the college of psychoanalysts–united kingdom

writings, I have understood them in ways that do not appeal to them. Regret-tably, there is nothing in either that has invited me to modify my interpre-tation of Bourne’s original paper as heterosexist and homophobic. Ittherefore remains pressing to raise awareness of this in a duly robust fashion.

Yours sincerelyJames Taylor

Leeds[email: [email protected]]

Reference

Mitchell, J. (1998) Sexuality, psychoanalysis and social changes. In The Institute ofPsychoanalysis News, Summer 1998.

▫

THE COLLEGE OF PSYCHOANALYSTS – UNITED KINGDOM

From the Editor:In this issue the BJP publishes two letters about The College of Psycho-

analysts – United Kingdom. One is from its President, Jacques China. Oneis from a critic of The College, Carola Thorpe. Opinion within the EditorialBoard about publishing them has been strongly divided. The final decisionhas been mine as Editor, and in reaching my decision to publish, I havetaken my colleagues’ views carefully into account. I want to register themhere.

My personal view about the letters derives at source from my commit-ment to ‘engagement with difference’, a phrase I used in my Editorial in BJP19(4). The BJP is in a good position, in my view, to make an ongoing spacefor debate about professional and organizational dynamics and develop-ments, be this about neutral or more sensitive matters. Both letters set outimportant terms of debate, and in my view the claims for publicationoutweigh the arguments against.

In favour of publication, in addition, has been the free speech argumentin principle, along with the general point that publication of a letter doesnot imply editorial endorsement. It has also been argued that the BJP doesowe it to its readers to air the discussion about The College in a way thatallows individual psychoanalytic psychotherapists, whatever the slant oftheir training organizations, to come to a considered, well-informed viewabout whether The College is divisive, or is making a sincere attempt toachieve pluralism in a divided profession. The correspondence is a start;further commentaries could follow, unsolicited or commissioned.

Against publication, on the other hand, has been the view that theformation of The College is a contentious political matter which has the

CORRESPONDENCE 409

11 BJP20-3 Letters (JB/D) 27/2/04 11:24 am Page 409

potential to destroy any hopes for unity within the profession, and thatcorrespondence in the BJP should primarily be in response to the articleswe publish. There is disquiet about offering The College organizationaladvertising and the oxygen of publicity. In addition, it is felt, Board membersact not only as individuals but also represent the views of their sponsoringorganizations, who are already involved in debate and in some cases dissentover The College.

Lastly, in publishing the letters I want to express my appreciation of thethought-provoking exchanges that have taken place inside the EditorialBoard, and the collegial exchanges I have had with Jacques China andCarola Thorpe in the editing process.

Ann Scott

▫

Dear EditorWe would like to draw our existence to the attention of those of your

readers who may not yet have heard about us and to update all readers onsome recent developments.

The College was formed with, inter alia, the following objectives:

• To promote the discipline of psychoanalysis in a comprehensive,pluralistic and non-partisan manner which would recognize both non-IPA and IPA-affiliated psychoanalysts in this country, in order betterto reflect the situation in the world-wide community where:

• the artificial distinction between psychoanalysts and psychoanalyticpsychotherapists (as opposed to the narrow but valid distinctionbetween psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy) isunknown, and

• psychoanalysts who have undergone a non-IPA training far out-number those who have undergone an IPA-affiliated training.

• To provide a forum for discussion, as well as for understanding and adegree of reconciliation, among psychoanalytic practitioners of allpersuasions.

• To provide, for the benefit of the public, a national register ofpsychoanalytic practitioners who have undergone a psychoanalytictraining, as recognized by The College.

Initially, a very high proportion of applicants (at one time as high as25%) was from BCP. However, following threats of loss of membership byBCP most of their registrants, though by no means all, withdrew frommembership of The College. The Register of Practitioners, currentlycomprising 134 members, has now been published on the College website.

410 BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY (2004) 20(3)


This threat resulted in letters of protest to BCP from some of its mostsenior registrants. One of these letters has been published on our website.As a result of their representations, BCP appears no longer to be makingthese threats but has indicated instead that such matters are now for itsmember organizations to deal with.

In the view of The College, no organization has the right to exclude fromits membership those who choose to belong to another organization. It maybe that any attempt to do so, without very good reason, is actionable on anumber of grounds and is, in particular, a breach of the Human Rightslegislation.

