    In the Los Angeles of the 1960s, the nucleus of what would come to be known as the Kleinians, the group that would find itself at the center of such controversy years later in the same city, was formed. A small number of recent graduates of the Los Angeles Institute, dissatisfied with the training they had received--training that did not enable them to treat their patients effectively--decided to continue their studies independent of the institute. After a couple of years this group was re-formed. Its members turned their attention to the study of Fairbairn and Object Relations, subjects not dealt with in the institute at that time, and the study of Fairbairn eventually led these candidates to the study of Melanie Klein.

      Prompted by a 1963 visit by Gwen Evans, some members of this group began to invite lecturers to speak in Los Angeles, lecturers like Herbert Rosenfeld and Hanna Segal, whose ideas would come to electrify the analytic community in Los Angeles. At first sparsely attended, these lectures grew in popularity in the next few years as members of the community began to realize that the ideas presented were not only new and original, but highly workable. The atmosphere in Los Angeles was ripe for such ideas, as there had been a sense for some time that analysts did not have a vital interest in analysis. For five years straight there had been no new training analysts at the institute, and things seemed to be at an impasse. Now, for the growing number of people participating in these lectures, enthusiasm ran high.

      In the midst of all this, Dr. Bernard Bail began a correspondence with Wilfred Bion, who finally came to lecture in Los Angeles in the spring of 1967. A large crowd gathered to hear Dr. Bion speak. The coming of Dr. Bion was especially important at this time, for the previous year there had been a revolt within the Los Angeles Institute, and a re-organization of its members on the principle that candidates should have more freedom in their studies and in their choice of a training analyst. This re-organization was in part due to a study that had revealed how few analysts were actually performing analysis at that time. Something was clearly amiss with the training the candidates were receiving, and a great confusion and hostility contributed to the institute's paralysis. Fundamentally, it was clear that analysis was not working. In this atmosphere, then, Dr. Bion's presence seemed especially welcome and re-vitalizing.

      Dr. Bion's lecture was so stunning and original that Drs. Bail and Hays immediately proposed that he emigrate to Los Angeles. After much discussion and planning, Dr. Bion re-located to Los Angeles in January 1968, having been guaranteed his salary based on the expressed interest of many of the city's analysts to enter into analysis with him. At Dr. Bion's encouragement, Dr. Albert Mason emigrated with him.

      Yet, when Dr. Bion arrived in Los Angeles, the only person to go to Dr. Bion for analysis was Dr. Bail. This situation lasted for several months. When Drs. Bail and Hays asked those who had previously expressed interest why they chose not to enter into an analysis with Dr. Bion, they found that many of them made excuses, or claimed to have changed their minds about the analysis.

      At the same time, however, Dr. Bion gave seminars and lectures that were the subject of more and more attention. Throughout the early 1970s other Kleinian-trained analysts continued to visit Los Angeles, including Herbert Rosenfeld, Hanna Segal, Hans Thorner, Donald Meltzer, and Betty Joseph. Drs. Bail and Hays guaranteed these lecturers' fees, plane fares, and expenses, and never lost money on these ventures. The supervisions were always oversubscribed, and the lecture halls filled. Though Bion spoke publicly and his ideas had achieved a certain amount of popularity, he was never invited to play an official role in the Los Angeles Institute, despite having been the president of the English Society for a number of years and already being an internationally known figure.

      In 1973 the American Psychoanalytic Institute performed a site visit at the Los Angeles Institute. Such visits were customary, made every ten years in order to criticize and to help individual local institutes. Ten years earlier the institute had received a site visit from the American, at which time it was reported that "in Los Angeles there was a group of young analysts devoting themselves to the study of Melanie Klein and being encouraged in this endeavor by a training analyst." The report went on to note how "it seems to us that [the members of this group] are talented young men being allowed to withdraw from the stress of Freudian creativity." This had been the first implication that to turn to Klein was to turn from Freud and from creativity, and was thus detrimental to the institute--an artificial polarization that would influence the events to come. In 1969, for instance, Dr. Bail asked the Kleinian-trained Albert Mason to guest lecture in a course he was teaching at the institute. Arthur Ourieff responded angrily, requesting that Dr. Bail's name be brought before the coordinating counsel and that he be removed as a training analyst. When it was found that Dr. Bail had received permission for this visit, however, the issue was dropped. Later, Dr. Bail was accused of poisoning the minds of the candidates with his teaching.

