In the course of working on a project on a completely different subject, one of us (Mosher) stumbled across a charming passage in a now somewhat obscure book on the history of psychoanalysis. This passage sheds some new, or at least clearer, light on our understanding of the meaning of APsaA's special status in relation to the International Psychoanalytical Association and especially how that status came about. So we decided to research it further. (See: bit.ly) The following account is a distillation of that White Paper.
The book, Psychoanalytic Pioneers: A History of Psychoanalysis as Seen through the Eyes, Lives and Works of Its Most Eminent Teachers, Thinkers and Clinicians, edited by Franz Alexander, Samuel Eisenstein and Martin Grotjahn and origionally published in 1966 by Basic Books, apparently was intended to show that psychoanalysis as it then existed had become the work of a number of contributors and not simply the product of the thought of a single person, Sigmund Freud. That is, in the words of the preface, it is a “history of the men and women who have made psychoanalysis what it is today…”
Published not long after the final volume of Ernest Jones's three volume biography of Freud (1957), the book seemed intended not only to share credit with others for the success of the psychoanalytic movement, but also to gently counterbalance a somewhat strict and rigid orthodox “Freudianism,” which had taken hold within some corners of the psychoanalytic world. Included among the subjects of the book's 40 biographical sketches are Rank, Adler, Jung, Klein, Reich, Horney, Hartmann, A. Freud and Erikson. Two chapters at the end of the book, however, leave the mold of biographical sketches to give first person accounts of the history of psychoanalysis in England and the United States. They were written by Edward Glover and John A. P. Millet respectively. It is to a specific passage in the final chapter by Millet, “Psychoanalysis in the United States,” to which we turn.
Millet is not well known today. A descendent of a respected Boston family and a graduate of the New York Psychoanalytic Institute in the 1930s, Millet was quite prominent in the tiny profession of psychoanalysis in the late 1930s. He later went on to become one of the founders of the Columbia Institute as well as president of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis. It was Millet who in 1951 made the motion at the APsaA meeting of members to investigate the delays in the admission to membership of some institute graduates, a motion which led to the first legal opinion and committee investigation of the functioning of the Board on Professional Standards in relation to the newly incorporated Association. One might imagine that, as one of the native bred and strongly pro-medical American analysts of his day, he might have been uncomfortable with the infusion of European orthodoxy experienced in New York psychoanalytic circles in the 1930s, which in the view of some members, was being carried forward into the new APsaA.
In his history of the development of psychoanalysis in the United States, Millet describes the growing tension between the American analysts and their European counterparts focused mainly on the question of training requirements and, in particular at that time, the question of training non-medical applicants. This issue had reached a peak in 1927 as a number of non-medically trained individuals who had traveled to Europe to be trained as psychoanalysts returned to New York only to be rejected by the New York Society.
By 1939, the Americans declared their independence of the “authoritarian control of the original Viennese group.” The prior year they had issued a statement that the American analysts would no longer participate in the International Training Commission (ITC) or the Executive Committee of the IPA and would make their own decisions about training standards in the U.S. They recommended that the ITC should be dissolved and the IPA should relinquish all controls over training standards. Plans were made to hold meetings to discuss this rupture in the fabric of psychoanalysis, but before such meetings could take place, World War II broke out and at the conclusion of the war the geography of psychoanalysis had shifted dramatically. The ranks of European analysts had been thinned drastically by the war, and psychoanalysis in the U.S. was experiencing phenomenal growth, shifting professional membership organization by adding centralized training standards in institutes which it “approved.”
By 1939, the Americans declared their independence of the “authoritarian control of the original Viennese group.”