The position now adopted by some BCP organizations appears to rely onan assumption that membership of The College by their members might beunethical: presumably based on some notion that these practitioners areclaiming to have some qualification which they do not possess.

In relation to the above issues, The College would like to make the follow-ing points:

• The College does not train practitioners and confers no qualificationon its members.

• A psychoanalyst is defined by The College as a practitioner of psycho-analysis.

• While The College recognizes the right of all psychoanalytic prac-titioners to use the label psychoanalyst, The College also recognizes arange of labels used by psychoanalytic practitioners, as listed on thewebsite, and members are entirely free to use whichever of these labelsthey consider appropriate.

• The College publishes a Register of its members, all of whom are, inaccordance with the criteria published by The College, practitioners ofpsychoanalysis.

• Membership and registration arise entirely from the qualificationwhich members already possess, from the psychoanalytic trainingwhich they have undergone with the professional body (clearly indi-cated on the Register), membership of which they are obliged to retainin order to remain on the Register.

• The criteria for what constitutes a psychoanalytic training are set outin full on the College website.

• All psychoanalytic training programmes of UKCP and of BCP,whether IPA-affiliated or not, are currently recognized by The Collegeas meeting the criteria for a psychoanalytic training.

• There has always existed in this country a substantial number of prac-titioners who have been called psychoanalysts and who have under-gone a non-IPA training.

• No organization has the legal right, other than on their own register,to control how the label psychoanalyst shall be used; in the same way

CORRESPONDENCE 411


that no organization has the legal right, other than on their ownregister, to control how labels such as psychotherapist or counsellorshall be used.

• Use of the label psychoanalyst does not denote a qualification. It is asignifier of the nature of the work engaged in by the practitioner, justas the labels psychotherapist and counsellor denote the nature of thework engaged in.

So far as UKCP is concerned, there appears to be no reaction comparableto that of BCP, either within the umbrella organization itself or within itsmember organizations. There appears, moreover, to have been somemisunderstanding about what has taken place within UKCP with regard tothe label ‘psychoanalyst’. It has been suggested that UKCP has refused tosanction the use by its registrants of the label ‘psychoanalyst’. This is not thecase. UKCP has rejected an application for its registrants in the Psycho-analytic Section to use, on the register of UKCP only, the very specific label‘UKCP registered psychoanalyst’. UKCP has no power to prevent its regis-trants from using the label ‘psychoanalyst’ elsewhere and has neverattempted to do so. The detailed report on the label ‘psychoanalyst’, uponwhich the recent UKCP decision was based, made clear that the label‘psychoanalyst’ is used extensively throughout the world by those who haveundergone non-IPA psychoanalytic trainings. As a result, UKCP has nowdecided to make provision for use on its register of the label ‘psychoanalyst’by some of its own psychoanalytic practitioners. This is welcomed by TheCollege.

The College regrets the time which is being taken up in dealing with thesepolitical issues. The approach of The College is a pluralistic and inclusiveone. It would be regrettable if this important opportunity for exploration,discussion, reconciliation and mutual respect within the psychoanalyticcommunity is now thrown away.

A significant new development in continental Europe has been the moveto try to make it illegal for anyone there, other than psychiatrists andpsychologists, to call themselves a psychotherapist. A new law to thiseffect has just been passed, subject to ratification, in France. Such movesinevitably affect practitioners of psychoanalysis. It requires vigilance and theintervention of a national body, such as The College, whose principalconcern is not regulation of the profession but, rather, the furtherance anddevelopment of the discipline; albeit while fully taking into account reason-able safeguards necessary for the protection of members of the public.

The College is not just about another national register. It is far more thanthat. It is a learned society which has the potential to become an importantvoice for psychoanalysis and for all practitioners of psychoanalysis in thiscountry, rather than only those who have undergone an IPA-affiliatedtraining.


11 BJP20-3 Letters (JB/D) 27/2/04 11:24 am 12

All psychoanalytic practitioners, whether members of The College ornot, are very much encouraged to visit ‘Latest News’ on our websitewww.psychoanalysts.org.uk. There your readers will learn of recent develop-ments, as well as a new appointment to the Board of Governors and, verysoon, of two further appointments. It is also hoped that all practitioners willfeel able to take part in the discussions which will be promoted there.

