(In continuation of its series of feature articles describing the work of the Association's Committees, the Newsletter presents herewith an article on the Program Committee, a Committee of the Executive Council. Its Chairman, Dr. Martin Wangh, has chosen to cast his description in the form of a letter to the Members of the Association, and we are publishing it in that form.)
The Program Committee is your agent in planning the scientific meetings of the Association. In this communication, I should like to tell you something of the way in which the Committee operates, its aims and limitations, how it is assembled and how its composition changes; and finally how the members of the Association can contribute directly to its vitality and effectiveness.
To go back a bit in the recent history of the scientific programs of the Association: during the chairmanship of Dr. Charles Brenner (1955-1962), panels and papers occupied the two weekdays of the meetings, followed on Sunday morning by the Plenary Session, at which an honored member, the president of the Association, or a guest addressed the membership. Sunday afternoons, which were open to the public, were devoted to reports of the panels that had been held. Thursday Discussion Groups were added under Dr. Samuel Guttman's chairmanship (1962-1967), and have proven a most popular and fruitful innovation. Since becoming Chairman in 1967, I have made some further changes in both the theme and format of these gatherings, which are now subsumed under the general category of “Workshops.”
In this category, the “Discussion Groups” and “Clinical Conferences” are now open to members of the Association, members of Affiliate Societies, recent graduates and advanced candidates. (Starting with the recent meeting in San Francisco, we are no longer designating some of these groups as open to members only, and others as open only to candidates; instead, we will assign participants by preference.) You know, of course, that the participants in these Workshops have always assembled on the Thursday afternoon of the Meetings, and have pursued their discussions on into the evening. The members of some groups (for example “Psychoanalysis and Community Psychiatry”) have come together meeting after meeting for years; others have preferred to meet only sporadically, as material on their particular theme accumulated. Sometimes, especially in Continuous Case Seminars, the participants have remained the same from meeting to meeting; more often, though, the topic of a discussion has remained the same while the participants in the group have changed.
In May 1968, a new kind of Workshop, the “Interdisciplinary Colloquium,” was introduced, and, more recently (May, 1969), “Interdisciplinary Seminars” were added. These new workshops are also, for the present, being held on Thursday afternoon and evening. The purpose of the Interdisciplinary Colloquia is to initiate a dialogue between psychoanalysts and members of other scientific and humanist disciplines. We have held colloquia with historical biographers (Psychoanalysis and Biography); with psychologists (Affect and Cognition); with drama critics and directors (Drama Criticism and Psychoanalysis); with anthropologists (Methodology of Psychoanalytically Oriented Anthropological Fieldwork) and also with social workers (The Relevance of Psychoanalysis to Contemporary Social Work), with scholars in linguistics and art (The Nature of the Symbolic Process), and with jurists (Psychoanalysis and Jurisprudence). Some of these colloquia have already held ‘repeat performances’ with substantially the same participants; one did so, with new participants, at the recent meeting in San Francisco. As we gain experience in arranging these interdisciplinary discussions, we are finding that the optimum number of participants is about sixteen, divided about equally between members of our Association and the invited guest scholars.
The purpose of the Interdisciplinary Seminars is somewhat different. Here the aim is to interest rather greater numbers of ‘outside’ professional people in the ways in which psychoanalytic theory and practice might serve as a contributory tool in their professional work. These seminars are led by a chairman and a co-chairman, both psychoanalysts; the chairman is chosen for his eminence in the particular field with which the seminar is to deal; so, too, is the co-chairman, but the latter must have the additional qualification of being familiar with the local professional group to which the seminar is addressed. So far, we have arranged seminars for psychiatric residents, for pediatricians and pediatric nurses, and for social workers. Seminars for lawyers, teachers, and also possibly for law enforcement officers and ministers are planned.
Since May 1965, the Sunday afternoon meeting has been given over to a panel addressed to the interested public. This panel - particularly at our New York meetings — has had a rather sparse attendance. For this reason we plan to omit it from the program of our December 1970 meeting; instead we will hold the Interdisciplinary Colloquia and the Interdisciplinary Seminars at this
time. For the Annual Meetings however, which are followed by the meetings of the American Psychiatric Association, we may continue to hold an open panel on Sunday afternoons as heretofore.
