The American Psychoanalytic Association was founded on May 9, 1911, at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in Baltimore. James Jackson Putnam of Boston reluctantly accepted the presidency, and Ernest Jones, who had arranged the meeting at Freud's request, became secretary. A. A. Brill, who had previously founded the New York Psychoanalytic Society (NYPS) on February 12, 1911, was not present because he preferred to maintain an independent relationship with Freud and the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA). The monthly meetings of the New York Psychoanalytic Society met in Brill's apartment on Central Park West, in other analysts' apartments, and at the Boulevard Café. Members vied with each other in giving papers and denouncing “quacks” who practiced analysis without being physicians.
…“psychoanalysis was cradled in Boston but raised and grew up in New York.”
Two years earlier, in a letter to Freud, Ernest Jones described his first meeting with Putnam in Boston, at the house of Morton Prince, a leader of the psychotherapy movement. Jones and Putnam shared an enthusiasm for Freud's theories and later that spring at a meeting of the American Psychotherapeutic Society, each gave vigorous presentations in praise of psychoanalysis. Putnam spoke about childhood sexuality and Jones proclaimed that free association was “in almost every respect the reverse of treatment by suggestion.”
As we all know, at the invitation of G. Stanley Hall, Freud traveled to Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, in September 1909, and delivered the Clark Lectures. The proceedings have been described many times, in greatest detail by Saul Rosenzweig (“The Historic Expedition to America,” 1992). Putnam invited Freud to stay at his Adirondack camp and established an intimate correspondence with him that lasted until Putnam's death in 1918. In 1914 Putnam founded the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and wrote some 20 papers advocating analysis. Jones continued his North American exile as a roving missionary for analysis, in touch with both Putnam and Freud until his return to England in 1912.
For many years the annual meeting of the American Psychoanalytic Association coincided with the spring meetings of the American Therapeutic Society, to which many early analysts also belonged. In 1924 this link with the meetings of the advocates of the pre-analytic psychotherapies of suggestion came to an end, and subsequent APsaA meetings coincided with meetings of the American Psychiatric Association. A. A. Brill added a second annual meeting of the Association to take place in New York, originally between Christmas and New Year's. As neither our Association nor the International Psychoanalytical Association limited its membership to physicians, the psychologist G. Stanley Hall was president of APsaA from 1917-18.
During the First World War, William Alanson White proposed that the Association merge with the American Psychiatric Association, but this was rejected by Brill and Clarence Oberndorff, an early NYPS member, who had written “psychoanalysis was cradled in Boston but raised and grew up in New York.” When Brill became APsaA president in 1919, APsaA, like the New York Society, became opposed to lay analysis. In 1925, Carolyn Newton, who had been analyzed in Vienna by Otto Rank, was deprived of her “guest privileges” at the New York Psychoanalytic Society. Freud responded to American opposition with his eloquent defense of lay analysis in 1926.
Sanford Gifford, M.D., is director of Archives at the Boston Psychoanalytic Society/Institute. For many years he has served as co-chairman of the History, Archives, and Library Committee of APsaA.
Nellie Thompson, Ph.D., an historian and member of the New York Psychoanalytic Society and Institute, is curator of the Brill Library's Archives and Special Collections. Her research interests include the role of women psychoanalysts in the psychoanalytic movement.
In 1929, at the Oxford Congress of the International Psychoanalytical Association, there was a threat that our Association might withdraw from the IPA, but Ernest Jones arranged a compromise. Brill allowed some non-M.D.s (i.e., non-psychiatrists) to become affiliate members, provided they agreed not to practice analysis. The conflict was not resolved, however, and during the 1930s many Americans analyzed abroad were denied membership in the New York Psychoanalytic Society and APsaA, while eminent non-psychiatrists like Erik Erikson were admitted by means of a grandfather clause.
In 1932, the Association was reorganized as a federation, instead of an association of individual members, with its constituent members the New York, Boston, Washington-Baltimore, and Chicago societies. In 1938, at the International Psychoanalytical Association meeting in Paris, some Americans proposed that European analysts emigrating to the U.S. should not be recognized as training analysts without being approved by the Association. This was a highly insensitive proposal, at a time when European analysts were fleeing from the Nazis in Germany and Austria. This restriction on the membership of foreign analysts formed part of a proposal to abolish the 1925 International Training Commission. Once again, Ernest Jones proposed a compromise, to postpone consideration until the next IPA Congress, but the Second World War supervened and there was no IPA Congress until 1946. By this time, according to Robert Wallerstein, the postponement had been forgotten.
…many émigrés quickly became training analysts, resulting in the rapid Europeanization of American analysis. In Boston, for example, the recently arrived Europeans soon outnumbered their American counterparts.
