 |
|
|
|
William Jeffrey, M.D., editor of the newsletter of the American Psychoanalytic Association, invited Dr. Wagner to write an article about the Division of Psychoanalysis. The following article was published in The American Psychoanalyst, Volume 34, No 1, 2000. THE DIVISION OF
PSYCHOANALYSIS The Division of Psychoanalysis is one of 52 Divisions of the American Psychological Association (APA). While psychoanalysis and organized psychology, in the form of the American Psychological Association, both came into existence roughly one hundred years ago the relationship between the two has been less than optimal until the past two decades. The APA was created in 1892, with forty-two members, both psychologists and philosophers. In the early years of APA the question of psychology's identity came in the form of whether or not it was related to philosophy or to the natural sciences. By 1901 the matter was seemingly resolved when the philosophers formed a splinter group, the American Philosophical Association. Freud certainly had his influential champions in early psychology; he was introduced to American by G. Stanley Hall at Clark University in 1909. After Freud's visit, psychoanalysis began to flower in the United States and following World War II enjoyed a particularly vibrant existence. However, due to the medicalization of psychoanalysis in the United States by the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA) and the International Psychoanalytic Association's (IPA) recognition of APsaA as the sole entry point for institutes in the United States to join IPA, psychoanalytic training was closed to most psychologists. Independent institutes who welcomed psychologists were established in the New York City metropolitan area (e.g., Adelphi University's Derner Institute, The National Psychological Association for Psychoanalysis, The New York Freudian Society, The New York University Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis, The William Alanson White Institute), but little was available across the country. At the same time the American Psychological Association was growing and flourishing, but it had no strong, unified psychoanalytic voice. In 1968 psychologist psychoanalysts began to explore establishing a national organization. Through the efforts of Reuben Fine, who became the first president of the Division of Psychoanalysis, organized psychology and psychoanalysis reached a turning point in 1979 when the American Psychological Association voted to establish a Division of Psychoanalysis (39). Today Division 39 enjoys a membership of 4000, including members, fellows, associates, allied professionals and students. We are the fifth largest division in the American Psychological Association, which now includes 159,000 members and is the world's largest association of psychologists. In the past twenty years the Division of Psychoanalysis has established itself as a leader within both the psychology community and the larger psychoanalytic community. Within psychology the Division and its members have: held the Clark Conference on Psychoanalytic Training for Psychologists and published the proceedings, Tradition and Innovation in Psychoanalytic Education (Erlbaum,1990); become a prominent part of APA governance; supported lawsuits filed by APA against managed care companies; secured diplomate status in psychoanalysis for our members through the American Board of Professional Psychology; and established psychoanalysis as a specialty in psychology, recognized by APA's Commission for the Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology (CRSPPP). One of our members, Bryant Welch, became the first director of APA's Practice Directorate, which launched the first major campaign against managed care and brought psychology into the legislative process. Within the larger psychoanalytic community, we have initiated the lawsuit whose settlement resulted in opening membership in the APsaA to nonphysicians and membership in the IPA to non-APsaA institutes; founded the Psychoanalytic Consortium and the Ethics Committee of the Consortium; launched a journal, Psychoanalytic Psychology, and a newsletter, Psychologist Psychoanalyst; made significant inroads in federal advocacy and public information; and held 19 exciting and groundbreaking Spring Meetings, which have featured all varieties of psychoanalytic theory, fostered exchange and debate among these different theories and been an avenue for the burgeoning voices of the interpersonal, intersubjective and relational schools of psychoanalysis. At our annual meeting in April 2000 in San Francisco we have invited our fellow Consortium members to participate in a panel discussion entitled: The Future of Psychoanalytic Education: Can We All Work Together? Straddling Two Cultures Clearly the Division of Psychoanalysis straddles two cultures, that of psychology and that of psychoanalysis. Its mission within these two cultures is driven by the objectives of the Division, as stated in our bylaws: "1. To broaden and enhance scientific contributions of psychoanalysis to psychology as a science and as a profession; 2. To encourage and support educational programs and research having to do with the discipline of psychoanalysis and its application to society; 3. To keep the psychological community and the public informed of research and other activity in psychoanalysis through the exchange of scientific ideas, meetings and publications; 4. To increase public awareness of the benefits of psychoanalytic principles and treatment and the applicability of psychoanalytic thought to society as a whole; 5. To encourage and seek to maintain the highest standards for training in psychoanalysis as developed through the APA." The Division of Psychoanalysis is an interest group. Any member of the American Psychological Association interested in psychoanalysis can join. Many of