The History of Psychoanalysis in Australia

George L. Christie

In 1909 Freud reported having received a letter from Sydney, telling him of a group of people there eagerly studying his work. The writer was a Dr. Donald Fraser, who had lectured to various societies about psychoanalysis and actually led this little group. Before acquiring a medical degree in 1907, Donald Fraser had been a minister in the Presbyterian Church. According to Reg Martin, Donald Fraser had been made to resign from the Church because of his 'Freudian views'. In a later paper Stan Gold stated that he had to resign because of 'ecclesiastical and personal reasons'.

A Sydney psychiatrist, Dr. Andrew Davidson, once Superintendent of Callen Park Mental Hospital, invited Freud, Jung and Havelock Ellis to read papers on psychoanalysis to the Australian Medical Congress in Sydney in 1911. None of the three were able to attend, but Freud submitted a paper 'On Psychoanalysis' to be read at the Congress.

The 2nd paragraph of Freud's paper read as follows:-

“Psychoanalysis is a remarkable combination, for it comprises not only a method of research into the neuroses, but also a method of treatment based on the aetiology thus discovered. I may begin by saying psychoanalysis is not a child of speculation, but the outcome of experience; and for that reason, like every new product of science, is unfinished. It is open to anybody to convince himself by his own investigation of the theses embodied in it, and to help in the further development of the study".

Ernest Jones, President of the British Psychoanalytical Society, one-time President of the International Psychoanalytical Association, and later the first biographer of Freud, was our other distinguished early contributor. He presented a paper to the 1914 Australasian Medical Congress.

Two notable Australian figures accepting Freud's challenge to develop the study of psychoanalysis here were Dr. Roy Winn in Sydney, and Dr. Paul Dane in Melbourne.

Roy Winn was the first person to practice psychoanalysis in Australia. He returned to Australia from the First World War in 1918. He was a bearer of the Military Cross, but he had also lost one of his feet in the war. He returned to London in 1920 in order to have a personal analysis, and also to study at University College and the Maudsley Neurological Hospital. He returned to Sydney in 1922 and entered general practice. In 1926 he was appointed Honorary Assistant Physician at Sydney Hospital.

Roy Winn commenced a psychoanalytic practice in 1931 and continued this for 30 years, most of the time in isolation. He was elected an Associate Member of the British Psychoanalytical Society in 1935. However his training had been brief and he did not consider his training had been intense enough for him to become a training analyst.

Early developments in Sydney

As early as 1930 Roy Winn was speaking and writing about the importance of psychoanalysis in medical practice. In one 1936 article he pointed out that it had been estimated that at least half the illnesses for which patients seek treatment are psychological on origin, and how it is important to understand how psychogenic illnesses are caused and to employ the best instruments available for their treatment. He then proceeded to outline the elements of psychoanalysis, and to describe the therapeutic and preventative value of the method. Other related papers followed.

It is important when considering the history of psychoanalysis in Australia, as elsewhere, to recognize how revolutionary psychoanalytic ideas were in the 1930's and 1940's, and how polarized attitudes were to it, both within the medical profession and within the wider community.

Winn's 1936 papers provoked the most critical and scathing attacks upon psychoanalysis, Reg. Martin has recorded several examples. One Sydney Professor of Medicine asserted that ‘... a scientific journal is hardly the place for such balderdash'. A future N.S.W. Government psychiatrist wrote that "... the theory of Infantile Sexuality is the greatest libel that has ever been published about the human race ...” and "I would hate to think that the minds of those I respect and esteem are the turbulent cesspools of lasciviousness that the Psychoanalyst would have us believe ". Another comment of his was - "The greatest argument against Freudian doctrine lies in the fact that it has been so readily accepted and practiced by charlatans and unqualified persons, thus bringing it 'en rapport' with phrenology, hypnotism and clairvoyance".

Despite such opposition Roy Winn continued to speak up for psychoanalysis on every occasion, and to continue his lonely practice of it. He was, in Reg Martin's words, 'a determined and convinced pioneer'. At the Sydney Hospital Winn offered to treat certain hospital patients psychoanalytically. The hospital refused to be associated with psychoanalysis, leading Winn to resign from his post there and concentrate upon his private practice.

Roy Winn died in 1963. His collection of books on psychoanalysis and related subjects were bequeathed to the Sydney Institute and became the nucleus for the library there, later officially named the Roy Winn Library at a 1993 dedication ceremony, in the presence of members of the Winn Family.

Early developments in Melbourne

During the period before the outbreak of World War 2 in 1939, there was a growing interest in psychoanalysis by a vocal minority in Melbourne, not only in the field of psychiatry, but also in a wider intellectual community, e.g. philosophers, psychologists, educationalists, churchmen and members of the judiciary.

A group of enthusiastic Melbourne psychiatrists, including Drs. Paul Dane, Reg. Ellery, Norman Albiston and Albert Phillips, aided by the support of Roy Winn in Sydney and others, actively worked in support of the efforts being made by Ernest Jones, the I.P.A. President, and John Rickman, to enable European psychoanalysts to migrate to Australia and New Zealand. As early as 1938 Ernest Jones had raised the possibility of six analysts from Europe migrating to Australia and New Zealand. Despite the support given by a number of influential people, considerable difficulty was experienced in obtaining Government support and approval for displaced European analysts to come to Australia. No analysts received permission to come to New Zealand, and only one of the six was allowed to come to Australia - Dr. Clara Lazar-Geroe, from Budapest, Hungary.

In Dr. Frank Graham's words - "Clara Geroe, as she was known to most of us, came to Melbourne from Hungary with her husband and family on the 14th of March, 1940. Dr Geroe was fluent in German and Hungarian but had to learn the English language en route to and during her early years in Melbourne".

So Clara arrived in Melbourne barely able to speak English!

Clara had been analysed (and supervised) in Budapest by Michael Balint for three years. Subsequently she had also been enthusiastically involved in lecture courses and seminars conducted by Ferenczi and others on the local Hungarian scene. But prior to arriving in Melbourne in 1941 Clara had not been a Training Analyst, nor had she ever tried to train anybody as an analyst. Her principal interest had been in Child Guidance, and in the analysis and training of non-medical people as analytic pedagogues (teachers). They were there to bring analytic understanding to teaching, but were excluded from functioning as clinical analysts.