You will all have seen that the panels have recently been reduced in length from a full day to half a day. The reason for this was that many people attended the panels only for part of the time, or only to hear one or two of the presentations. The exchange between the panelists which, after all, should constitute the prime feature of this by now time-honored format, came after so long a day that the audience had often changed its composition entirely or dwindled to a mere handful. At the same time, heavy attendance at Panels led to sparse audiences for the individual papers.
The Program Committee is aware that shortening the panels has some disadvantages: the presenters may feel hampered in fully exposing their theses; with less time to find a common language, the panel members may find it difficult to achieve a warm, meaningful interchange, and questioning and participation from the floor may also be cut short. However, on the whole, favorable comments have outweighed criticism. The dilemma of having to choose between panels and papers has been eased and thus larger audiences have been free to attend the scientific papers presented in the half-day sessions which alternate with the panels. It appears that this has encouraged a larger number of colleagues to submit papers for presentation.
In regard to the scientific papers themselves, we have found that a three-hour session does not allow time enough for the full discussion of three 40-minute presentations. From now on we shall try, whenever possible, to schedule only two full length papers in each Section.
The newest addition to the scientific program is the so-called “Group Studies in Progress.” Here, an on-going study group is given a whole afternoon Section in which to present the results or interim formulations of its work. We are still experimenting with the format of these presentations.
Let me now tell you something of the process by which panel topics and participants are chosen. In outline, this is what happens: All the themes suggested — whether for panels or for workshops — are listed and the list circulated to the members of the Program Committee before they meet. At their meeting these suggestions are discussed and choices agreed upon. In making our choices we try to maintain a balance between clinical psychoanalysis, psychoanalytic theory, child and adolescent analysis, new scientific findings relevant to psychoanalysis and applied psychoanalysis. The chairmen and panelists for the topics chosen are selected from among the experts in our own field or, where appropriate, from other disciplines.
Individual scientific papers are handled somewhat differently. Every paper submitted is carefully read and evaluated by at least three and usually four members of the Program Committee; if any uncertainty remains, additional outside opinions may be called upon. The criteria guiding the Committee in weighing whether a paper is to be scheduled for presentation are its relevance to psychoanalysis, its interest, clarity, plausibility, novelty and scholarliness. The discussants of the scientific papers to be presented are chosen for their competence in the particular field which the paper deals. The discussant's task is not only to clarify the author's thoughts for the audience, but also to open up any issue with which he might disagree, so that a meaningful exchange — hopefully with audience participation — can take place.
We have maintained the tradition of having the President of the Association, or alternately an honored guest or member, address the full membership on Sunday morning. Our next non-presidential speaker will be Dr. Rene Spitz, in May, 1971.
The Chairman of the Program Committee is appointed by the President; up to now he has held office until he resigned. The Committee members are also appointed by the President, usually from among people suggested by the Chairman. In making his suggestions your present chairman has aimed at as broad a geographic distribution of highly qualified colleagues as possible, so that he may hear the views of all sections of the Association. He feels, also, that it is essential to the vitality of our organization that the composition of the Program Committee be constantly renewed. Therefore, each year — with a great sense of loss — he asks those who have served longest to pass their burden on to new appointees. He believes this same demand for renewal should govern his own time in office.
Currently the members of the Committee are: Drs. Norman Atkins, Jose Barchilon, Martin A. Berezin, Justin D. Call, James R. Faircloth, Irving B. Harrison, John S. Kafka, Otto F. Kernberg, Charles Kligerman, Norman M. Margolis, Paul G. Myerson, Peter B. Neubauer, William S. Robbins, Nathan P. Segel, Morris A. Sklansky, and John J. Weber.
The Program Committee will always consider members' proposals for new themes or new forms. Limitations of time, or considerations of program balance may hinder us from acting on them immediately but this should not discourage members from sending suggestions. Our meetings are a rite that will remain meaningful only as they reflect the ideas of the membership.