Robert Maxwell Young,

Hats off to you for your refreshing and enlightened views on "who speaks for
psychoanalysis"!  We need more of your ilk if psychoanalysis is to have any
chance of flourishing in what APA calls "the decade of the brain,"  and if
psychoanalysis is to have distinguishing features between itself and
religion.  There are other important implications of your views, namely that
one need not be a "psychoanalyst" (institute trained) in order to have valid
views on analysis, or in order to practice the variants of psychoanalytic
therapy (psychoanalysis proper, psychoanalytic psychotherapy, etc.).

In Michigan, there have been some refreshing developments, insofar as
occasional collaborative efforts between the different local analytic
organizations (there are three, to my knowledge), and yet much more of this
is needed.  It never ceases to amaze me how many talented analytic thinkers
and clinicians are excluded from participating in our local APsA affiliated
institute's scientific meetings by virtue of the fact that they were not
institute-trained;  it is sad that their decades of dedication,   teaching,
and (independent) training in analysis are thus overlooked and frequently
scorned upon by those in power.  And yet, many of these talented individuals
have found analytic homes in other organizations that have closer ties with
the APA.  It is unfortunate that we cannot look more to what we have in
common, rather than what separates us from each other.

Richard Sterba was a champion in Michigan of independent training models.  He
himself trained countless social workers and psychologists long before it was
considered acceptable by his analytic peers, and he ended up being shunned by
the leaders of the Michigan Psychoanalytic as a result, who felt the rights
to analysis belonged exclusively to them.  I suppose that was the price
Sterba was willing to pay for his independence.  And I can tell you, I met
him on two occasions, and have spoken to his analysands as well, and it seems
like he no axe to grind (though I realize I may be idealizing him as he
idealized Freud, his teacher), and that he was completely at ease with
himself, his views, and with others.  His sensitivity and wisdom is missed,
but is perhaps carried on by folks like yourself.

In an aside, since you mentioned that Rappaport was your teacher, I wonder if
that happened to take place at Menninger's.  Marty Mayman was an intern under
Rappaport back in the 50's, and I had the good fortune of studying with Marty
for two years while I interned at the Detroit Psychiatric Institute in the
early 90's.

Regards,

David Mittelman
(Michigan)