A Melbourne Institute of Psychoanalysis was established in October, 1940, in order to offer support to the anticipated arrival of Clara Geroe the next year. This was made possible by a generous grant of 1500 pounds by a Miss Lorna Traill. The established Board of Directors of the Institute were all Melbourne psychiatrists, with the exception of the sole psychoanalyst, Dr. Roy Winn, from Sydney. The psychiatrists were Drs. Paul Dane, Reg. Ellery, Norman Albiston, Paul Reynolds and Albert Phillips.

Dr. Geroe commenced work in Melbourne in 1941. As the first, and for many years, the only analyst there, she faced a difficult and lonely task. Although analysis was already being practiced in Sydney, Ernest Jones had apparently suggested she come to Melbourne rather than Sydney, because there was a much stronger and more active group of supporters in Melbourne, both in the field of psychiatry, and also in the wider community. However it meant that she was forced to work in relative isolation.

What a task was faced by Dr. Geroe under these circumstances - to single-handedly establish a psychoanalytic centre in a new country whose language even was unfamiliar to her. She encountered considerable resistance from the British Medical Association, Australia, and it was only after some time, and considerable negotiation, that her medical qualifications were accepted, and then only on the understanding that her work would be restricted to psychoanalysis.

And then, it was largely on the advice of her analyst, Dr. Michael Balint, now living in England, and, presumably without the formal agreement of the British Psychoanalytical Society, that Ernest Jones proceeded to appoint Dr. Geroe as a Training Analyst of the British Society, and authorized her to function in Melbourne as a 'Branch of the British Society'.

Dr. Geroe's main aim, as she described it to Dr. Stan Gold some forty years later, was "... to popularize psychoanalysis, to disseminate the truth and assist parents and teachers". She set up a regular seminar for twenty to twenty-five members - doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, educationists, probation officers and others, who met regularly to discuss basic works of Freud, read thoroughly by each member, and summarized by one.

She used the same method in regular small seminars in theory and technique for candidates in training, both medical and non-medical. The first medical graduate to go into psychoanalytic training was Dr. Frank Graham, who had started in analysis with Dr. Roy Winn in Sydney in 1939, before moving to Melbourne to start with Dr. Geroe in 1942.

Despite all her early difficulties, working in isolation, and being solely responsible for developing training to the standard of Associate Member for any prospective analyst, Dr. Geroe was able to exert a positive influence in the introduction of a psychoanalytic way of thinking in Melbourne. She formed an Institute Clinic catering for patients who could not afford private analytical fees. She also organized many seminars for groups of teachers, kindergarteners and parents for discussion of their social problems with infants and children. Her Child Guidance Clinic developed a close liaison with the Children's Court Clinic. Dr. Geroe also had a profound influence, directly and indirectly, upon the Royal Children's Hospital Department of Psychiatry, so ably run by Dr. Winston Rickards.

Further developments in Sydney

In 1949 Dr. Andrew Peto arrived in Sydney (this having been arranged by Ernest Jones). Dr. Peto was a Full Member of the British and New York Psychoanalytical Societies. Dr. Roy Winn was enthusiastic about his arrival and went on to form the Sydney Institute of Psychoanalysis, with the hope of establishing psychoanalytic training in Sydney. Dr. Winn went into analysis with Dr. Peto with the aim of becoming a training analyst himself. Dr. Peto and Dr. Winn gave many lectures to psychiatrists and the medical fraternity, and stirred considerable interest. However Dr. Peto failed to get medical accreditation in Australia and in 1955 he returned to New York.

A number of Sydney psychiatrists began to embrace the psychoanalytic point of view, including Dr. (later Professor) David Maddison and Dr. John Kerridge. When David Maddison vacated the Chair of Psychiatry at Sydney University there ceased to be a sympathetic climate for psychoanalysis there, and since then it has had little support in any other N.S.W. medical school. However for many years Dr. Kerridge was responsible for the psychoanalytic pattern that became a feature of the work at the Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children in Sydney.

The one analyst trained by Dr. Peto in Sydney was Dr. Maida Hall. She was the first Australian psychiatrist to work with a Kleinian orientation. Subsequent to her election as an Associate Member she went to London, had further analysis from a Kleinian there, and achieved Full Membership of the British Society. Dr. Hall's relationship with the Melbourne Institute was always strained. She was very outspoken about her views on training, and was critical of the style and hegemony of training in Melbourne.

Further developments in Psychoanalysis in Australia

Of the early trainees under Dr. Geroe in Melbourne, Drs. Frank Graham, Harry Southwood (from Adelaide) and Rose Rothfield qualified as Associate Members by 1961. Dr. Geroe's two non-medical trainees were Professor Ian Waterhouse and Janet Nield.

In Reg. Martin's words Janet Nield "... was a talented and cultivated woman, flamboyant in character and possessing quite a remarkable insight into the deeper levels of the mind. She was a challenging and admired supervisor". With her husband, Clive, she was responsible for setting up the school 'Koornong', run on psychoanalytic lines, similar to the famous school 'Summer Hill' in England, run by A. S. Neil. One of the school students, Denis O'Brien, later did medicine and subsequently trained as an analyst with the Australian Society.

Moving to Sydney, Janet Nield played an important role in the teaching and supervision of psychiatrists and others at the Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children. This contributed to an important psychoanalytic influence there leading to the emergence of a number of analysts and analytic trainees. Her work as Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist, with Dr. John Kerridge, was followed up with work from Dr. Ron Brookes, Dr. David Buick and, later, Dr. Alan Bull, all contributing to the development of a psychoanalytic culture in the hospital.

Formation of the Australian Society of Psychoanalysts

Early on, psychoanalysts qualified, or in practice, in Australia, were all Members or Associate Members of the British Psychoanalytical Society.

In 1952 our practising analysts formed 'The Australian Society of Psychoanalysts', consisting of Dr. Geroe and Dr. Graham in Melbourne, Dr. Southwood in Adelaide and Dr. Peto, Dr. Winn and a Dr. Fink in Sydney. The Australian Society had no standing with the British Society or the I.P.A. It acted as a body of psychoanalysts organizing conferences and scientific meetings which from the early 1940's to 1967 were attended by analysts, students and interested psychiatrists. It was regarded as a sort of unofficial branch of the British Society, and had no independent status.

