It is a virtue, although at times a painful one, of the American Psychoanalytic Association that few significant questions are decided without extensive debate. The issue of how frequently the American should hold its scientific meetings is an example of such discussion. Last year a decision was made to curtail the number of scientific meetings so that there would be two in the years when the International Congress did not take place and one, the fall meeting, in the years when the congress did meet. (The administrative machinery of the Association would continue to meet twice each year.) However, the question has been re-opened by members who felt strongly that the Association ought not to give up any of the scientific meetings and the Executive Council has agreed to reconsider the issue. I would like to express a personal view based on my experiences as Chairman of the Program Committee, but not necessarily representing the Program Committee. Any decision will be effective only after I have relinquished my Chairmanship, so I can claim relative personal neutrality.
The original case for fewer meetings was made on several bases which I would like to answer.
It was suggested the spring meeting regularly lost money and the American could no longer afford to incur such losses. Although it has been difficult to obtain an actual cost-accounting of the meeting, it is now the case that the activities of the Program Committee, taken as a whole, earn money for the Association. The Workshop for Allied Disciplines and the good attendance at our recent meetings has resulted in a surplus last year. I am sure that no one would wish to use scientific meetings as a means of supporting the organization and it should, therefore, be sufficient that the meetings are not bankrupting the organization. (It's likely that the proposal to have an administrative meeting without a scientific component would incur almost as much expense as a full meeting.)
Some felt that a spring meeting hampers the attendance of the American psychoanalysts at the meetings of the International Congress. I am aware of no data on this topic, but it seems likely that Americans attend the International Congresses as part of their summer vacation plans for travel abroad, and those plans are little affected by what they have done the previous April. My own impression is that members who go to meetings at all are likely to go both to the spring meeting and the Congress, while there are others who are likely to attend neither.
Questions were raised about whether there was sufficient scientific activity among the members to sustain two meetings a year. My experiences as Chairman of the Program Committee lead me to believe that there is no dearth of scientific material and the Program Committee has, in fact, over a number of years, regularly expanded the scope and depth of the meetings. I believe that there are many significant and imaginative scientific educational opportunities which have not yet been utilized in our meetings. The Program Committee is currently involved with a number of topics to be presented over a series of meetings, and these would certainly benefit from twice-yearly frequency. Furthermore, various seminars and workshops are regularly over-subscribed, and it would seem difficult to accommodate the members' needs at a single yearly meeting.
It has been argued that the omission of one of the annual meetings would encourage regional meetings. I think most people would agree that not many regions can manage the great breadth of activities that are presented at the annual meetings.
I believe these were the major arguments put forward for reducing the frequency of meetings. I would like now to suggest a few positive reasons for maintaining our current frequency of meetings.
It has often been pointed out that many psychoanalysts tend to lead relatively constricted professional lives. The opportunities for easily available contact with a variety of other members of our profession may be lacking for most of us. The perceived need for professional stimulation, for easy exchange of ideas, for sharing of experiences, seems clearly exemplified by the avidity with which our membership has greeted the opportunity to attend the national scientific meetings. Even when the spring meetings were held in out of the way and difficult to reach locations such as Quebec, almost a thousand members attended. The atmosphere of cordiality and openness at these meetings has been of the utmost importance to those who attended. In an era of considerable concern for the professional identity of psychoanalysts, it would seem that our meetings serve a most important role in sustaining that identity.
The present period in psychoanalysis is a particularly exciting one scientifically, with new ideas being presented in every area of analytic activity. Furthermore, major researchers in other fields, from linguistics to neurophysiology, have begun to suggest fruitful lines of thought for psychoanalysts. This would seem the least desirable moment for curtailing the active exchange that occurs at the national meetings. International Congresses are exciting and productive and members will continue to attend them and to be stimulated by the proceedings, but this in no way fulfills the need for American psychoanalysis to maintain its own present high level of scientific and educational activity—and perhaps, even, its own distinctive creative flavor.
After a lapse of some years it is again the plan for our spring meetings to be held the week preceding and in the same city as the meetings of the American Psychiatric Association. I believe that our continued organization and scientific relationships with the APA is more important now than ever before, as we face similar difficult problems, and every encouragement should be given to our joint ventures.
No disaster will occur if the meetings are curtailed. Fewer meetings may, however lead to an unnecessary and untimely inhibition of the current excellent atmosphere of scientific freedom and excitement and educational activity.
Arnold M. Cooper
New York