our members are institute trained analysts, many are informally trained analysts and many are psychoanalytic psychologists. In August 1998 we expanded our membership criteria to include nonpsychologists. Licensed mental health professionals who are psychoanalysts or interested in psychoanalysis may now join the Division. The push for this inclusion of other mental health professions came in great part from our Section of Local Chapters. Division 39 has nine different sections and one of those, the Section of Local Chapters, has thirty local chapters across the country. My own involvement in the Division of Psychoanalysis started at the local chapter level, where I was President of the Dallas Society for Psychoanalytic Psychology and its representative to the Senate of the Section of Local Chapters. Interest in psychoanalysis continues to grow at the local level, as evidenced by the addition of two chapters, San Antonio and Kansas City, in 1999. The Division of Psychoanalysis is committed to diversity and pluralism. We believe this commitment is our strength. In fact, it is more than a commitment; it is part of our identity. At the same time it can make the work of the Division very complicated. We are a heterogeneous group. Our members come from independent institutes, institutes of the APsaA, institutes of the International Psychoanalytic Societies (IPS), institutes of the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis (NAAP) and no institutes at all. We represent just about every theoretical framework. Our organizational structure is a horizontal, rather than a vertical one. We have a nine member executive committee, consisting of our President, President-Elect, Past-President, Secretary, Treasurer and four Representatives to APA Council. Our 27 member Board of Directors consists of our executive committee, nine members-at-large and a representative from each of the nine sections. Credentialing and Accreditation The Bylaws of the American Psychological Association prevent Division 39 itself from credentialing individuals and accrediting training programs. Regarding credentialing, we have established a completely separate and incorporated Board, the American Board of Psychoanalysis in Psychology(ABPsaP). This Board is one of the specialty boards of the American Board of Professional Psychology. ABPsaP is responsible for examining applicants and in the past few years since 1996 the Board has awarded "diplomate in psychoanalysis" status to over seventy of our members . Regarding accreditation, we can engage with other groups, for instance with the Consortium, to establish a separate National Accrediting Board in Psychoanalysis, of which we would be a part. Additionally, the option is available to pursue accreditation of postdoctoral psychoanalytic training programs in psychology (possibly, including those that are multidisciplinary) through APA's Committee on Accreditation, which is a Department of Education approved accrediting agency. Many independent institutes are identified with the Division of Psychoanalysis because they evolved from local chapters (e.g. Massachusetts Institute of Psychoanalysis, Psychoanalytic Institute of Northern California). These institutes are completely separate legal entities, but were founded by key members of the Division of Psychoanalysis and certainly have the support of the Division, which at times involves gifts of money. Many of our members are associated with independent institutes which have taken a thoughtful and theoretically sound position toward training that is somewhat different from that of the American Psychoanalytic Association. Many, but by no means all, reject the Berlin 1920 model as the best model for analytic training. All of these institutes incorporate certain core standards, e.g. extensive coursework, supervised control cases and a personal analysis. Many believe psychoanalysis is best served and analysts best trained without a training analyst system, leaving the candidate free to choose his or her analyst. Further, many of the independent institutes take the position that interrupting an analysis in order to be analyzed by a training analyst violates the cornerstone of psychoanalysis, namely the psychoanalytic process. Many have attempted to take a more democratic approach to analytic training, in which the candidate plays a more active role in determining the course of his or her training. Many innovative thinkers in psychoanalysis are associated with these institutes; among them are Lewis Aron, Jessica Benjamin, Philip Bromberg, Jay Greenberg, Adrienne Harris, Irwin Hoffman, Stephen Mitchell, Stuart Pizer, Charles Spezzano, and Robert Stolorow. The Division of Psychoanalysis has a significant investment in maintaining the highest standards of training in psychoanalysis. To that end we are working with our fellow Consortium members to establish a set of standards which are satisfactory to all involved and which, also, reflect and represent the richness of diversity in psychoanalytic education. It is our hope and goal that we will reach an agreement which allows the Consortium to move on to establishing an independent and autonomous National Accrediting Board in Psychoanalysis. Clearly, the four member organizations of the Consortium have different organizational structures. The Division of Psychoanalysis represents a far more heterogeneous group than does the American Psychoanalytic Association; at times this makes for differences in our approach to the work of the Consortium. The Division of Psychoanalysis represents pluralism and diversity. It is our belief that standards of psychoanalytic education must respect both tradition and diversity. Dr. Wagner is a member of the Dallas Society for Psychoanalytic Psychology and current President of Division 39 (Psychoanalysis) of the American Psychological Association. Top of Page |
E-Mail Web-Editor
|