However five Australian Associate Members became Full Members of the British Psychoanalytical Society. Four had trained in Melbourne (Drs. Graham, Southwood and Rothfield, together with Janet Nield), and one in Sydney (Reg. Martin). Dr. Graham proceeded to train four candidates in Melbourne (Drs. Bill Blomfield, Denis O'Brien and Ian Martin, together with Ken Heywood), and Harry Southwood trained three candidates in Adelaide (Drs. Jack Earl, Bob Gillen and Clive Kneebone).

Vera Roboz came to Melbourne from Budapest in 1957. Despite the growing recognition of the quality of her work, there was a delay in her formal acceptance as an Associate Member of our Society (as also happened with the other non-medical analyst, Janet Nield).

Dr. Reg. Martin was analysed by Dr. Maida Hall in Sydney for four years (1954-57). He went on to London in 1958 and sought further analysis with a Kleinian. He was accepted in London as a registered student with advanced standing, and approval was given for him to analyse two cases under supervision. Acceptance as an Associate Member of the British Society was conditional upon him taking on a third case, under supervision, back in Australia. After sixteen months delay back here an arrangement was made by Reg. Martin in Sydney independently, with a case referred by Professor Maddison. Dr. Cecily de Monchaux, a Senior Member of the British Society, was visiting Australia at the time, and suggested that his application for Associate Membership of the British Society be forwarded directly to London. The application was successful in 1963, but this put further strain on the relationship between Melbourne and Sydney, and between Clara Geroe and Reg. Martin.

From the time Dr. Peto left Australia in 1955 there was little further development in psychoanalysis here, although the Australian Society continued to hold regular meetings at which analysts and students in training presented papers. After earlier hope for the start of a widening growth of psychoanalysis in Australia, Melbourne continued to remain the centre. In Sydney meetings of the local Institute continued, with Roy Winn, Janet Nield, Reg. Martin and a number of interested psychiatrists.

Prior to 1963 there were but eight analysts in Australia, five in Melbourne (Drs. Geroe, Graham, Rothfield and Ian Martin, together with Vera Roboz), two in Sydney (Janet Nield and Dr. Reg. Martin) and one in Adelaide (Dr. Southwood). Dr. Ron Brookes gained his Associate Membership and Child Analytic qualifications from the British Society, and arrived in Sydney in 1964. He subsequently developed a culture in Child Psychoanalysis at the Arndell Hospital, which also became an important centre for the application of psychoanalytic ideas, leading a number of individuals to seek psychoanalytic training.

From 1963 onwards there was an increase in the number of candidates qualifying in Melbourne, but there was also an increasing ferment about the centralization of the training, as well as the nature of the training, in Melbourne. The analyst being able to combine analysis of the trainee with supervision of the trainee represented a continuation of the Hungarian approach, a growing source of discontent within the Australian Society. This was linked with a growing awareness in London that the authority to train in the name of the British Society, which had earlier been accorded to Dr. Geroe, was no longer defensible.

From all this became a determined move by the British Society to disentangle itself from the uneasy relationship with the Melbourne Institute. A meeting was held in London. In addition to the British Society officers present, there were two analysts who had previously visited Australia (Dr. Michael Balint and Ilse Hellman), together with Prof. Reg. Martin and Dr. Rose Rothfield, who were both working analytically in London at the time. It was decided that an immediate approach would be made to the I.P.A. to take responsibility for training in Australia.

In 1966 the I.P.A. proceeded to challenge Dr. Geroe's position in having been accredited as a Training Analyst of the British Society, and for Melbourne to function as a branch of that Society. In the same year the British Society suggested that the Australian Society, such as it was, should apply to the I.P.A. for Study Group status.

The I.P.A. assumes control

At the Copenhagen Congress in 1967 the I.P.A. appointed a Sponsoring Committee to organize and establish the Australian Study Group. The Chairman of the Sponsoring Committee was Dr. Fanny Wride. Drs. Adam Limentani and Leo Rangell were the two representatives of the Committee who came to Australia in August, 1968 and reached agreement with Australian members about forming the Study Group.

The members of the Study Group, also appointed direct members of the I.P.A., were Drs. Bill Blomfield, Ron Brookes, Clara Geroe, Frank Graham, Ian Martin, Prof. Reg. Martin, Mrs Janet Nield, Dr. Denis O'Brien, Mrs. Vera Roboz, Drs. Rose Rothfield and Harry Southwood, and Prof. Ian Waterhouse.

A new Training Committee was formed, to be answerable to the I.P.A. through the Sponsoring Committee. The members were Drs. Geroe, Graham, Rothfield and Southwood, Janet Nield and Prof. Reg. Martin, and, later, Dr. Ron Brookes.

The two representatives of the Sponsoring Committee, Drs. Limentani and Rangell, also appointed four new Training Analysts - Dr. Rothfield, Vera Roboz, Janet Nield and Prof. Reg. Martin. (Vera Roboz had been admitted to Full Membership of the Australian Society in 1968, along with Drs. Blomfield, Brookes, O'Brien and Ian Martin).

They also heard applications from two analysts seeking Associate Membership of the I.P.A. (Drs. Earl and Kneebone from Adelaide) and four seeking Full Membership of the I.P.A. (Drs. Blomfield, Brookes, O'Brien and Vera Roboz). This was the first time that Full Membership overseas was obtainable in Australia without the person having to present himself or herself, in person, before the Membership Committee of the British Psychoanalytical Society in London.

In Vienna, in July, 1971, the I.P.A., at its Business Meeting, accepted the recommendation of the Sponsoring Committee and raised the status of the Australian Study Group to that of a Provisional Society of the I.P.A. After the requisite two years as a Provisional Society, we were finally admitted to the full status of the Australian Psychoanalytical Society, a component Society of the I.P.A. This took place at the 1973 I.P.A. Paris Congress Business Meeting.