Meanwhile, in contrast to the Paris proposal, New York and all the local analytic societies in America warmly welcomed the huge influx of refugee analysts. An Emergency Committee on Relief and Immigration was established in March 1938, chaired by Lawrence Kubie, then secretary of APsaA. Soon Bettina Warburg was appointed his co-chair and Bertram Lewin served as treasurer. The committee's mandate was to help refugees with travel expenses, visas, and finding jobs. In fulfilling this task, they often urged émigrés to settle in communities with less well-established analytic societies that might be in need of training analysts. But the Bulletin of Information the committee distributed to émigrés also emphasized that émigré analysts, no matter what their status in Europe as training analysts, were expected to present their credentials to training institutes recognized by the Association in order to be recognized as training analysts here. In fact, many émigrés quickly became training analysts, resulting in the rapid Europeanization of American analysis. In Boston, for example, the recently arrived Europeans soon outnumbered their American counterparts.
In 1946, another reorganization in our bylaws reestablished APsaA as an association of individual members. The M.D. (psychiatrist) requirement for membership was reaffirmed, but “affiliate status” was allowed for psychologists and other non-psychiatrists who signed waivers that their use of analysis was limited to research. Another restriction, that each city should have only one institute, was rescinded, opening a new era of multiple institutes within the same city, allowing institutes to split.
In the 1930s, another divisive issue had emerged, still related to the lay analysis dispute. This was a proposal that psychoanalysis be made a “specialty board” within the American Psychiatric Association. Defining analysis as a subspecialty of psychiatry was a drastic move toward the further medicalization of analysis, which came to be called “certification,” in a different sense from the later certification of members. Ives Hendrick and Bertram Lewin were its chief advocates, while it was strongly opposed by most European analysts. The certification proposal was defeated in the mid-1950s, and by 1976, after decades of controversy, there was a gradual reduction in American resistance to lay analysis. George Pollock's proposal for an academic doctoral (Ph.D.) program in psychoanalysis was a step in that direction. Though it was defeated, the vote in the Association's membership showed substantial support. It was followed by Robert Wallerstein's program for a doctorate in mental health, which proved more successful, and many of his candidates became analysts.
Nevertheless, in spite of repeated proposals to modify the physician (psychiatrist) requirement, a powerful faction within APsaA had repeatedly blocked any changes by referring each proposal to be reconsidered by one more committee. Affiliate and associate members were admitted in 1976, and finally at the May meeting, Herbert Gaskell's proposal was approved by 67 percent of the membership. But even in this opening to non-psychiatrists, the language of the
proposal still professed to preserve the “essentially medical nature of our organization.” Further relaxation of restrictions on non-physicians was hastened by a suit four psychologists brought against the Association, the New York and Columbia Institutes, and the IPA, based on anti-discrimination statutes that the plaintiffs were denied membership “in restraint of trade.” In 1990, the parties settled, allowing non-medical applicants to apply for full psychoanalytic training. Another progressive change took place in 1991, when homosexuality was no longer considered pathological and gay men and women were accepted for analytic training.
In 1932, Robert P. Knight, then secretary of APsaA, had declared that membership in our Association was a sufficient credential to be a psychoanalyst, and graduation from an approved institute guaranteed membership in APsaA. But after the 1946 reorganization, membership was linked to a certification process: To become a member, one had to be certified through an application to the Board on Professional Standards (BOPS). The application process required submitting credentials and case reports, but by 1951 a substantial number of graduates had refused to comply with this requirement. In 1972, the Membership Committee was renamed the Certification Committee, and the Executive Council with its elected members questioned whether the Board on Professional Standards, with its narrower membership by appointment, had the right to restrict membership. After some controversy, the authority of BOPS was confirmed. Noncertified analysts were offered limited membership for three years, renewable for another three years with proof that the member was seeking certification. Over time, and following “delinkage” between limited membership in the Association and certification in 1992, one-third of the membership (not including candidate members) lacked certification and could not vote on bylaws or hold office. In 2001, voting restrictions were removed. By 2002, candidates were given full voting membership.
In 2001, voting restrictions were removed. By 2002, candidates were given full voting membership.
In recent years there has been concern about our membership numbers and finances. At one time, any analyst over the age of 70 was considered to be retired and was granted (free) life membership. Life membership was later discontinued, and various inducements were offered “Senior Members“ to continue paying at reduced rates. New members have increased from two sources. The first source is non-psychiatric members. The Association now includes members who are psychologists, social workers, non-psychiatric physicians, and academic researchers, in addition to psychiatrists. The second source is graduates of American institutes recognized by the International Psychoanalytical Association but not belonging to APsaA.
In addition to our controversies about the certification of members and the authority of BOPS, there has been debate on training analyst status. Various remedies have been proposed, including returning TA status to the analyst's local society, where her or his work is best known. The Standards for Education and Training in Psychoanalysis recently underwent a comprehensive revision. This resulted in a more flexible system which allows for a potential candidate to continue a personal analysis, and have it serve as a training analysis, independent of the analyst's TA status. This is contingent on the analyst meeting criteria for suitability and eligibility.
In conclusion, it can be said that while many of these recurrent organizational issues are yet to be resolved, they have been addressed in some manner for the last 100 years. In recent years, some of these challenges have been met, and even resolved, in a spirit of cooperation and creativity.