The transformation of psychoanalysis in America: emigré analysts and the New York Psychoanalytic Society and institute, 1935-1961

Part I reviews the role of the Emergency Committee on Relief and Immigration of the American Psychoanalytic Association, chaired by Lawrence Kubie and Bettina Warburg, members of the New York Psychoanalytic Society, in facilitating the immigration to the United States of scores of European analysts and candidates between 1938 and 1943. The challenges facing the committee are outlined in reports written by Kubie and Warburg. In particular, the intractable problem of how to integrate European lay analysts into the American Psychoanalytic Association was an ever present problem. Part II describes the impact emigré analysts had on the intellectual life of the New York Psychoanalytic Society and Institute, and considers how the psychoanalytic work of the emigrés was influenced by their move to America. The reminiscences of two emigré analysts, Peter Neubauer and Kurt R. Eissler, on their experience of coming to the United States close the paper.     

Consultant or Comrade: Comments About Analysts' Working Relationships in Schools

The articles in this issue of the Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies pose a dilemma for educators. On the one hand, each article describes an important psychosocial intervention implemented in schools. On the other hand, these interventions, at least as described in the articles, are either imposed on the work of teachers and students or isolated from that work. Either circumstance ultimately limits the impact of the intervention. I claim that analysts and teachers are natural allies despite lack of evidence for alliance in these articles. To extend that alliance beyond conversations about individual children, analysts must understand that teachers' views of learning and development are different from those that influence the organization and management of schools.     

ÉmigrÉ analysts in Boston, 1930-1940

A brief history of the European analysts who settled in Boston during the first decade of the newly re-organized Boston Psychoanalytic Society/Institute, as part of the great intellectual migration fleeing from Hitler Germany and Austria. The term émigré was chosen as more inclusive, since not all were refugees forced to emigrate. The sequence of each analyst's arrival is traced, and their reasons for choosing Boston are identified, whenever possible.     

Conducting analysis after September 11: implications for psychoanalytic technique

The September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center profoundly affected the population of New York City, including analysts and analysands. To study the effect of this event on the technique of psychoanalysts conducting ongoing analysis during the weeks after 9/11, confidential questionnaires were sent to all candidates and faculty at the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research. Respondents indicated that in the days and weeks following 9/11 they initiated phone calls to their analysands, asked about their analysands' families, gave advice when it was requested, offered reassurance, and answered personal questions. They did not initiate physical contact, discontinue use of the couch, or give unsolicited advice. These responses suggest that these analysts made decisions to alter their technique in certain ways in the wake of a catastrophic event shared by the community.     

Psychoanalytic practice in the early postgraduate years

As a pilot investigation for a longitudinal study of psychoanalytic careers, a survey was conducted of analysts who graduated during the last fifteen years from the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research. Graduates were asked to describe both their analytic practice and their interest in pursuing appointment as training and supervising analysts. The 23-item questionnaire was completed by 67 of 102 potential respondents (66%). The study identified two subgroups of graduates: those who were not certified and were not training analysts (GAs), 78% of the sample, and certified and training analysts (CAs, TAs), 22% of the sample. GAs started a mean of 1.4 new analytic cases since graduation, as compared to CAs and TAs, who started a mean of 5.4 and 8.3 new cases, respectively. CAs and TAs also saw more twice-weekly therapy cases than did GAs. Once-weekly therapy was the most commonly practiced treatment for all subgroups. Interest in becoming a TA was highest during the first five postgraduate years and was lower among non-TAs five to fifteen years after graduation. Only one of the CA respondents met current APsaA immersion criteria for training analyst appointment.     

Hypothesis-testing strategies: Why two goals are better than one

An intriguing finding in the hypothesis-testing literature concerns a large increase in the proportion of subjects who discover a rule when they are asked to determine two rules rather than that rule alone. This finding is based on Wason's (1960) “2 4 6” task, in which subjects try to discover a rule (ascending numbers) by generating and testing number triples. They are initially given an example (“2, 4, 6”) of the rule that leads to overly specific hypotheses. With single-goal (SG) instructions, subjects try to discover the correct rule and are told whether each triple proposed fits the rule. With dual-goal (DG) instructions, correct and incorrect categories are labelled, respectively, as DAX and MED. Subjects try to discover both rules and are told whether each proposed triple is DAX or MED. Two explanations of why DG subjects do better at rule discovery than SG subjects are tested: the quantity of information and the testing of complementary rules using the prevalent positive-test strategy. Results support the latter explanation: DG subjects outperform SG subjects only if they know the rules are complementary, and that SG subjects' performance does not improve when required to test more triples before announcing their first rule. A third explanation, the positivity of the linguistic label of the feedback, is ruled out. Understanding the superiority of DG instructions might suggest a general method for enhancing rule discovery.     

