Psychoanalytic Education

To The Editor of the Psychologist-Psychoanalyst

In his letter (Vol. XX No.4) Dr. Nathan Stockhamer speaks as if he considers my concerns (letter Vol. XX No.3)  about  the impact of the Consortium on the future of psychoanalysis as unwarranted.  While I cannot question  his detailed and encyclopedic knowledge of bureaucratic processes, history and rules, I find myself baffled as to how  the “facts” he  elaborates speak to these concerns, namely,  the narrowing scope of alternatives/diversity and the freezing of creativity and self direction/control  in psychoanalytic education, practice, theory and scholarship as consequence of our participation in the Consortium.

Approximately five years ago, I attended a meeting convened and chaired by Dr. Nathan Stockhamer. At this time he explained in great detail the “political” situation we were facing which made our participation in the Consortium imperative.  As I understood his presentation, the Council For Higher Education was increasing the pressure on psychoanalytic professionals to develop standards for education and training, if these professionals were interested in having a say about the standards.  If they did not participate standards would be imposed from other sources and/or those psychoanalytic professionals who chose to submit their ideas and advise.  The Consortium was developed to provide a response to this "request"  by the Council with input which the four groups believed would be more suitable than  that being offered by others.  From this perspective the Consortium was convened with the intention of submitting  its standards to the Council For Higher Education for their implementation in defining/regulating the form of psychoanalytic education and training necessary for payment by federal programs,  albeit with whatever modifications the Council might/will eventually make. From this perspective the purposes of generating the Standards would seem quite clearly their submission  for future implementation, rather than  their being suggestions which might or might not  be submitted  for implementation as Dr. Stockhamer suggests in his example of  The Accreditation Council For Graduate Medical Education.

The second source of my perplexity lies in some recent actions by the Board  of the Division, which actions serve to expand the scope of influence of the Consortium to psychoanalytic practice. At the August meeting of the Board a motion was made and passed to support the Consortium’s developing a letter to be sent to State Legislatures about standards for the licensing of psychoanalysts.  The standards being developed by the Consortium would serve as the recommended standards for such licensing -- in effect,  opening the door  for rules requiring  attendance at an accredited institute as criteria for licensure. While an amendment to negotiate the inclusion in the proposed letter of the possession of  ABPP  as an alternative pathway for licensure was  introduced  and accepted,  the overlooking  of this  qualification   in the original proposal made by OUR negotiators/representatives to the Consortium demonstrates the narrowing of thinking which inherently arises with attempts at such regulation.

Again, a major motivation for passing this motion about a letter to the state legislatures, in a very hurried manner, came from the notion that "other" groups’ standards would be used if the Consortium did not do so and that these "other" standards would in some way  negatively impact us. Also a motivation, as I understood the explanation given to me regarding the rush to action, was our conviction/fear that not to do so, right then, would make us look bad to our “partners”.  The passing of a licensing  law in Vermont, very different from the Consortium’s standards,  seemed also to be one of the motivating factors in the Consortium’s press for contact with the state legislatures.

The impact on many members of the Division of Psychoanalysis on their calling themselves psychoanalysts and on their earning their living as such, should such licensure come about based upon the standards of the Consortium, is obvious. Equally obvious, should this extension of the Consortium’s influence and actions come to pass, is the eventual limiting of the name Psychoanalyst  through licensure and the exclusion of those individuals and institutes who choose, because they believe them most consistent with psychoanalytic core principles and therefore preferable, other formats of organizing the learning and teaching of psychoanalysis than those  in  conformity with the consortium standards. 

The above issues were the concerns  I raised in my earlier letter and remain  issues about which I continue to believe the membership of the Division of Psychoanalysis  should be very concerned and vocal. Open debate and discussion of our participation in the Consortium is called for. If participation in these activities, within the Consortium, is what the members of the Division desire, that should be known through some sort of vote/referendum and if it is not, then that also should be known through such a vote/referendum. To do less than that is to forget what psychoanalysis teaches us--that decision making is best undertaken without suppression or repression of complicating or unpleasant ideas. Surely the future of our discipline as alive and vibrant deserves our efforts in these regards

Etta Gluckstein Saxe, Ph.D.

This letter was originally printed in the Spring 2000 edition, Vol. XXI, No. 2,  of the Psychologist-Psychoanalyst, the newsletter of the Division of Psychoanalysis (39) of the American Psychological Association.  It is reprinted here with permission.

Contents  Legal  Ethical  Professional  Contact Us  Bibliography  Round Table 

 Academy Home      Academy Programs

ACADEMY FOR THE STUDY OF THE PSYCHOANALYTIC ARTS