Restructuring the Australian approach to Psychoanalysis

From 1967-68 onwards, the climate of these early years of the Australian Study Group, and, eventually, in 1973, the Australian Psychoanalytical Society, were full of uncertainty and insecurity. This small group of relatively inexperienced analysts faced the task of undoing a system of training that had existed for twenty-seven years, and replacing it with a new and different one. This inevitably invoked confrontation with those who had grown up with, and accepted, the earlier system. This, together with interstate rivalries, personal feelings, and theoretical differences led to generalized insecurity, defensiveness, insecurity etc., until the situation began to become diluted by the effects of a progressively increasing membership.

Kleinian theory began to play a central, though unacknowledged, role in the development of the Australian Society because of the presence of those who had been trained in London. Kleinian theory laid great emphasis upon the need to establish and preserve 'the setting', and upon the importance of new objects, the importance of interpreting the transference, and of interpreting the deeper levels of the unconscious.

It is interesting that rarely, if ever, was it explicitly acknowledged that differences of theoretical points of view were involved. In May, 1996, Reg. Martin wrote that "It is still the case that throughout the Australian Society there is a reluctance to acknowledge the existence of theoretical differences although these clearly exist. ... The membership, by and large, makes virtue of eclecticism or, more frequently, avoids theoretical discussion by insisting on their position to be essentially clinical, the belief being that clinical work is distinct from theory".

The new Australian Society proceeded to elect an Education Committee that took over the function originally carried out by the Sponsoring Committee's recently established Training Committee. The work of the Education Committee was first of all to replace the existing training system which had operated since the 1940's, and which, in the view of the new group, was dominated by the personality and mores of Dr. Geroe, and those trained by her, and consequently widely at variance with the contemporary psychoanalytic training, including Kleinian theory. Its other task was to ensure that the standards of the Australian Psychoanalytical Society (rather than the disparate standards of the separate states) were firmly established and acceptable within the framework of the I.P.A. This inevitably led to more conflict.

The serious conflict between Adelaide and Melbourne-Sydney was continuing to threaten to cause a major split within the Australian Society. The Adelaide Branch had petitioned the I.P.A., asking for recognition as a separate Study Group. The case for Adelaide was argued strongly, and with some acrimony, by Dr. Southwood, and those in other states disagreeing with him were being provoked into responding with equal vigour and resentment. They felt strongly about the longstanding failure of those Adelaide members seeking recognition as Training Analysts to make any contribution to the scientific or clinical life of the Society. So the Education Committee as a whole felt it was not able to judge their competence.

On the other hand, as all the Adelaide members at that time had been analysed and influenced under the earlier Hungarian-based system, they felt reluctant to contribute to the scientific life of the Society, feeling that the group which had changed the previously accepted style of analytic work would be unsympathetic to their style of working. Somehow it had been impossible to bring about some form of shared leadership involving the two sides.

Some important further setbacks to Psychoanalysis in Australia

The Australian Society, like all other Societies, has had to face the fact that some of its members have suffered personal breakdowns or serious illnesses, sometimes with far-reaching consequences, not only for the individual concerned, but also for the reputation of the Society and for the morale of Society members. Maria Teresa Hooke has pointed out to me the rather frightening fact that in Australia this has involved several most gifted and intuitive women.

It is also disturbing to find such situations happening when the Society is small, and somewhat separated from the community at large, and particularly when the situation is not handled well by the Society.

I was personally affected by such a situation. I went into analysis in 1969, at the age of 44, and in 1972 I was accepted for analytic training. My personal analysis continued five sessions per week until suddenly in 1977, in the middle of a week, I received a telephone message saying that my analyst was suddenly unavailable for an unspecified period. A few months went past without my receiving any news or any comment from anybody within the Society, including my supervisor.

Late in the year the UK analyst, Betty Joseph, was visiting Australia, and I arranged to have a supervision session with her. When I commented upon the considerable difficulty I was having with my patient, she said something like 'Well, it must be difficult for you in your position without your analyst'. It was such a relief for me to hear this. I told her that I had received a message that my analyst would be able to resume work in the near future. Betty then decided that she would meet with my analyst and get back to me about this later.

Eventually Betty Joseph met with me again, and said that she didn't think I should return to that couch but that I should meet with my analyst later in some face-to-face sessions to work with the effect of the situation upon me. I did this, and I am eternally grateful for the understanding way my past analyst helped me work with the effect of the sudden, unexpected disappearance.

Betty advised me to give my patients twelve months notice, and plan to come to London then for further analysis. I obtained a position at the Cassel Hospital from 1983-86, and had nearly three years further analysis with Dr. Eric Brenman.

I feel sure that such a situation would have been handled differently nowadays, both by the Society and by myself, its handling then being more a reflection of the Society's difficult times.

The Australian Psychoanalytical Society finally reacted to the severe splitting situation and unresolved conflicts by requesting a visit by an I.P.A. Site Visiting Committee.

The First I.P.A. Site Visiting Committee - July 1980

(Dr. Ed. Joseph, Dr. Moses Laufer & Dr. Hugh McLaughlin - President, Secretary & Assistant Secretary of the I.P.A.).

In a Society meeting on July 4, 1980, the S.V.C. began by reviewing the developmental history of the Australian Society. Ed Joseph commented on the relatively slow growth of the Society in the twelve years that had passed since its beginning as a Study Group in 1968, and how approximately half, maybe more, of that growth had resulted from the work of people who had gone abroad to the UK for their training, and so were not really products of the Australian Society. The S.V.C. was also struck by the small number of candidates in training. Ed commented that although psychotherapy was on the upturn in Australia, it was not an integral part of the psychiatric scene.

A major discovery by the S.V.C. was that the main activity of our Society had been that of Training, and that the other two major functions of a Society - the facilitation of Scientific Research, and of Education - had been relatively neglected. They found we only had two Scientific Meetings a year, and that there were no local state scientific meetings other than those provided by a visiting analyst, invited from abroad. Other small Societies in the world had monthly meetings flooded with papers, while we apparently had trouble finding papers for the two semi-annual meetings. The nearest thing to any scientific undertakings was the weekly clinical seminars in Sydney and Melbourne, and more casually arranged in Adelaide.

Another issue brought up was whether candidates attended scientific meetings or not. Apparently they did before 1971, but had not been allowed to do so since then. The S.V.C. felt that senior candidates who had been in analysis for a long period, and who had supervised cases, might well benefit from attendance.

Ed Joseph went on to say that they had all been impressed by the time, energy and interest we all had in psychoanalysis, and with our devotion and hard work, and, also, with the quality of our candidates. However morale in our Society appeared to be low, and people seemed almost afraid or unwilling to express diverse opinions, or to express their own scientific thoughts and opinions in open sessions. There also appeared to be a system of favouritism in which some people seemed to get convoyed through their Associate period into Full Membership, while others seemed to have a harder struggle. In the view of the S.V.C. such a system of favouritism seemed to impede free scientific discussion of psychoanalysis as well as educational issues.

Amongst other problems Ed Joseph referred to their impression that the Adelaide group in our Society had been rather neglected and excluded, as if they were second or third grade citizens, leading them to take the step of asking for recognition as a separate Study Group. He also commented upon Dr. Southwood's printing of his own Bulletin. He suggested that the Society should find some way of helping this Bulletin to grow, rather than moving to start a new publication.

The S.V.C. came up with two possibilities:-

They could recommend that Adelaide's application to begin training and other activities as a future separate Society be accepted, and that the Melbourne-Sydney group remain as the Australian Society.

The alternative was not to make any decision at this point, but to give the Society another year or so to see if there could be a rapprochement between the two camps, and an improvement in the scientific and educational activities within the Society. The S.V.C. members could then meet with us again before the 1981 Helsinki Congress.

A very active discussion followed, but without any meaningful resolution of our Society's problems. According to Reg Martin, "Despite their very serious efforts to reconcile the differences, the First S.V.C.'s efforts were not very effective. The majority of members of the Society were left with the feeling they had been badly treated and that the Committee had failed to appreciate the efforts that had been made by the majority of the Society to find solutions to the problem".

I attended the Helsinki Congress, and the following is a quote from my diary of Tuesday, July 28, 1981.

4p.m. The Australians meet with the Site Visiting Committee in Ed Joseph's room. Reg Martin speaks at some length and expresses his resentment about the S.V.C.'s findings and directives. The S.V.C. members express some understanding re his feelings - and then Ed Joseph says "... but we are more interested in whether our visit has led to any changes and what they are". They impress upon us their intention to follow things through and give notice of a further visit to take place in a year or so - they anticipate a focussing upon the Melbourne scene.

The Australian Society soon expressed its dissatisfaction with the composition of the First S.P.C., and insisted that as we had experienced a long and continuous association with the British Psychoanalytical Society, a new S.V.C. should include at least one representative from that Society.

The 2nd I.P.A. Site Visiting Committee - June 1986

Dr. Arnold Cooper (U.S.A.) Chairman, Prof. Joseph Sandler (UK)

This was a very different experience for the Australian Society. The task for this new S.V.C. was, in many ways, easier than that of its predecessor. The membership of our Society was now larger, and a substantial number of new graduates and recent arrivals were unfamiliar with the past history, and so felt less interested and involved with the issues, which had become very personal. Over the intervening years the older members had grown weary of the persistent divisiveness and conflicts, and were eager for a solution to be found.

The new S.V.C. was concerned with widening the issues for consideration, finding a formula for power sharing, increasing the membership and the number of Training Analysts, developing the scientific life of the Society, and, most importantly for them, finding ways of promoting psychoanalysis within the wider community.

The 2nd S.P.C. visited Sydney, Adelaide and Melbourne in that order, meeting at times with the Executive Group of the Australian Society, the entire membership of the Society, the Executive Groups and membership of the Individual Institutes of Sydney, Adelaide and Melbourne, as well as separate meetings with candidates, recent graduates and middle-level graduates. They also met with any individual members, candidates and prospective applicants who had asked to meet with them privately. In the final S.V.C. Report they wrote, "The Australian Society and all its components were entirely cooperative and cordial at every stage of the Site visit and it is our impression that we quickly reached a common view of the problems and modes of solution".

I will extract some of the features of the Report:-

(1) The Adelaide request for independent Study Group status.

The S.V.C. said it soon became apparent that resources for this request, both externally and internally, were unavailable, and that a solution would have to be found that would avoid a split. With the growth of the Society to close to 50 members, it was no longer possible for Training Analyst appointments to be made on the basis of a member being 'known and respected' by the membership as a whole. The membership could no longer be expected to have an informed opinion of any individual's functioning.

Instead the S.V.C. suggested that all future Training Analyst appointments be made on the basis of nomination to the Executive Committee of the Australian Society by the individual Institute or upon application by any individual who wished to be considered. In response, the Executive Committee of the Society, or one of its committees, would appoint an ad hoc subcommittee of two or three persons, one of whom would be from the local Institute, whenever that was possible without conflict, and all of whom should be acceptable to the candidate. The ad hoc subcommittee would check the person's credentials and ethical status, meet with him or her one or more times to review ongoing clinical work, with a view to determining his or her current analytic functioning, as well as reviewing his or her preparedness for the special transference and countertransference issues involved in carrying out Training Analyses. The subcommittee would report to the Executive Committee of the Australian Society, and, barring extraordinary circumstances, the report would be accepted.

This procedure was accepted by the Executive Committee of the Australian Society, and it was agreed that the S.V.C. would constitute itself as an ad hoc committee for review of the Adelaide members whose Training Analyst status was in question, and that the S.V.C.'s report would be final.

Dr. Harry Southwood accepted this solution. Dr, Clive Kneebone was the only candidate who asked to be considered, and the S.V.C. in Adelaide approved him as a Training and Supervising Analyst. The S.V.C Report goes on to state, "There seemed to be universal enthusiasm, even from Dr. Southwood, for the fact that a split had been avoided and the groups could begin working together".

(2) Problems in the Society

To quote from the Report:-

'"The Australian Society and each of its components has suffered from a rigid control from above, a shutting out of exchange with other disciplines and institutions, an absence of an open scientific questioning, and a pervasive fear of and intimidation in regard to speaking out and perhaps saying the 'wrong' thing. The Australian Society and the local Institute as organizations have in effect sealed themselves off from any contact with the local academic or mental health communities which might be resource and support organizations for them. Under the banner of 'standards' some ideal of 'purity' of analysis was held up in an undefined way, and this was having a stultifying effect on every aspect of the Society's life. The Chairman of the Scientific Committee reported on the unwillingness of people to speak out because of fear of expressing 'wrong' views, on the rare occasions when an attempt was made to hold a scientific meeting. Members cited instances of open contempt shown to them by older leaders when they did try to speak of alternative ideas. Students spoke of their fear of contradicting powerful teachers, young graduates spoke of their reluctance to maintain other academic work for fear that they would be seen as not being dedicated to psychoanalysis".

