I am concerned about the planned reduced frequency of the Spring meetings of The American Psychoanalytic Association, leaving only a single annual meeting in alternate years. I realize that the Spring meeting has been a financial burden for The Association and fully recognize the importance of fiscal considerations at a time of enormous budget pressures. The lack of larger attendance by the membership has contributed to the deficit incurred by the Spring meeting and has also raised questions about its significance. There are many arguments pro and con but in this situation I prefer to add my voice to a debate on a policy that I believe should be reconsidered.
Complete elimination of the Spring meeting has also been proposed. Many professional societies meet only once a year, but this model may not be appropriate or optimal for organized psychoanalysis. The meetings of our Association serve the goals of psychoanalytic education and the stimulation of our creativity and productivity. Our scientific programs and activities have expanded and have attracted increasing registration and attentive audiences. A reduction to half the number of meetings of The Association could result in a loss to analytic stimulation and interchange, which in the long run could lead to a decrease in analytic scholarship.
It is important and valuable for psychoanalysts to meet and intellectually “mix” with psychoanalysts from other areas and institutes. This offers the opportunity for balancing different emphases, exchanging alternative formulations and viewpoints, and the opportunity for constructive challenge to new scientific and professional issues. The meetings of The Association serve to enlarge the analytic scope of the smaller institutes and societies, with special problems associated with small size, idealization, and insularity. For all members, there is a chance to be away from the local ties and pressures, dependent and incestuous attachments, along with exposure to the teachers and teachings prominent in other institutes.
The increased participation of our members in the meetings of The American Psychiatric Association would be salutary and valuable, but would not compensate for the analytic attendance and involvement in our own meetings. I think we could aim for increased participation in The APA and in the International Psycho-Analytical Association without diminution of the primary, scientific functions of The American Psychoanalytic Association.
If we significantly reduce the scientific programs of The American Psychoanalytic Association, are we not sending a negative message about our priorities? We are thinking of a possible special fund for legislative liaison and political lobbying, while reporting that there are insufficient funds to continue our Spring scientific meetings.
The continuation of administrative and committee meetings in the absence of a scientific meeting might be indicative of a burgeoning bureaucracy. The committee meetings are very important, but I am doubtful that they transcend the importance of the scientific meetings of The Association. There is already a problem for some members who attend committee meetings but do not stay for the scientific meetings of The Association. The problems are complex and difficult, but I believe attendance of the scientific meetings should be encouraged and enlarged, rather than possibly discouraged or diminished.
Biannual Spring scientific meetings could also have the untoward affect of a loosening of ties and increasing distance of the general membership from The American Psychoanalytic Association. Except for those members, who are regularly involved in committee meetings, other members would participate in the affairs of The Association only once a year and have less chance for national scientific and professional participation as well as exposure to the activities of The Association. This would not lead to strengthening of identification and relationship to The American Psychoanalytic Association.
Regional psychoanalytic meetings are useful and valuable but cannot fully substitute for the meetings of the national association. The Spring meeting is, in a sense, also a regional meeting with national scope and participation. In the years when there is an International Psycho-Analytical Association meeting, at the very least, the Spring scientific meeting could be retained in abbreviated form. The American Psychoanalytic Association could co-sponsor a regional meeting in varying localities. The administrative meeting might be followed by a scientific symposium on a particular theme or topic, or other innovative formats could be considered.
We are confronted with extraordinary and continuing challenges. Only a strong, effective, and scientifically active national association can foster, represent, and protect American psychoanalysis. Our goals and priorities should be re-examined, and our scientific activities should be maintained, developed, and supported.
—Harold P. Blum