Reasons for Reason-giving in a Public-Opinion Survey

This paper explores why respondents to a telephone public-opinion survey often give reasons for answering as they do, even though reason-giving is neither required nor encouraged and it is difficult to see the reasons as attempts to deal with disagreement. We find that respondents give reasons for the policy claims they make in their answers three times as frequently as they give reasons for value or factual claims, that their reasons tend to involve appeals to personal experience, and that they often talk about their thought processes, especially when the evidentiary stakes are high. We then explore several ways of explaining these findings. We suggest that one useful approach is to see the reason-giving in the survey interviews as deliberative, reflexive argumentation of the sort described as `critical thinking. We further suggest that the reason such argumentation is often conducted out loud in the interviews, rather than internally, is that it functions in the service of rhetorical ethos, in particular the need to display the fact that one is human, with human autonomy and agency. Doing this may be particularly important in contexts such as anonymous survey interviews in which people are at risk of being treated like machines.     

Mixed reasons,missed givings: The costs of blending egoistic and altruistic reasons in donation requests

Do people give more when benefits to others and oneself are emphasized? We propose that mixing egoistic and altruistic reasons reduces the likelihood of giving by increasing individuals' awareness that a persuasion attempt is occurring, which elicits psychological reactance. In Experiment 1, university alumni were less likely to give money to their alma mater when an electronic donation request emphasized both egoistic and altruistic reasons, compared to either reason alone. In Experiment 2, undergraduates reported lower giving intentions when a donation request emphasized an altruistic and an egoistic reason, compared to either altruistic or egoistic reasons alone. In Experiment 3, undergraduates reported lower intentions to give to the Make-A-Wish Foundation when the donation request featured both egoistic and altruistic reasons; this effect was mediated in two stages by increased persuasion awareness and heightened psychological reactance. This research sheds light on when messages that purport to align self-interest and other-interest can backfire.     

The Columbia Supervision Project: data from the dyad

Anonymous questionnaires were sent to all candidates and supervisors at the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research (hereafter "Columbia"). Questions focused on the four domains most emphasized in the literature on supervision: logistical issues; the "teach or treat" question; the evaluatory function of the supervisor; and the affective experience of supervision. By coding the questionnaires, anonymity of respondents was maintained while allowing for a matched pair of analyses of supervisors and supervisees. Return rate was over 85 percent. In general, rates of satisfaction with supervision were high, and candidates and supervisors agreed on such issues as the "teach or treat" question, as well as the technical and theoretical frame of reference of the supervisor. However, there were striking disagreements between candidates and supervisors as to the role of the supervisor, what candidates find useful in supervision, the evaluatory function, and the relation between supervision and progression to graduation. Although 50 percent of candidates reported anxiety about receiving credit for cases, this was not routinely discussed in supervision, and the supervisory relationship itself was not discussed in over 50 percent of dyads. Despite high overall satisfaction ratings, 25 percent of candidates said they wished they had a different supervisor for the case, and 75 percent believed that a candidate who asked to switch supervisors would be labeled problematic. In contrast, over 75 percent of supervisors reported that switching supervisors carries no stigma. In a follow-up study conducted one year later, many candidates reported that they feared reprisals for switching, and some reported that their training analysts advised against "rocking the boat." Candidates felt that participating in the study emboldened them to think more openly about supervision and in some cases to make changes.     

The Psychology of Eyewitness Testimony: A Comparison of Experts and Prospective Jurors

To compare people's beliefs about eyewitness testimony with expert opinion, 79 college students and community adults filled out a questionnaire in which they reported whether they agreed or disagreed with 21 statements previously used in a survey of eyewitness experts (Kassin, Ellsworth, & Smith, 1989). The results indicated that there was a significant inter-item correlation of agreement rates but that subjects differed from the experts on 15 of these items. For courts seeking to determine the extent to which juries need assistance in their evaluations of eyewitness evidence, these findings offer a tentative list of topics worthy of either expert testimony or cautionary instructions from the judge.     