And further on: - "Paradoxically, at the same time as this attitude of timidity has dominated scientific life, there has been an absence of strong administrative structure and leadership that could provide new directions or clarify problems. The lack of a significant body, functioning nationally and locally, has handicapped the undertaking of new initiatives. In this vacuum, elder statesmen were accorded great power - whether in fantasy or reality".

The Report goes on to speak of 'the almost total absence of anything resembling Scientific activity'. It is interesting that even Prof. Sandler, from the British Psychoanalytical Society, was critical of the fact that almost all of the few visiting lecturers were Kleinian, and that there was little attempt to discuss the current psychoanalytic literature. The Report advised inviting a broader array of representatives of psychoanalytic thought. One can't help recalling that following the heated and, at times, chaotic Controversial Discussions in the early 1940's (described in the tapes produced by Maurice Whelan and John Mc Clean) the British Society was able to broaden out into three major creative streams - the Freudian, Kleinian and Independent Groups - with the emergence of such creative Independent Group members as Winnicott, Fairbairn, Bion and Milner).

Emphasis was also given to "the enormous importance of the Society establishing itself as the psychoanalytic presence in Australia", going on to assure us that the maintenance of analytic identity and definition would not be threatened by the adoption of such a role.

(3) Retirement Age

The S.V.C. members felt an extremely important step would be our acceptance of their insistence that there should be a mandatory retirement age for a training analyst to begin a new training case, that this should be set between 65 and 70, and that the same age should be the required retirement age from any executive functions. The purpose of the latter requirement was to allow younger people to have the freedom to speak out in committees, something they were not experiencing currently, in the presence of respected elders. Older persons could be useful as consultants but should not be part of the decision-making process.

The S.V.C. couple concluded their Report emphasizing their belief "that there is a fertile ground for the growth of psychoanalysis in Australia". They commented that the older members seemed more than willing to cooperate in these new procedures, and that a subcommittee had been formed for an extensive rewriting of the Constitution.

The response of the Australian Society to this 2nd S.V.C. visit was, overall, much more positive and integrated than the response to the 1st S.V.C. visit. The Society followed up with a meeting in Melbourne in which all the S.V.C. proposals were accepted, and a new Constitution drawn up.

A Federation of three distinct branches was formed, each with increasing autonomy, each being responsible for Training in their area, and for coordinating their activities through the Education Coordinating Committee, which henceforth was to be much less controlling. A number of new Training Analysts were appointed. Analysts over the age of 70 were to be excluded from all standing committees, and from training rights. This became an established principle for the future Society, but was also probably related to the fact that most, if not all, of the major figures involved in longstanding controversy were over 70.

The 1st S.V.C. had revealed no appreciation of Kleinian or British Object Relations theory. The 2nd S.V.C. included a British trained member, but they were critical of what they saw the dominant Kleinian position here. What about the Freudian and Independent Schools? We were also encouraged to invite some of the distinguished U.S.A. analysts to broaden the range of thinking here.

Two individual reactions to the 2nd S.V.C. visit (myself and Dr. Alan Bull)

In reflecting upon the very different way we responded to the 2nd S.V.C., as compared to our response to the 1st S.V.C., I found myself wondering whether this had something to do with how Dr. Cooper and Prof. Sandler had worked as a couple. The soundness of their pairing in meetings seemed to facilitate their being effectively either strong and assertive or quiet and enabling, according to what had been required at the time.

I was reminded by this of an experience I had as a Locum Consultant Psychiatrist at the Cassel Hospital in London in 1983-86. I was very impressed there by the responses some borderline patients had to a gradually strengthening relationship between the patient's therapist and his or her nurse. Often the latter had been working quite separately at first, sometimes with resentment towards each other, and with the patient tending to idealize one and hate the other.

But when the Unit's experienced Consultant-Senior Nurse couple began to see the therapist and nurse in weekly supervision sessions, the situation would often gradually change. After an initially over-polite responding to each other, some anger would emerge, sometimes explosively, often with tears, and strong disagreements would often be verbalized. But in the position of feeling held by the Consultant-Senior Nurse couple, the therapist and nurse would gradually achieve a progressive strengthening in their relating to each other. They would start to function as a pair for the first time, with increased mutual understanding, and access to a shared sense of humour.

The response in some borderline patients was striking. The patients would start to move forward. Oedipal dreams would often emerge in the therapy sessions, and they would gradually move from withdrawn, regressed positions to more adolescent levels of relating in the hospital community. Finding the therapist-nurse couple could survive whatever happened seemed to make it safer for the patient to work through severe oedipal anxieties, hidden behind the regressively recharged primitive borderline material.

I began to wonder whether our response to the 2nd S.V.C. couple had some parallels with the above. If the ongoing Adelaide to Sydney-Melbourne polarization can be compared to the Cassel Hospital therapist-nurse one, did Dr. Cooper and Prof. Sandler provide a good-enough parental coupling for the Adelaide and Sydney-Melbourne groups to start to relate in a generative way? And did this also enable younger members and candidates to become confident enough to move forward from their previously withdrawn positions, and start to express their opinions effectively?

I wrote letters to Professor Sandler and Dr. Cooper about my thoughts, and they responded with interest. I enclose copies of these letters at the end of this paper.

In view of all this I was interested to find a contribution by Alan Bull to the Australian Society's Scientific Proceedings, No. 11, March, 1987. Under the heading 'Local Centres and the Society' Alan reports that as Secretary of the Society in 1982, during the presidencies of Dr. Graham and Dr. Blomfield, he had been largely responsible for overseeing the first S.V.C.'s “artificially inseminated, and probably prematurely induced, first revision of the Constitution, and the spawning of the local centres". He went on to say "Since that time there have been further revisions of the Constitution. I would call them abortions, as hopefully fertilizing amendment after amendment has come to nought (i.e. no fully formed child ... "). Further on he says "And so we seek out a potent S.V.C., hoping that its fertilizing sperm will produce for us the bouncing baby we have been unable to produce out of our own intercourse, i.e. a healthy Society".

