It seems to me there is a persisting tendency to underestimate the evidence
provided by the response of analysts to Masson for the avoidance of discussion
in psychoanalysis.  Geoffrey Blowers said, "in fairness to them, most analysts
would not have been in a position to respond to Masson's specific claims about
Freud's deliberately changing his mind about the role of seduction because,
prior to appearance of the book, unlike Masson, they did not have access to the
unpublished letters which were the source of Masson's conjectures."  John Davis
describes an annual meeting of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis where
Masson was an invited speaker.  John says, "he was given a good hearing until he
asserted that because of his ideas all psychoanalysis was a fraud, and should be
stopped."
 
I am not defending Masson's beliefs or behavior, but I believe those who have so
far commented on this issue avoid acknowledging the picture vividly drawn by
Janet Malcolm of the way analysts totally ignored Masson's claims when they were
first presented prior to the publicity he recieved from the New York Times.
Although Masson may have recieved the "good hearing" described by John, this
occurred much later after events that made it no longer possible for analysts to
dodge the issue of Freud's seduction theory.  How many of you have read
Malcolm's book?
 
For those with sufficient interest to pursue the evidence on this matter, I
recommend reading "'Incest--See Under Oedipus Complex': The History of an Error
in Psychoanalysis" by Bennett Simon (JAPA 1992 40:p.955).  Simon says, "Certain
features of our field make it all too likely that new errors can be generated
that may similarly take decades to recognize and undo.  These include the
politics of our discipline, and negative attitudes toward systematic gathering
and assessment of evidence."  Simon notes the contradictory accounts Freud gave
that were publicly available.  Surveying the psychoanalytic literature, Simon
notes that an address by Abraham in 1910 (now lost) was the "end to the
discussion of the topic, with only a few notable exceptions, for around 40
years."  I believe the failure of analysts to respond to Masson illustrates my
thesis of the fear of retaliation as a significant cause for the avoidance of
discussion.  Otherwise, these analysts could at least have discussed their own
clinical experiences with victims of incest.  Another useful paper is "Fact and
Fantasy in the Seduction Theory: A Historical Review" by Jean Schimek (JAPA,
1987, p. 937).
 
Geoffrey is correct in saying that the lack of access to unpublished letters
placed some limits on what analysts could have said to Masson, but the papers
published in psychoanalytic journals following Masson's success in publicizing
his case via the New York Times reveals that there was much analysts could have
said if they had had the courage.