In conclusion, there is one small but significant point to deal with.Notwithstanding the logo which incorporates the acronym ‘CP-UK’, ourpreference, wherever possible, is to be referred to, when abbreviated, as TheCollege rather than by the acronym.

Yours sincerelyJacques China

PresidentThe College of Psychoanalysts – United Kingdom

PO Box 46540 London N1 2WG[email: [email protected]]

▫

Dear EditorI write as a registrant of both the UKCP and BCP, because I am saddened

and disturbed by recent developments within our profession, namely thefounding of The College of Psychoanalysts – United Kingdom. I would liketo express my concerns and discover whether these are shared by BJPreaders.

Along with other UKCP and BCP registrants, I received a letter invitingme to part with £25 and apply for membership of the newly created‘College of Psychoanalysts United Kingdom’ (logo CP-UK), which wouldentitle me to call myself a ‘psychoanalyst’. As the note on the BritishPsychoanalytic Society’s web page points out, the new College’s webdomain (www.psychoanalysts.org.uk) is remarkably similar to their own(www.psychoanalysis.org.uk); and the CP-UK, using the same initials asUKCP, seems to invite the public’s confusion. I understand that the UKCPitself is registering an objection to this.

I think it can be no coincidence that this College has emerged after thedecision of the UKCP in June that it would not permit the label ‘UKCP-registered psychoanalyst’ to be used. The application to register psycho-analysts was made on the basis that ‘psychoanalyst’ and ‘psychoanalyticpsychotherapist’ were interchangeable, and this was rejected. The decisionwas reached after a process of deliberations spanning several years; adecision that some, it seems, are now unwilling to abide by. Self-regulation,as attempted by our profession, is only possible if the membership respectsdecisions that have been reached democratically. (The ‘UKCP-registered

CORRESPONDENCE 413


psychoanalyst’ as opposed to the ‘psychoanalyst’ label seemed to me such afudge that I will not waste words on that; similarly as to whether it is a ‘label’or a ‘title’, I am not interested in point-scoring).

If I do not agree with this development, why do I not just ignore it?The answer is that I think this reflects on all UKCP and BCP member

organizations, for there are no individual members of the UKCP or BCPonly organizational ones, although both register individuals. Therefore ifany of our members are defying UKCP decisions or BCP policies, then is itnot their own accrediting organization’s responsibility to attend to thebreach? Whilst this initiative emanates from UKCP-registered individuals,there seem to be a few BCP practitioners who have signed up.

It is a given that so long as no statutory registration exists, individual prac-titioners may belong to whatever organization they wish and I recognize theright of individuals to join, or indeed to set up the College. But surely theycannot at the same time retain the benefits of membership of an organizationwithin the UKCP or BCP? Do these members not need to resign from thoseorganizations first? And if they are unwilling to resign, then is it not up tothose organizations to instigate proceedings to require them to choose?

The College at present has no stated criteria for what constitutes a‘psychoanalyst’, as opposed to ‘psychoanalytic psychotherapist’, and relieson the continuing membership of the individuals on their training or otherBCP and UKCP membership organizations for the important functions suchas complaint proceedings and training standards. In my view it seems para-sitic. I would consider it necessary for the College to develop all the requiredinfrastructure of a responsible registration body before inviting members tojoin, as membership of it and simultaneous membership of any UKCP orBCP organization seems untenable. For instance, how could a BCP memberorganization hear a complaint against one of its members who is working asa CP-UK entitled ‘psychoanalyst’, when all BCP organizations restrict theuse of the ‘psychoanalyst’ label to BPAS or IPA accredited individuals? Isuggest they could not, and that a chaotic situation is created. A similar diffi-culty would be created for the UKCP whilst it has no agreed criteria for thislabel. Although it is claimed that this organization has been formed quiteindependently, this seems to be true only in the sense that neither UKCPnor BCP had any part in its formation: for its functions it would seem heavilyreliant on both UKCP and BCP member organizations. It has beensuggested to me that this is no different to the UKCP’s or BCP’s similardependence. This is not so, for these two umbrella organizations have beencreated consensually by their member organizations to fulfil agreed func-tions. This is not the case with the CP-UK.

