Introduction

Response to ‘Glover, Bowlby, psychiatry, Bion and the War Office Selection Boards’ by Christine Vickers

“…At the heart of the conflict at the British Psycho-Analytical Society was the concern to preserve an untainted theory against heresy. As Eric Rayner has observed practitioners who use psychoanalysis in the service of others can be accused of watering it down, or ‘obscuring, analytic essentials, whilst those who maintain a “pure” position may be accused of “sterile self-absorption” (Rayner, 1996: 259–60)’. Those who worked in the British Army found themselves facing practical issues that enforced solutions that were psychoanalytically informed, but employed techniques derived from other schools of thought.…”

“…In public he rarely disagreed with his president, but the latter’s reputation for self-advancement and tendency to slaughter ‘anyone who came across his path’, would have been difficult to work with (Glover quoted in Roazen, 2000: 30). Glover has been described as having a ‘remarkable, independently thinking mind’, who promoted the central importance of the emotions, particularly transference and counter-transference, in the psycho-analytic relationship (Kubie, 1973: 89–90; Rayner, 1996: 20). His central aim in life came to be to find ‘a common ground of essential theory of psychoanalysis’ and to ‘correct extravagance’ (Glover quoted in Kubie, 1973: 88).…”

“…He goes on to say that the passions aroused during this period were due to the hatred, by both sides, of anyone seen to be guilty of ‘betraying the cause’ (Roazen, 2000: 47). Much of the criticism levelled at Glover, during this period from his colleagues in the Society, refer to his aloof and arrogant attitude (King and Steiner, 1992: 27; Rayner, 1996: 19). Even the normally placid John Rickman was moved to anger, for which he later apologised (King and Steiner, 1992: 34).…”

“…Jones and Glover had long been ‘arrogant in their dealings’ with that organization, particularly because of the latter’s acceptance of Jungian and Adlerian analysts diluting the ‘pure gold of psychoanalysis’ (Dicks, 1970: 80; King, 1989: 17). They virtually forbade participation with the clinic and other professionals as well (Rayner, 1996: 259, 296). Despite these strictures, two women members of the Society, Susan Isaacs and Karen Stephen, had defied the ban on communicating with the clinic by giving lectures there during the 1930s, perhaps adding to Glover’s concerns about women’s assertiveness (Dicks, 1970: 83).…”

“…After an initial period of support in the early 1930s, he attacked Melanie Klein. With Melitta Schmideberg, who had been in analysis with him and ‘turned against her mother while in treatment’, he engaged in a long-drawn out controversy (Roazen, 1979: 476; Rayner, 1996: 17). The eventual outcome was his resignation from the Society in 1944.…”