Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 51–64 | Cite as

The Culture of Psychoanalysis in the United States: The Use of State and Federal Government to Advance Psychoanalysis

Article
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

This paper focuses on the New York State law that licenses and defines the practice of psychoanalysis. The influences in American psychoanalysis that led to the law are explored, as well as the ramifications for the profession of psychoanalysis. Currently, in the United States, two psychoanalytic organizations, the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis and the Psychoanalytic Consortium (comprised of four national psychoanalytic organizations), are vying for which will exert the most influence on state licensing laws in psychoanalysis and federal guidelines for psychoanalytic training standards. In other countries, psychoanalysts are responding defensively to attempts by the State to regulate psychoanalytic practice. In the United States, some psychoanalytic organizations are pursuing establishing state licensing laws in psychoanalysis and federal guidelines for training standards in psychoanalysis.

Keywords

licensing laws standards of psychoanalytic education federal guidelines 

References

  1. Appel, P. (2003). President's Report: NAAP and the Consortium. NAAP News, Spring. (WWW document) http://www.naap.org/news_details.php?newsID=58.
  2. Bennani, J. (2006). Regulation, Ethics and Freedom. Presented at Psychoanalysis and State Regulation: International Conference Organized by the College of Psychoanalysts – UK, United Kingdom, April 2006.Google Scholar
  3. Bornstein, R. (2005). Reconnecting Psychoanalysis to Mainstream Psychology: Challenges and Opportunities. Psychoanalytic Psychology 22 (3), pp. 323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DeVos, J. (2006). Psychologisation: Psychoanalysis' (Double) Political Appointment with History – The Accoyer Ammendment Revisted. Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society 11 (3), pp. 304–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fonagy, P. (2003). Psychoanalysis Today. World Psychiatry 2 (2), pp. 73–80.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Grigg, R. (2005). Regulating Psychoanalysis: Why We Should Be Concerned Over the New Psychotherapy Regulation in France. Lacanian Praxis 2, pp. 21–26. [WWW document] www.mental-nls.com.Google Scholar
  7. Kazushige, S. (2006). Psychoanalysis, Psychotherapy and Psychiatry in Japan. Presented at Psychoanalysis and State Regulation: International Conference Organized by the College of Psychoanalysts-UK, United Kingdom, April 2006.Google Scholar
  8. Kernberg, O. (2006). The Pressing Need to Increase Research in and on Psychoanalysis. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 87, pp. 919–926.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kirsner, D. (2000). Unfree Associations. London: Process Press.Google Scholar
  10. Miller, J.A. (2005). The Response of Psychoanalysis to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. Lacanian Praxis 2, pp. 38–41. [WWW document] www.mental-nls.com.Google Scholar
  11. Molino, A. (2006). Italy's Subjection of Psychoanalysis: A Case-Study Look at Regulatory Politics. Presented at Psychoanalysis and State Regulation: International Conference Organized by the College of Psychoanalysts-UK, United Kingdom, April 2006.Google Scholar
  12. PDM Task Force (2006). Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual. Silver Springs, MD: Alliance of Psychoanalytic Organizations.Google Scholar
  13. Priebe, S. (2006). The Provision of Psychotherapy – An International Comparison. March 2006. [WWW document] http://cep.lse.ac.uk/textonly/research/mentalhealth/StefanPriebe_provision-of-incapacity-benefit.pdf.

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Texas, Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations