international and created an atmosphere of mistrust, intimidation, and brinkmanship in international relationships.
Fortunately, forward-thinking politicians and statesmen made efforts to engage the enemy in dialog and negotiation. After many years, these efforts at outreach led to a new direction in world politics. In the past decade a new political model has emerged. Globalization based on measured trust and cooperation has replaced the Cold War model rooted in suspicion and mistrust.
During the 1930s, American psychoanalysts played an important role in helping hundreds of their European colleagues escape the clutches of Hitler. In the early 1930s fewer than 20 percent of the world's psychoanalysts resided in North America; by 1938 that number had increased to 50 percent. This was to have a dramatic effect on American psychoanalysis. By 1938, the American Psychoanalytic Association proposed to the International Psychoanalytic Association that all psychoanalytic training matters in the United States come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the American. This proposal was to be voted on at the next IPA congress, but that congress was canceled because of the outbreak of war. Less well known is the fact that the proposal never was voted on by the IPA. Nevertheless, the American declared its independence and now has regional status within the IPA.
During this era the informal character of the APsaA was transformed into a hierarchical structure, like that traditional in European educational institutions, as the influence of the European-immigrant analysts increased. Educational and membership policies became more exclusive and rigid. Psychoanalysis was regarded by many as synonymous with ego psychology, and analysts with differing perspectives — such as Karen Horney, Clara Thompson, Harry Stack Sullivan, and Erich Fromm — established new institutes outside the American to teach and develop their views.
Training was restricted to those with a medical-psychiatric background; non-medical clinicians were forced either to join the “renegade” institutes or to bootstrap their training as best they could. Within the APsaA, graduation from an accredited institute was not viewed as sufficient for membership. A further membership examination was required.
The struggle to move the APsaA out of its restrictive, elitist mold goes back many years. Attempts to introduce liberalizing initiatives were met by warnings about the lowering of standards or reference to the “barbarians at the gates.” Interminable struggles kept the organization on the defensive and often paralyzed it.
The settlement of the 1985 anti-trust lawsuit against the American led to the long-overdue extension of training to our non-medical colleagues and marked the beginning of the thaw in our own Cold War mentality. Experience with our CORST graduates helped pave the way to the acknowledgment that medical school is not the royal road to the unconscious. Although sentiment against the restrictive, elitist attitudes of the past had been building, the lawsuit settlement tipped the balance toward those advocating change and opened the door for the remarkable progress of the past decade.
Passage of the partial de-linkage compromise strengthened this momentum and helped inaugurate the emergence of a new American. The recent report of the Task Force on Education and Membership, if its recommendations are approved, will finally accomplish complete de-linkage of membership and certification while assuring that the functions of the Board on Professional Standards will not be compromised and our professional principles will be maintained.
A further revitalizing development has been the surge in candidate membership (now more than 80 percent) and the emergence of the Affiliate Council and its elected officers as a vital part of our governance. Now most of our committees have candidate members who are integrated into committee activity, and many of our new initiatives are spearheaded by our younger (in psychoanalytic years) colleagues. The task force's recommendations include their participation in all major votes of the Association.
With the lifting of our siege mentality and the release of the potential energy and creativity of our full membership, we have seen a dramatic improvement in morale and a remarkable advance in the activities of the APsaA. Among these initiatives has been a number of meetings, both formal and informal, with psychoanalytic groups outside the American in an effort to repair old divisions, heal past injustices, and develop new working relationships with our psychoanalytic colleagues.
Initially these contacts are often difficult as we encounter past hurts and current misunderstandings. Our reputation with these groups does not match our view of ourselves. With patient dialogue we are able to present a different image as we discover we have much in common with one another. Both sides come away from these discussions with a greater appreciation for each other and with new enthusiasm for forging new alliances and, in some cases, possible unification.
Developments in the Consortium over the past year have been dramatic. A draft of Standards for Psychoanalytic Education will be presented to Board and Council in New Orleans for approval.
Our outreach to the Independent Psychoanalytic Societies has been equally fruitful. We are discussing possibilities not only for cooperation but also perhaps at some point for a merger, either singly or as a group. These groups suffered the consequences of our earlier elitist stance. They prize their independence and autonomy, and we must keep these factors in mind as we move ahead.
Finally there are the “free-standing” institutes, many of which developed because of the narrowness of our vision, past and present. These groups have their own histories and traditions, which we must respect if we are to forge new alliances. Unquestionable progress has been made on this front as well.
Our newfound openness is evidence of greater authentic confidence in our Association, its stability, and its resolve to maintain the principles for which it has stood. It also reflects our understanding that psychoanalysis is not our sole possession and our recognition that there is much to be learned and gained from our psychoanalytic associates.