In the Final Analysis

Maggie Doherty’s article about the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsA) [“The Social Turn,” Report, April] correctly identifies our organization at an inflection point. That Doherty was able to benefit from her own time in psychoanalysis is not surprising: psychoanalytic therapy has proven more effective than other treatments for long-standing problems and relationship difficulties, and it engenders more long-lasting change. Doherty draws attention to the challenges that people in various industries—not just psychoanalysts—are facing amid a tide of institutional change. However, her critique of our internal tensions without acknowledgment of their transformative value paints an incomplete picture. Yes, there are differences within APsA on sociopolitical issues. And yes, we have not addressed them perfectly. However, as Doherty reports, APsA supported the Holmes Commission’s first-ever review of racial issues in psychoanalysis. We also offered sessions on integrating psychoanalysis and social issues at our most recent annual meeting. These are just some of our many initiatives to keep the association moving in a more inclusive and socially responsive direction, and we welcome feedback from members and the public on an ongoing basis. Perhaps, in a follow-up story, instead of focusing on particular disaffected former members of APsA, Harper’s Magazine might reach out to the supermajority of those who have stayed to continue to work on improving the capacity of psychoanalysis to make the world a better place.

Committee on Public Information, American Psychoanalytic Association
New York City

If Doherty had conducted further research, she might have uncovered a psychoanalytic tradition that has consistently recognized the influence of cultural factors. For instance, a century ago, William Alanson White, one of the earliest advocates of Freud in the United States, argued that psychological conflict is shaped by internalized cultural norms, transmitted to the individual by their parents and surrogates. And contrary to the popular claim that psychoanalysis is largely restricted to the “worried well,” the majority of patients I’ve encountered in training clinics—many of whom face severe psychiatric challenges, such as personality disorders and substance dependence—were from middle-class backgrounds, and a significant number were under- or unemployed. The appeal of psychoanalysis now extends beyond the West, moreover, as evidenced by several hundred applicants in China alone who have been turned away from psychodynamic training owing to limited space.

Ira Moses
Former Director of Training, William Alanson White Institute
Hamden, Conn.

As a twenty-three-year-old psychoanalyst in training, and one among a growing number of young people pursuing a profession that has fallen out of fashion amid the current quick-fix model of mental-health treatment, I found Doherty’s depiction of the orthodox culture at APsA to be in stark contrast with my experience outside it. Many of the present generation of analysts and analysands are being trained and treated at centers of modern psychoanalysis—an updated approach to conventional theory that embraces progressive perspectives while upholding analytic fundamentals. Unlike the conference Doherty attended, there are plenty of people of color at my school, where most students are under forty. In spite of the field’s ideological and intergenerational divides, it seems that modern psychoanalysis has evolved not only to survive in “splinter groups” but to thrive at an institutional level.

Shelly Koppel
Candidate, Center for Modern Psychoanalytic Studies
Valley Stream, N.Y.

Soft Power

Lily Scherlis is right to observe that the so-called soft-skills crisis is selective in its attention [“Going Soft,” Essay, April]. There may be a dearth of relational skills in C suites and the white-collar class, but they are replete among direct-care workers. These workers are never sent on training schemes to become more human, instead toiling below the poverty line as they perform the most human of tasks. But while Scherlis acknowledges this, she overlooks an important additional dimension: the vast majority of care labor in the United States is not performed by paid workers at all, but by family members. According to the AARP, more than one in five Americans—fifty-three million people—are caregivers for chronically unwell, disabled, or elderly relatives. I know from both my research and personal experience as a family caregiver that these are the true soft-skills experts, adept at regulating emotions under pressure, negotiating with professionals for better outcomes, and persuading patients to do uncomfortable but necessary tasks. Most of these people are women, and many spend years—even decades—supporting a loved one for no pay or recognition. Unpaid, feminized labor is absent from our national accounting, and consequently it is consistently overlooked, even in an era that glorifies the very skills at its center. Nowhere is this more obvious than in cases where employees serve a “double shift,” juggling working for pay and delivering unpaid care at home. Rather than spending thousands on feel-good courses that look nice on LinkedIn, American corporations might redirect their funds toward the caregivers right under their noses; they could teach the C suite a thing or two about soft skills, if anyone would listen.

Emily Kenway
Edinburgh, Scotland

Scherlis should have included this quote, popularized by George Burns, in her article: “The key to success is sincerity. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” This seems to be the core of her argument—that soft skills are simply behaviors you feign in order to be successful. While it is true that soft skills used this way are a sham, Scherlis has missed the larger point. Much research has shown that likability is highly correlated with success in both professional and social contexts, and this trait is aligned with many of the soft skills that Scherlis disparages. The authentic use of soft skills is a strong predictor of success across almost all aspects of life; people who can effectively talk to, engage with, and listen to others are better at solving problems and getting results than those who cause friction or offense at every turn. Soft skills are crucial—and as behaviors, as choices we make, they can be learned. Whether they are effectively taught by Dale Carnegie, or any other organization, is a separate matter.

Gary Furlong
Toronto