The following letter was probably written by Bertram Lewin, then President of the New York Psychoanalytic Society (the signature is illegible), to Ernest Jones, President of the IPA in 1937.
New York Psychoanalytic Society
June 17, 1937
Dr. Ernest Jones, President
International Psychoanalytic Association
81 Harley Street
London W. 1
England
Dear Mr. President,
At the meeting of June 1, 1937, the New York Psychoanalytic Society voted its unanimous objection to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Proceedings of the International Training Commission (Zeitschrift, 1937, pages 193-194) and to chapter IV – in the 2nd version, chapter III – of the Proceedings of the International Psychoanalytic Association. (Journal, 1937, page 100; Zeitschrift, 1937, page 188).
What these objectionable passages call “der von Dr. Rado formulierte Antrag”, “Antrag Rado”, “von Dr. Rado gestellter Antrag”, and “a proposal communicated by Dr. Rado”, was in fact a proposal passed by a unanimous resolution of the New York Psychoanalytic Society as a whole. It was first voted upon by our Education Committee on March 22, 1936, and then approved by the Society on March 31, 1936. Obviously, therefore, the statement in the report of the I.T.C. that the proposal “could only be expression of a personal opinion on Rado’s part, or at most a motion submitted by him alone” is not true. The proposal is the opinion of our entire body. Moreover, this proposal was not submitted to the I.T.C. by Dr. Rado. In fact, Dr. Rado neither submitted nor communicated anything to the Marienbad meeting of the I.T.C. This is what actually occurred:
At the same meeting of March 31, 1936, our Society delegated Drs. Lewin, Oberndorf and Rado as its official representatives to the Marienbad Congress. For personal reasons, Drs. Lewin and Rado could not go. Dr. Rado notified Dr. Oberndorf to this effect in a letter, in which he epitomized the decision of our Educational Committee in reference to the
I.T.C.
At the Marienbad meeting of the I.T.C., Dr. Oberndorf, though he submitted the essential features of our New York resolution, unfortunately did not state that is was a formal resolution of our Society as a whole; nor did her introduce it as a motion on our Society’s behalf; nor did he make a motion of his own. Nor could he, of course, make an unauthorized motion in behalf of Dr. Rado. Plainly, there was no motion on the floor. Thus the discussion published in this report was out or order, for it dealt with a motion that was never made. The formal resolution passed on a non-existent motion was also out of order. To call this non-existent notice “der von Rado gestellter Antrag” was even more out of order, if such a thing were possible. This allege(sic) “motion by Rado” was born in Marienbad – not in New York – of irregularity in procedure and error in fact.
Dr. Rado cabled Dr. Oberndorf on August 3, 1936. “There were no personal proposals of mine, only proposals by the New York Educational Committee.” This cable was forwarded to the Chairman of the I.T.C. prior to the business session of the Congress. Nonetheless, in this business session as well as eight month later in the proceedings of the I.T.C. and the I.P.A. the misrepresentation continued.
Furthermore, the report of the I.T.C contains a few other misleading points:
(1) By implication it indicts our society for having failed to consult the other American societies. To be sure, due to oversight these societies were not consulted. But such consultation is in no way mandatory on the New York or other branch society of the International before it may make a proposal.
(2) The report expresses astonishment that the attitude of Dr. Rado and the New York Society towards centralization of power in the I.T.C. has changed since the Lucerne Congress. This astonishment is disingenuous. For at Lucerne this policy toward centralization, which then seemed desirable to us, “encountered the opposition of the of the Executive Council of the I.T.C.” (c.f.report). It was precisely this opposition which forced our Society to come out for unrestricted local autonomy in all matters of administration and education. The New York Society formulated this new policy and voted on it on December 12 and 18, 1934, and then embodied it in a resolution of the Educational Committee, a copy of which was sent by registered mail to the Chairman of the I.T.C. in June, 1935. The Executive Council of the I.T.C. ignored this official
notification. In the Winter of 1935-1936, it circulated plans for the reorganization of the I.T.C., which allowed this body to continue as a central legislative and executive agency. The New York Society stood then, and stands now, definitely committed to the principle of local autonomy. It was precisely in order to avoid any possible conflict on this issue that our Educational Committee at its meeting of March 22, 1936, prepared the proposal for the Marienbad Congress. The intent of this proposal was to transform the International Training Commission into an informal Scientific Training Conference – into an assembly of teachers of psychoanalysis; that is, into a body stripped of all governing attributes – such as an executive council, provisions for representation and proportional voting, etc. Not in a single word was said on the merits of this proposal at the Marienbad meeting.
The reports misrepresent, misstate, and damage the position of both the New York Society as a whole and Dr. Rado personally. Therefore the New York Society respectfully requests that this letter of correction be published in the Bulletin of the I.P.A.. and the objectionable passages be stricken from the records.
Copies of the letter are being sent to members of the Executive Council of the I.T.C.
Very truly yours,
<signature illegible>