By the 1960s, the status of APsaA in relation to the IPA was finally written into the IPA bylaws in a passage that is the subject of this note: (International Psychoanalytical Association, Rule 4A (3). ). The American Psychoanalytic Association was given the
status of the only “Regional Association” of the IPA, defined on the one hand as a kind of “Constituent Organization” of the IPA, just like societies in other countries, but different from other constituent organizations in that a “Regional Association” is defined as follows:
For historical and legal reasons, the IPA has one Regional Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, which is made up of members of some Psychoanalytical Societies in its geographic area, the United States of America. This Regional Association, within its structure, ultimately (i) exercises responsibility for the training and qualification of psychoanalysts; (ii) recognises subordinate bodies (its Affiliate Societies, Provisional Societies, Study Groups, and training facilities); and (iii) is responsible for developing and overseeing the performance of those subsidiary bodies.
In the above definition, the word “ultimately” conveys the essence of what was worked out between APsaA and the IPA in the years between 1946 and 1963 when the IPA bylaws were finally amended.
Describing the condition of psychoanalysis in the postwar period in this charming passage, and his own personal involvement in the establishing of a relationship between APsaA and the IPA, Millet wrote:
In the meantime, our European colleagues, whose professional activities had been completely disrupted under the grinding tyranny of the Hitler regime, exerted growing pressure for the re-establishment of the International Psycho-Analytical Association. Ernest Jones was the prime mover in this undertaking, representing as he did the rapidly thinning ranks of the old guard in Europe. After considerable discussion of plans for a meeting between him and representatives of the American Psychoanalytic Association, a committee was appointed by the president of the American Association to review the constitution and bylaws of the International Psycho-Analytical Association and to arrange a meeting with Jones in London to consider what changes should be made to bring these up to date. I was the chairman of the committee. Since the center of psychoanalytic organization was in the United States, it was expected that the views of the American committee, which included Max Gitelson and Edward and Grete Bibring, would be given full consideration. I was warned by some of my colleagues that Jones might be difficult to deal with; he did not like Americans and was resentful that the center of the movement was no longer in Europe or even in London where Anna Freud and some of her friends and colleagues had settled.
Jones invited the committee to dine with him at a well-known restaurant, an unusually hospitable gesture at a time when meat, sugar, and other food products were still strictly rationed in England. He could not have been a more genial and interesting host. He advised us that during our after dinner deliberations we were to be the guests of Anna Freud. After dinner, therefore, in a sort of reverential anticipation, we repaired to her house, where Freud had spent his last days. We all felt greatly honored to be there. As soon as the introductions had been made and the committee assembled, Jones opened the discussion in the friendliest manner conceivable. Our committee believed that we did not need a lengthy document with the constitutional aims bolstered and defended by a long list of bylaws. To my great surprise, Jones concurred. After the incorporation of a few minor changes suggested by him, we found no difficulty in achieving consensus on the various points in the draft, which became the proposal for a new constitution of the International Psycho-Analytical Association, which was to be submitted to the national associations for consideration and approval. That evening's experience in August 1948, is unforgettable. The ready friendliness of our British hosts carried with it none of the authoritarian flavor so familiar in the councils of our national association.
Since that time, the International Psycho-Analytical Association has been gradually restored in some degree to its position as arbiter of the fitness for full accreditation of newly organized psychoanalytic societies. A certain aura of authority still clings to its name…. however, it no longer exercises any control over the educational programs of the various psychoanalytic institutes, whose graduates belong to their national associations. [emphasis added]
…World War II broke out and at the conclusion of the war the geography of psychoanalysis had shifted dramatically.
As a result of Millet's description, we believe that, until now, we have been misreading the “Regional Association” status of APsaA, because it was agreed APsaA would have complete control of the training standards of our “approved institutes” and would not, in any way, be answerable to oversight by the IPA. The IPA could, of course, offer advice (“advisory role”) but without any specific authority regarding training standards, except, perhaps, in the most extreme and egregious circumstances where the two organizations could not continue their connection. The authority of the IPA would be limited to the recognition (approval) of new training programs in other countries which did not have a national organization like APsaA. Millet's account is like a Rosetta Stone, offering an understanding of what the words in the IPA bylaws describing the Regional Association, Rule 4A (3), mean, in particular the word “ultimately,” and in addition tells us why that section relating to the Regional Association (i.e., APsaA) is so brief and uncomplicated.