The psychoanalytic process

Analysts differ in how they conceptualize the psychoanalytic process, according to their understanding of the psychoanalytic theory of mental functioning in general and the nature of pathogenesis in particular. Emphasizing that psychoanalysis is a psychology of mental conflict, the authors see the psychoanalytic process in terms of the dynamic interplay between the manifestations of the patient's unconscious and the analyst's interventions. What analysts communicate to analysands serves to destabilize the equilibrium of forces within the mind, leading to the analysands' growing understanding of the nature of their conflicts and how they deal with them. Psychoanalytic process, accordingly, cannot be distinguished or separated from psychoanalytic technique.     

Patients reading about themselves: a stimulus to psychoanalytic work

Patients' reading of their psychoanalysts' papers about them as a vehicle for psychoanalytic work is a relatively new phenomenon in the field. Over the past five years, reports of analysts' employment of their writing in this fashion have begun to appear in the analytic literature. This paper presents clinical illustrations of this specific use of analysts' writing. These illustrations were drawn from interviews with analysts who published clinical articles in Psychoanalytic Dialogues between 1995 and 2003. The author considers some of the clinical and scientific implications of this use of papers written for publication.     

Ferenczian Elasticity in the Analysis of an Adolescent

Psychoanalytic work with adolescents poses a challenge for analysts who adhere to standard analytic technique as many adolescents who need analytic intervention resist such a structured approach to analysis. The author finds that elasticity of technique is currently widely used by analysts when working with this difficult age group even though they may be unaware that this is, in fact, a Ferenczian technique. Clinical examples are presented to illustrate how frequently the technique is used in cases of resistant, troubled youth. The author outlines an approach that is sensitive to these resistances and makes compromises in technique based on the principle that engaging a troubled youth in a therapeutic venture is preferable to refusing treatment based on the patient’s not being able to adhere to standard analytic technique. In this sense, Ferenczi was an early herald of the type of contemporary analytic work that is practiced currently especially with a difficult population of patients.

     

Psychoanalytic developmental theory: a contemporary reconsideration

Psychoanalytic developmental theory has never enjoyed a broad consensus among psychoanalytic thinkers. In today's postmodern era, its relevance and basic premises are even more in question as a legitimate part of psychoanalytic theorizing. Part of the problem has been (1) the serious errors perpetrated historically in the name of psychoanalytic developmental theory and (2) its current state of disarray in the wake of piecemeal efforts to rectify these errors. Nonetheless, its presence is discernible in every psychoanalyst's theory and clinical work, whether or not it is acknowledged or brought into a cohesive theoretical frame. The point of view of "intersubjective ego psychology" (Chodorow 2004), embraced by a growing number of analysts interested in development, offers a more flexible and inclusive paradigm for psychoanalytic developmental thinking in order to preserve its rightful place in contemporary psychoanalysis.     

Working with Sandler's Theories

My contribution to this issue of Psychoanalytic Inquiry highlights not only Sandler's prodigious successes but also those aspects of his work that remain ambiguous. These uncertainties derive in part from his effort to integrate different frames of reference in his conceptualizations. The bits of theory that clinicians actually use in the consulting room tend to simplify, revise, and even contradict the more complex theories Sandler developed. Some of Sandler's proposals may be seen as retrainings of earlier theory at different levels of abstraction, and hence more compatible with them than generally acknowledged. I note the inclusion of Kleinian strains, which Sandler legitimized for non-Kleinian analysts, and conclude with a consideration of the “identity of perception” as a fundamental aspect of cognition and a territory yet to be fully explored.     

The use of play to promote insightfulness in the analysis of children suffering from cumulative trauma

Psychoanalytic opinion continues to be dichotomized in regard to the role of trauma versus intrapsychic conflict as contributing to pathogenesis. This paper emphasizes the importance of conflict in both the experience and processing of trauma, so that problems in talking about it and processing it verbally are taken as evidence of conflict and defense. Cumulative trauma and its analysis in children are emphasized. While children in analysis find remembering and talking about their traumas difficult, they can know such experiences and modulate the anxiety of knowing when they do so in play. A clinical vignette is presented to demonstrate this way of using play to promote more advanced mentalization or insightfulness.     

A Courageous,Creative, Though Cautionary,Tale: Commentary on Dr. Lauren Levine’s Paper, “A Mutual Survival of Destructiveness and Its Creative Potential for Agency and Desire”

This discussion lauds the richness and in-depth nature of Lauren Levine’s clinical work, including the efficacy of a much needed consultation with a colleague. The analytic work is viewed in light of concerns raised by senior relational analysts in a previous issue of Psychoanalytic Dialogues. Additional thoughts stimulated by the presentation are offered by the discussant.