      The American's 1973 report was, then, extremely critical of the steadily increasing interest in Kleinian lecturers and ideas in Los Angeles, as well as of the 1966-7 re-organization of the institute. The committee who participated in the 1973 site visit were: Justin Krent, George Alison, Lily Bustle, Homer Kurtis, Leon Ferber, John Francis, Shelly Orgell, William Robbins, and Ernst Ticho, all of whom have since assumed more powerful positions within the American. The thrust of the 1973 report was that, in the opinion of the American, the candidates at the Los Angeles Institute were confused and unable to work, and that the remedy for this confusion was to eliminate the Kleinians and Kleinian influence from the institute--though, of course, Melanie Klein's theories were taught and accepted in all of Europe and South America.

      The following is from the American's report:

      A small Kleinian study group reported in 1964 has grown in numbers and is now a strong force in institute training. The group has been augmented by analysts trained in England and may soon be joined by Kleinian-trained child analysts from that country. Kleinians deny that there is a unified Kleinian group as such and state that many of them have theoretical differences among themselves. Both of the English schools together--that's Fairbairn and Klein--comprise about 20 percent of the senior membership and an equal percentage of the training faculty. In 1972 analysts with these two orientations supervised approximately one half of all candidate cases and taught the majority of the classes.

      Once the American's report came out, it became clear that all those with sympathies to Kleinian ideas would be discriminated against within the Los Angeles Institute. The report from the American to Los Angeles came down as if the "Kleinians" were heretics, and just mentioning the name "Melanie Klein" was enough to provoke hostility at this time. The atmosphere was that of an inquisition; people were suspicious, paranoid, bitter, and frightened. In reaction to the report's severity, then, several of those targeted decided to consult an attorney as to what legal recourse they might have in the event of future discrimination. The attorney, Stanley Caiden, advised that nothing could be done until a specific action had been taken by the Los Angeles Institute. This action, when it came, was directed at Dr. Bail and a course he was teaching at that time. When Dr. Ourieff argued that Dr. Bail not be allowed to teach this course because it could be considered supervision, Dr. Bail responded with a letter stating that such a dismissal would be illegal and that legal action would be taken. Dr. Bail was allowed to teach the course.

      Both the report's severity and the Los Angeles Institute's response to it led to a period of great turbulence in Los Angeles, a period lasting roughly from 1973 until 1977, when the final ruling came down from the IPA. In December of 1973 leaders of the American, including Weinshel, Moore, and Ferber, met with officers of the Los Angeles Institute to discuss the report; at this meeting the joined groups reaffirmed that the Kleinians were to be eliminated from the Institute. The in-group decided to label themselves, in contrast to the Kleinians, "traditional American psychoanalysts." The phrase was never officially defined; Dr. Weinshel declared that it referred to "psychoanalysis as being practiced in the United States."

      Dr. Ourieff proceeded to tell the clinical associates that their supervisory work might potentially be unacceptable to the membership committee of the American, and that they would have to provide information to the membership committee of their ability to successfully carry on a psychoanalysis in the "traditional" fashion. The officers of the Los Angeles Institute felt that, in the future, in order to meet minimal standards, the institute's approach to analysis would be traditional and that therefore they would not recommend that future analysis or supervision be carried out in which the focus would not be that of traditional psychoanalysis. In this way, an official position was taken against the Kleinians--and remember that in this Kafka-esque situation, no one could ever define what a traditional psychoanalyst was in the first place. Academic freedom was curtailed, and it became clear that any idea not sanctioned by the American was subject to banishment or repression. Psychoanalysis seemed less a scientific discipline than an ideology, so that one felt forced to ask: did Galileo practice science according to the doctrine of the church? Did Newton? Was Einstein following traditional scientific teachings when he came up with his theory of relativity?

      After Dr. Bail sent his letter of defense to the leaders of the Los Angeles Institute, there was a submission by the officers of the society that they be indemnified of all costs, should legal action be taken against them. The members voted this proposal down. When Judge Freeman, who wrote the constitution of the Los Angeles Institute, was consulted regarding the Los Angeles Institute's rights to exclude the Kleinians from the organization, he explained that the institute would have to designate itself a private club, as opposed to a public hospital, if it wanted to eliminate a part of its membership.

      At this point, Dr. Bail appealed to the International Psychoanalytic Association. Though the American was, at that time, autonomous, and so did not answer to the IPA, the IPA still served an advisory role to the American. Dr. Bail wrote a letter to Dr. Lebovici detailing the situation in Los Angeles and including documented evidence of the oppression being suffered by those associated with Kleinian ideas in that city. In response, Dr. Lebovici wrote that he was "sure that your rights will be respected in the re-organization and that Kleinian theory will not be a source of injustice"--though he had just received documents demonstrating that Kleinian theory was being exactly that. In 1974 Dr. Hays traveled to Brazil to meet with Dr. Lebovici personally, as well as with Dr. Widlocher, but was assured merely that she would receive a letter that would help the situation in Los Angeles. No letter ever came.

      Back in Los Angeles, several of those associated with Kleinian ideas petitioned the IPA for additional clauses to be added to its constitution and bylaws. This petition was written by Dr. Bion, and was to be heard at the congress in 1975. For an entire year there was a meeting every week of members of the Los Angeles Institute, and in 1975 Dr. Bion's proposal was voted down. During these meetings, the candidates were told that there would be a split among the institute's training analysts: 16 analysts had decided to form an "elite group" separate from the rest of the institute. These analysts included Hilda Rollman-Branch, Arthur Ourieff, Maimon Levitt, Ralph Greenson, Lew Fielding, Albert Goldberg, and Mort Shane.

      When those in Los Angeles saw that no help would be forthcoming from either Dr. Lebovici or the IPA in general, Dr. Bail's letter was circulated to societies throughout the world, societies that, though sympathetic, could do nothing.

      Although the American was separate from the IPA at that time, was it not the duty of the IPA to hold up integrity of psychoanalysis wherever it was practiced, and to fight for the freedom of thought necessary to any scientific, let alone human, endeavor?

      The irony about the "elite" who were so devoted to Anna Freud is that a few years later, nearly all gave up on Anna Freud and became "self-psychologists." Was it devotion to principle that these so-called Freudians fought for, or was it devotion to power?

      This affair did not see a body count, and there were no body bags returning after four years of war--1973-77. There was no military dictatorship here as in Brazil. Only American law, the threat of a lawsuit and Dr. Bail's continuing efforts kept these sorry people at bay--for by now all those who were at his side early on had abandoned Dr. Bail to make peace with the victors.

      Such behavior gives or ought to give analysts pause to consider what goes on in analysis around the world. Are the principles of truth, virtue, and honor followed? No bodies here, yet deep scarification of the personality will always ensue from such practices. And what of the candidates who were in constant dread for four years as to whether their work would be allowed? Any analyst would know that the marks of such anxiety will not easily disappear.

      Consider too that these threats came from the leaders of the IPA, and the leaders of the American, and the group in power at the Los Angeles Psychoanalytic Institute and Society. Would analysts who truly know and understand the fragility upon which all of us stand take such callous and cowardly action? In intent, it is no different from the actions of a military dictatorship attempting to subdue a populace by terror. Throughout this ordeal, the IPA continued to look upon the so-called "Kleinians," the petitioners for justice, with great hostility. In their eyes the group was to be considered a band of criminals to be made examples of--not colleagues, but scum to be treated as such precisely because they were powerless. It is axiomatic that when a group in power treats the weaker with contempt and cruelty, one can be sure they know they are morally in the wrong.