Why are members not satisfied with the title that their trainings conferon them? Whether they are called ‘psychoanalyst’ or ‘psychoanalytic psycho-therapist’ will make not a scrap of difference to their competence, and theanalytic aspect of the work is already present in the latter label. This move



does not seem to have much to do with the provision of a service or clarifi-cation for the users; rather it seems to confuse by blurring boundaries. I wouldcare little what these individuals called themselves were it not for the fact thatthis move seems to attack the order that many have worked hard to try andintroduce within our profession. For those determined to claim the title‘psychoanalyst’ there are already routes through which to achieve this withinthe present framework. Applying to do further training with the BPAS is apossible route; and for those who feel they have already achieved the requi-site competence, individuals may apply directly to the local component societyof the International Psychoanalytic Association. Or they could await theUKCP’s decision on what the criteria will be for the use of the label ‘psycho-analyst’ within UKCP (if indeed it is permitted), and then apply accordingly.

For those organizations whose members sign up to the CP-UK, theirrelationship with the BCP is bound to be damaged, as the BCP considersthat only those who have undertaken an IPA-accredited training are entitledto use the ‘psychoanalyst’ label. Whilst the UKCP does not share this view,they neither condemn nor support the College. It seems that there will befurther discussions between the Registration Board and the PP Section ofthe UKCP on how best to make it possible for ‘psychoanalysts’ to registerwith the UKCP. Presumably this will have to include decisions about whatthe criteria will be for that nomenclature. This seems a reasonable andresponsible way to proceed, whereas the College tells us nothing of theircriteria, and seems to offer the possibility of ‘grand-parenting’ membershipto all present registrants of both umbrella groups, thereby ignoring theUKCP’s recent rejection of the notion that ‘psychoanalyst’ and ‘psycho-analytic psychotherapist’ are interchangeable.

I wonder how many colleagues share my misgivings. This letter seeks ananswer. It also seeks to answer the question as to what those of us who donot wish to be associated with the College can do, if our membershipassociations include members who were instrumental in this development,other than the obvious ‘resign’. Of course not all members who might wantto are in a position to do so, due to their need for an accrediting body. Itwould seem to me that those of us who disagree with this development, yetmay be affected by our indirect association with the College, should makeour views known.

The alternative to resigning is to wait, watch and hope that psychoanalyticpsychotherapists in Britain have more sense than to think that by partingwith £25, they can bypass the long hard training offered by the BPASthrough which practitioners here earn that entitlement at present.

But in fact I am quite despondent about the situation. I suspect that thosewho are determined to entitle themselves will manage to do so. The CP-UKweb-site seems to indicate that they do not intend to remain ‘independent’of the UKCP and that there will be renewed manoeuvres within the UKCPto become established. The ‘Latest News’ section of the same web site also

CORRESPONDENCE 415


seems to indicate that the writer is preparing for a legal battle and/orsuggesting that other CP-UK registrants might wish to go to law. This is veryinhibiting to open discussion, and is particularly sad as it runs completelycounter to the culture of psychotherapeutic thought and exchange of ideas.The statement to which offence has been taken says that the College appearsto be: ‘an organization which invites psychotherapists to join its list and,without any further training, entitles them to pass themselves off to thepublic as trained psychoanalysts’. If the views I have expressed in this letterhave validity, then I suppose I too could be similarly threatened. As we allknow, so long as we are only ‘self-regulated’ none of the labels/titles has anylegal protection and for that reason our regulatory structures are insecure.Nevertheless the profession has attempted to introduce some order, whichthe CP-UK seems to value. Yet simultaneously they appear to attack thestructures. Our attempt to ‘self-regulate’ seems similar to forming a club oflike-minded people. Therefore, if those who have now formed or havejoined the College no longer share or want to adhere to those ideas, theycould go off and found an alternative club where they would be free to callthemselves whatever they wished. It seems inconsistent to try and claimmembership of both.

I have attempted to share my impression that this move is detrimental toour profession and, whilst this may not have been the aim, I believe it is theeffect. This is all I can do. My primary responsibility and interests are in myconsulting room with my patients and I am returning my focus there, quitecontent to be and to practise as a psychoanalytic psychotherapist.

Yours sincerelyCarola Thorpe

Flat 10, Old Court House, 245 Old Court Place, London W8 4PD



the college of psychoanalysts–united kingdom

Documents