So Alan and I have described two somewhat different ways of experiencing the 2nd S.V.C. as being like a sound, generative parental couple. I am reminded of the success Dr. Ann Morgan and I have had as an experienced, holding and containing co-therapy couple in the individual, couple and group treatment of couples with unexplained or relatively unexplained infertility.

I do believe that it is fundamentally important for our Psychoanalytic Training Programmes to include seminars on the nature of group and socio-cultural forces, for we all fall under their influences, and especially during our psychoanalytic organizational crises. At such times we need to be able to gain more understanding in order to help us to survive, and to listen, and to persist, until new creative solutions emerge.

The Australian Psychoanalytic Society since the 2nd S.V.C. visit in 1986

Over the ensuing years, there has also been a further influx of analysts from overseas, including Gerard King, Brian Muir, Bob Salo and Francis Thomson-Salo from the UK, and Michael Lapinski from Poland, via the UK.

Leading up to the present day, there has been a gradually increasing activity by the local Institutes in the publicizing of Psychoanalysis in the wider community, in forming links with related therapeutic organizations, and in carrying out a lot of psychoanalytic work other than training, e.g. in providing productive lectures, workshops, seminars, supervision and clinical discussions with members of related disciplines.

There has also been an increasing role for psychoanalysis in the training of psychotherapists, and increasing links between the psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic communities. The gradual increase in the number of psychoanalytically-oriented psychotherapists has led to the boundaries between psychoanalysis and psychoanalytically-oriented psychotherapy becoming blurred to some extent. And also many Society members now have analytic psychotherapy as a prominent part of their own practice, perhaps adding to this blurring.

There is also the continuing concern throughout the international psychoanalytic world about the so-called 'crisis in psychoanalysis', including the diminishing number of analytic candidates, compared with the number seeking psychotherapeutic training. And there are signs of increasing doubts in psychiatrists about psychoanalysis. Nowadays this is not so much due to ignorance of its nature, but due more to the lengthy nature of the process, in comparison with current pharmacological and shorter-term individual and group psychotherapies.

However it is absolutely essential here that the standards of Psychoanalytic Training be rigorously maintained. This is not only for therapeutic reasons, where psychoanalysis is the treatment of choice, but also because of the fundamental importance of Psychoanalytic Research, including how it provides vital information for the broader psychotherapeutic and general psychiatric worlds as well.

The issue of candidates being able to participate in Society conferences has been on the agenda for years. There seem to be anxieties about whether the minds of the analysts and candidates would then be able to protect the analytic space. It also raises questions about the idealization of training analysts, and about the infantilization of candidates. It seems significant that newly qualified members tend not to participate fully in the scientific life of our Society, perhaps because we have not given them the opportunity to identify with the Society's scientific life during their time as candidates.

Examples of the Australian Society's broadening role

Conflicts and occasional crises continue to occur within the progressively developing history of the Australian Psychoanalytic Society, as with all other Societies. But what is also evident is the steadily increasing number of scientific contributions emerging, not only within the Australian Society, but also in our outreach work with other organizations and within the community at large. I can only give brief mention here to a few of our analysts who are providing such new and generative initiatives within our Society. However here are some examples.

Maria Teresa Hooke has emphasized the particular place that Neville and Joan Symington occupy in the history of the Sydney Institute. She quotes what Maurice Whelan said in a recent paper: "As some colleagues said to me, what would it be like in Sydney if they never came? Apart from allowing the group to move from what seemed an intractable difficulty, they have led the group into new areas. The public face of psychoanalysis is quite different from what it would otherwise have been".

There are also Neville's books, lectures and seminars, and other generative initiatives, such as arranging meetings between analysts and cognitive-behavioural therapists, aiming to increase mutual understanding on both sides and integrative possibilities.

It was with the encouragement of Neville that Maria Teresa Hooke, as Scientific Secretary, started the Open Days of our conferences. As a result of the 1998 Adelaide Conference Day on 'Trauma, Loss and The Stolen Generation', the Society wrote a letter of apology to the Aboriginal community.

There was also the 2000 Uluru Conference Day on 'The Whispering in Our Hearts: Intuition in the Service of Psychoanalytic Work in the Australian Milieu'. Maria Teresa points out that here for the first time we opened a dialogue between psychoanalysts, historians, philosophers and social scientists on sociocultural issues very relevant to our own history and to our own identity.

Then there was the establishment of the Australian Psychoanalytic Foundation in 2000, with Maria Teresa-Hooke as Chairperson, with the purpose of raising funds to promote psychoanalysis in the community through the creation of services for patients who are normally not able to gain access to specialized treatment. These services include the Sydney Community Clinic, the Melbourne Clinic for Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis (led by Roger Buckle and Ros Glickfeld), the Pre-School Project and Initiatives Overseas.

Other Sydney analysts include John Boots, the current President of our Society, and his initiatives e.g. his work in relation to the 'Crisis in Analysis', his initiation of the 'Working Party on Training', and his ideas for a new Socio-Cultural Interface Committee. Also his work with Deborah McIntyre in strengthening and widening the Constitution and capacities of the Scientific Committee.

Ron Spielman has led the Society Research Committee. And there is also the work Ron Spielman and Ric Prytula, from Melbourne, have done as Members of the Councils of various organizations, including the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. Reg Hook, from Canberra, and his pioneering work, is also well remembered.

In Melbourne we remember Bill Blomfield's contributions. He joined with Frank Graham and Ian Martin in establishing Group Analytic therapy and forming the Australian Association of Group Psychotherapists. During his period as Consultant Psychiatrist at the Royal Children's Hospital, Bill introduced a Group Training Programme for Staff members, and therapeutic groups for mothers of disturbed children, for latency age children and for adolescents. There was also his work with his wife, Jocelyn, in so successfully developing generative bridges between psychoanalysis, philosophy, literature and poetry, together providing fascinating series of seminars in these areas. His daughter, Tina Millott, carries on his work in Melbourne.