The second account, “Committees at Work” by Ives Hendrick, was published in a 1948 issue of the Bulletin of the American Psychoanalytical Association (). Also written by Millet, this second account is a less personal version of the same meeting, found in his report from the International Committee of APsaA to the Executive Council at its 1948 meeting. It concluded as follows:
…The fears of our American colleagues that the officers of the International Association would wish to control such matters as the standards of training and regulations for the acceptability of candidates appear to be unfounded. The mushroom growth of the psychoanalytic movement in the United States has created a situation, which our English colleagues realize will require a larger measure of autonomy in the national associations. Some feeling, however, was expressed that the International Association should retain an advisory function, with sufficient authority to safeguard the interests of science in those areas where psychoanalysis is invading virgin territory. [emphasis added]
…APsaA is a part of the IPA, but is not under the IPA's control insofar as training standards are concerned.
Robert Wallerstein, in his 1998 detailed book on the history of the lay analysis issue. Lay Analysis: Life Inside the Controversy, alludes to the meeting and in addition quotes from another mention of the meeting found in A Brief History of the International Psychoanalytical Association by Adam Limentani, in a 1996 issue of the International Journal of Psycho-Analysis.
Working, evidently without Millet's report available, Wallerstein nonetheless describes the agreement as having
…two main components: (1) The Americans would have total autonomy in regard to training standards in the United States with no IPA oversight (such as did exist in relation to all other component Societies in other nations); (2) the American would have this “exclusive franchise” in its geographical area, meaning that the IPA would recognize no training bodies in the U.S. other than those under the auspices of the American.
The special status of APsaA among all the IPA Constituent Organizations was codified in the IPA Bylaws in 1963 with the words: “A Regional Association comprises a number of Societies in a Continental, Subcontinental or National Region in which ultimate responsibility for matters related
Page 4to the training and qualification of psycho-analysts is assigned to the Regional Association. [emphases in original]
As a result of part of the settlement of the psychologists’ lawsuit in the 1990s, through an IPA bylaw amendment, the second point of the agreement was removed, so APsaA's exclusive franchise was rescinded, but the first part of the agreement, APsaA's ultimate (now “ultimately” in Rule 4A (3) authority or “total authority” was left intact. Hence, APsaA is a part of the IPA, but is not under the IPA's control insofar as training standards are concerned. APsaA is not required to maintain IPA training standards in the approved institutes but clearly may deviate from those standards, within reason, in whatever way it sees fit.
2016 Update
The IPA's lawyers have subsequently confirmed the findings and conclusions that have emerged from our study of these source documents. Stefano Bolognini, IPA president, reported this in a letter to the IPA Board of Representatives and so informed the Association on February 27, 2016, in a letter to APsaA president, Mark Smaller, and president-elect, Harriet Wolfe. Bolognini summarizes the findings as follows:
APsaA is entitled to determine its own training and qualification standards, utterly independent of any standards that the IPA may establish. APsaA, for example, does not need to conform to any of the “Three Models” set out in the IPA's Procedural Code;
Despite another section of the IPA's Rules stating that all component organizations must be in compliance with the IPA's Procedural Code (which includes training and qualification standards), this does not overrule APsaA's entitlement to determine its own training and qualification standards—APsaA is required to comply only with those parts of IPA Criteria which are unrelated to training and qualification standards;
A consequence of this is that APsaA is absolutely entitled to apply equivalency standards of its own devising when deciding whether to admit into APsaA membership (and, thus, into IPA membership) psychoanalysts trained elsewhere.
The institutional relationship of the IPA and APsaA is clearly a matter of significant importance to all of us. I thought it would be helpful for you to have this information at this time since I think it is the clearest statement yet of the extent of APsaA's independence from the IPA regarding training and qualification standards.
Editor's Note:
Page 5For more information about this article's sources, please contact Ralph Fishkin at .