      Finally, when the IPA came out with a ruling that in many pages said absolutely nothing, the battle was over, and academic freedom was lost. Those who exulted in their victory were exulting in the demise of freedom, of truth, and of psychoanalysis as a discipline.

      If the organizations of psychoanalysis utilize the methods of politicians the world over, how are we different from those politicians? Why should we be looked to as a reservoir of truth, a storehouse of wisdom? The fact is we are not, and in this fact lies the great infection in this discipline, an infection which has been fulminating for a long time. It has already developed gangrene.

      After the 1977 ruling, the then-leaders of the institute were in control as before, and their policies continued. Dr. Bail was given a course to teach, and after this one time, was not asked back again. By this act the leaders were attempting to show a lack of ill will, much like a company hiring a token black or Jew. Dr. Bail then withdrew from the institute, from their affairs, political and social and educational, to pursue his own research in a discipline.

      Yet the end of hostilities did not end the problem or the struggle. Today the descendents of those training analysts still bristle at the name Kleinian, and still hold Dr. Bail's name in scorn. Morally, the field of psychoanalysis the world over lost a crucial battle, for its histories show again and again that the moral decay of the leaders of any country is followed by the decay of the body politic. And in the ensuing 23 years, psychoanalysis has taken a steady downward course--ignored by the people, regarded as laughable.

      Some of the old leaders are still in power, and some of their offspring have shifted into power. And now this body, the Les Etats Generaux, has to ask itself why the body politic elects politicians to high office who do not walk the moral high ground. If leaders do not take that walk, standing up for the integrity for all members, the results are disastrous for all. This is beyond argument, beyond conjecture. It is a fact: We are all connected. It is natural law.

      Still we have to ask why a world body sees a dastardly lapse in academic freedom in one society and does nothing about it, says not one word about it. And if academic freedom is pushed aside, all parts of the organization suffer.

      People in power, it seems, tend to forget that fact. What is it about power that blinds, especially psychoanalysts? It was clear APsaA found the so called "Kleinians" in L.A. a threat. It was also clear - as the record shows - that there was collusion between the IPA and the APsaA to neutralize that threat. The L.A. Institute never recovered from that action, neither has psychoanalysis in L.A.

      Psychoanalysis, the fisher king, lies desperately ill by the bank of the river. The land is desolate, the trees barren, and the king is ill from his own immorality. To date no president of the IPA has found it possible to expose the disgraceful behavior of the leaders themselves. Why? They must be considered colluders in the ignominy.

      Real analysts know that children fall ill because of the deceit, lies, and immorality of their parents. This is as true in organizations as it is in families. World leaders are being brought to the bar, leaders of countries, leaders of political parties. Only in psychoanalysis can leaders say nothing, or say only, "That happened too long ago." The origins of mental illness begin in infancy. Do we tell patients, "Why don't you forget it?" When the stink of darkness is opened to the light of truth, then and only then will the fisher king be healed, the land begin to flourish, and the people thrive once again. This meeting at the bar for those who have committed transgressions, and for those who have held them secret, is long overdue. The time is now--especially when, startlingly enough, with the information given by Dr. Vianna we find that the same two people, Drs. Lebovici and Widlocher, turned a blind eye upon the perfidious Nazi-like behavior of a group of analysts in Rio, and in so doing cast an immorality over the entire world of psychoanalysis. As Donne implored, "never send to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."

Copyright © Bernard W. Bail, M.D. 2005
July 2001
WB2005

Bibliography
Bail, Bernard. The Freud-Klein Controversies (1973-1977). Los Angeles. The Testing Ground and Final Solution , 1990.

--------------- . The History of Object Relations (videocassette), 1990.
Weston, Jessie L. From Ritual to Romance. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1993.