Other important fields in Melbourne have included Frances Thomson-Salo and her pioneering work in the infant Welfare field with people like Associate Professor Campbell Paul.

Ken Heywood deserves mention for his international roles in facilitating understanding between the Australian Psychoanalytic Society and overseas Societies.

And then there is Michal Lapinski with his creative seminars for organizations like the Victorian Association of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapists, and his initiative in creating the 'Psychoanalysis Down Under' Internet online journal.

Bill Betts is Chairman of the Melbourne Branch, and his Introductory 1st Year Course provides analytic applicants with the opportunity to explore their interest in psychoanalysis, and help them decide whether they want to enter training. The Course included seminars on infant observation, on development and attachment theory and contemporary psychoanalytic thinking.

I must mention Eve Steel, also, with her sensitive outreach communicative capacity with other groups and organizations.

There are so many other important contributors now within the three Australian States that I have not found space to mention in this review of our history. I find that I especially seem to lack awareness of the contributions of Adelaide members, although I recall that Sam Stein and others have presented well at interstate conferences. Perhaps this provides further evidence of the separateness of the Adelaide Group, a continuation of the Melbourne Hungarian scene from the beginning.

Finally I would like quote from a meeting of the Working Party on Training:-

Maria Teresa Hooke (Chair) reported that in reading old Society documents "…it has been striking to find how many initiatives have been proposed and discussed over the years, with a notable amount of work done on them, only to disappear into nothing. What emerges is a pattern of doing and undoing, and of going around in circles without moving, giving a sense that change in our Society is too slow".

Maria Teresa adds that this has led us to think about our history, our culture, our resistance to change, as a response perhaps to an inner sense of insecurity and fear. She stressed the importance of knowing our history, rather than repeating it, important for the members and especially for the candidates. One suggestion has been for us to provide seminars on the history of our Society for the candidates.

--------------------------------

References

(1) Reg. Martin (May, 1996) 'Some Observations on the History and Development of Psychoanalysis in Australia' - in Scientific Proceedings of the Australian Psychoanalytical Society, 25, pp. 2-25.

(2) Reg. Martin (May, 1960) 'The Identity of Psychoanalysis' - in Scientific Proceedings of the Australian Psychoanalytical Society', 25, pp. 26-35.

(3) Stan Gold (1982) 'Psychoanalysis in Australia' - in Meanjin, 3, pp. 339-357.

(4) Edited Report of the Australian Psychoanalytic Society Meeting with the 1st S.V.C. (July, 24, 1980).

(5) Report of the 2nd S.V.C. (1987)

(6) Letter to Prof. Joseph Sandler & Dr. Arnold Cooper.

(7) Reply from Prof. Sandler.

(8) Reply from Dr. Cooper.

-----------------------------------

Dear Prof. Sandler and Dr. Cooper, 16/07/1987

I thought I would like to pass on a few thoughts I have had about the recent successful S.V.C. visit to our Australian Psychoanalytical Society.

The response of our Society seems to have been different to responses to the previous SVC visit. No doubt a complexity of factors operates here, but I have wondered if they include this one - that a two-person SVC may be more effective than a three-person one.

I was very taken with the way you worked as a pair. The soundness of the pairing seemed to facilitate your being either strong and directive, or quiet and enabling, according to what was required.

It may be simplistic to suggest that the model of a good or 'good-enough' parental couple was operating here. But I feel this was so, and that it had a powerful effect upon the small and large groupings of members, associates and candidates with whom you met. In contrast to this model, the three person SVC seemed like a committee of rather intrusive distant relatives.

I was reminded in all this of another experience. During a period as Locum Consultant at the Cassel Hospital I had the privilege of taking part in a Consultant-Senior Nurse pairing in the supervision of therapist-nurse couples in their analytically-orientated treatment of the borderline patient. I was very impressed with the response of some patients to a gradually strengthening relationship between the therapist and nurse. Primitive psychopathology appeared to take on a more clearly discernible oedipal shaping, as if finding that the couple could survive made it safer for the patient to begin working through the severe oedipal anxieties hidden behind the regressively recharged primitive material.

As we all know, groups exert a regressive pull upon participant members, and, as Bion has shown us, the processes involved can include psychotic mechanisms. Perhaps your 'good parenting' will enable us to at least start battling through some of our disagreements at a more engaged, articulate, whole-person level, rather than remaining bogged down in persecutory anxiety, part-object positions. Time will tell. A certain compliance in our final big-group meeting on the Tuesday was, perhaps, a little disturbing.

Thank you again for your visit. It provided a memorable experience for us all, enabling feelings of hope to emerge again.

Yours sincerely,

George L. Christie

Dear Dr, Christie, 7 September, 1987

Thank you very much for your letter of 16 July. I am very glad that you felt our SVC was effective. Dr. Cooper and I understand that a number of significant changes have occurred since our visit, and certainly hope that a number of past problems have been resolved.

I was intrigued by your suggestion that we may have operated as a parental couple. You may well have a valid point about the significance of the number of members of the SVC. Your experience at the Cassel seems to bear out your suggestion about the effectiveness of a two-person SVC, although I suspect our site visit may have been different for reasons additional to the working through of severe oedipal anxieties. However, I would say that we both felt that we had established a very good relationship with the various groups within the Society, and I think that the knowledge that this relationship could continue must play a very important part in creating a certain security which could allow for the freedom to change.

I am sure that things will not be entirely smooth going, but we shall have to wait and see, I know that Dr. Cooper and I have a good feeling about the developments that have taken place.

Thank you for writing,

Yours sincerely,

Joseph Sandler

Dear Dr. Christie 7 August, 1987

Thank you for your kind and interesting letter. I suspect that Joe and I have never thought of ourselves as a parenting couple, but the idea is attractive. I am not sure which of us plays which parental role but I suspect that can always be in doubt, even in the case of two-gender couples.

I am very pleased to know that we may have done some good. We surely tried our best and had the impression that the Australian analysts, when confronted with the problems, were eager to begin to find new solutions. We enjoyed meeting with a number of the Australian members in Montreal and it was our impression that a very healthy process has begun. We look forward to hearing more. I agree with you that it all seemed a little too quiet at our last meeting, but I think the tasks were clear.

Best wishes,

Sincerely,

Arnold M. Cooper, M.D.