The Membership Question

Membership policies in the American Psychoanalytic Association are currently under review. Specifically, the Chicago Psychoanalytic Society has proposed to the Execuive Council that Associate (non-voting) Membership be renewable indefinitely so that analysts who, for whatever reason, do not become certified can still participate in their national professional organization.

This proposal has stirred up considerable discussion—both pro and con. Dr. Stanley Goodman's letter in the Newsletter of December 1979, expressing his fear that such a change would open the Association to large numbers of ill-trained people who would subvert standards, is a case in point. Equally thoughtful and concerned analysts have expressed another viewpoint. They believe that membership in the Association should be available to all graduates of approved institutes. Those who have completed the long and rigorous training will not be likely to destroy the high standards of the American. It is much more probable that the additional members will strengthen psychoanalysis and the Association.

Historically, the fact of having met the standards of the Board on Professional Standards of the American was expressed only by membership in the Association. At present, however, that imprimatur comes in the form of certification, and membership can be reconsidered as a separate issue. The argument put forward against any change is that standards must be maintained. No one opposes high standards. The premise, however, that providing membership to uncertified graduates of approved institutes will in fact lower standards is not clear-cut. It may even work the other way. Many analysts, who for one reason or another have not become certified, contribute extensively and productively to psychoanalysis locally. Because they are barred from participating in the Association, they are lost to the national organization. In Boston, for example, many of these analysts are important contributors to our society/institute. They serve as institute and extension faculty, scientific contributors, officers, members, and chairpersons of workshops and committees of the society including the Education Committee and trustees. Many of them are distinguished in the academic community; they enhance our scientific exchange, and the overall work of both the society and the institute. If they are willing to participate locally, why are we in the national organization depriving ourselves of a possible similar contribution at that level?

Reasons for not seeking certification surely vary. There is no evidence that all those who do not make the effort are inadequate. There is also no evidence that opening up the membership to graduates in good standing locally will decrease the number of analysts seeking certification. Those who have made the effort to complete analytic training will seek certification if they wish it, just as most graduates of good psychiatric residencies are not satisfied with membership in the APA, but go on to take specialty boards. The possibility of membership also should probably have little effect on the seeking of certification.

In an effort to obtain some concrete data, we in the Boston Society conducted a mail poll of our membership. The response rate among local non-retired analysts was 78%.

The results were presented at the Executive Council last December. As they did not appear in the minutes of that meeting, I am again reporting them here. (Discrepancies in the totals are accounted for by abstentions.)

Do you approve of a proposal that “All graduates of approved institutes would automatically be fully professionally qualified for membership in the American Psychoanalytic Association”, which passed unanimously at our Society business meeting on October 17, 1979, brought the following response:

Yes	147
No	9

The Chicago Proposal that Associate Membership be renewable indefinitely was passed somewhat less enthusiastically:

In subsequent meetings of the Society as well as the Education Committee, the Chicago Proposal was approved as minimal but acceptable.

Then in an effort to see whether changes in membership policy might make any actual difference, the following responses were obtained from people not now full members of the Association:

“If Associate (non-voting) Membership were made available without limit of time, would you join?

	Yes	No
Non-Members	23

Our figures speak clearly. Our votes express the sentiment that the Chicago Proposal is an acceptable minimal alternative to the availability of a voting membership on graduation. This translates into the fact that more individuals would join if the Chicago Proposal for extending the Associate Membership is approved. Considerably more would join if they could do so as full members. Though numbers vary in different societies, there must be analysts elsewhere in the country who feel the same way.

At the Meeting of the Executive Council in San Francisco in May, a straw vote was taken. There had clearly been extensive discussion of the issue, and many societies had also conducted polls, which were reported in some detail. It is to be hoped that that data, as well as the overall result of the poll, will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

The results were as follows:

The Association is a small organization, with many attendant problems. We wish to continue activities such as scientific meetings which are going to become more expensive. We also wish to have an impact nationally on such matters as accreditation, confidentiality, insurance issues—to name a few. How this is compatible with maximum restrictions on membership is puzzling. At best, we will be hard pressed financially to do what we would like as an organization, even if we liberalize our membership policy slightly. Not doing so can only further limit our potential as an influential organization.

It is time to welcome our fellow graduate analysts into the national association. Anyone who has put in the time and effort to become an analyst will not be likely to destroy the high standards of that body. Certification will remain as the way to acknowledge that an individual meets the highest requirements. Membership in the Association should be available to all graduates—and the current members should be pleased to welcome their colleagues.

Elizabeth Aub Reid, M.D.

Executive Councilor

Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute