“During my term of office as president of CAPE in 1979-80,” Maria T. Lymberis, M.D., recalled recently, “I was repeatedly struck by the fact that many of the colleagues that I met during the meetings of the American had no idea what or who CAPE was.” The following report is based on Dr. Lymberis' information, reflecting upon the evolution of CAPE, its relationship to the American Psychoanalytic Association and its accomplishments.
CAPE began in 1963, with Barre Alan, M.D., as its first president. The precipitating event was the issue of IRS stand concerning training analysis. But the climate was ripe for a national student organization.
At the time of its founding, the organization named itself The National Council of Psychoanalytic Candidates and Clinical Associates. Its goal was to serve the special needs of psychoanalytic candidates who, while in training for many years, had no representation and no input within the structure of the American Psychoanalytic Association. From its inception, the organization restricted its membership to candidates and clinical associates in training at institutes approved by the American Psychoanalytic Association. In its By-Laws, there is a section that allows for election to membership upon special approval of the Executive Committee. In the seventeen year history of the organization, this option has been exercised on only two or three occasions.
From the beginning, the American Psychoanalytic Association's attitude toward the organization was receptive, even though “guarded.” The American supported it in its confrontation with the IRS, which resulted in the deductibility of training analysis for M.D. candidates. But, while the American assisted the candidates on the IRS issue unambivalently, it did not join them on other issues of interest and concern to them. The candidates challenged the existing structure of the American. The American responded to the challenge ten years later when it changed its membership procedures and created the categories of Affiliate and Associate Membership for candidates.
Yet, full membership in the American remained restricted to certified members. The American preserved this policy by excluding candidates in the initial stages of their training and by putting a three year time limit on the Associate Membership status. While the change was a victory for the candidates' organization, it also reawakened its identity crisis. Since the American now officially accepted candidates and encouraged the institutes to involve candidates in the educational process and in the local society's activities, was there still a need for an autonomous national candidates' organization?
The candidates' organization debated its purposes and goals once again. Changes had to be made. The first one was a change of name. In 1974, during the presidency of Barbara Deutsch, M.D., the name changed to CAPE. After heated debate, the Executive Committee decided that, with the change in the membership procedures of the American, there was a change in the relationship of the organization to the American, and this necessitated a shift of focus and emphasis. The organization had to emphasize its self-appointed position as “Council” to the institutes and to the American on matters of psychoanalytic training. Thus it expanded its perspective by taking upon itself the task to represent the whole course of psychoanalytic training, from admission to an institute to certification and full membership in the American. Hence the new name: Council for the Advancement of Psychoanalytic Education.
For a time, the name change seemed to resolve the identity problem of the candidates' organization. The president of CAPE continued to make formal reports to the Board on Professional Standards, bringing to the attention of the Board the concerns of candidates. This was particularly striking in the case of the Los Angeles Institute in the mid 1970's. But candidates felt that the creation of Affiliate and Associate Membership categories did not provide for adequate representation within the American. CAPE was performing this function. In 1978, in an effort to address the problem, the American created the Joint Committee on Affiliate and Associate Membership under the able chairmanship of Richard Simons, M.D. This created a new identity crisis in the candidates' organization. Now, at last, there was an avenue for candidates to express their concerns within the structure of the American. Questions were heard: What further usefulness could an independent organization such as CAPE serve? Wasn't CAPE now clearly in competition with the American? Why persist with CAPE? The American no longer would permit CAPE to report to the Board. CAPE was acknowledged by the American to be the independent, autonomous organization that it has always been. This meant that, henceforth, the American would deal with CAPE as it did with all other independent and autonomous organizations, CAPE members concluded.
The December 1978 CAPE meeting was dominated by the issues of purpose and viability. A special task force was appointed by Carol Jacob, M.D., then president of CAPE, chaired by James Schoettler, M.D., to research these issues. Dr. Schoettler reported the results of a questionnaire his Task Force sent to select members of the American and randomly to members of CAPE at the December 1979 meeting. The response was overwhelmingly in favor of CAPE's continued existence.
When she took office as president of CAPE in May 1979, Dr. Lymberis recalls, she began with the conviction that CAPE, as an autonomous organization representing candidates through an election process, was “uniquely able to expose, identify, address and study issues of special concern to candidates.” While the American now had a special committee for candidates, that committee was not “truly representative of candidates, since the members are appointed and not elected.” Furthermore, only candidates who have attained the status of Affiliate or Associate Members are represented. The committee must recommend to the Executive Council and the Board special issues to be studied and can only do so after due authorization. But by virtue of the fact that it is autonomous, CAPE can implement studies and has the flexibility to act promptly and expeditiously to initiate changes.
The relationship between CAPE and the American is still evolving. “CAPE does not share the perception of the American that CAPE is just another independent organization similar to APA or any other,” Dr. Lymberis emphasized. “CAPE is, specifically through its constitution and By-Laws, connected to the American. Both the American and CAPE share the goals of fostering, protecting and promoting psychoanalytic education. CAPE has and will continue to contribute its views to the American for the advancement of psychoanalytic education.”
During the past year, CAPE was active on several fronts:
It co-sponsored with IPSO the 5th International Psychoanalytic Student Pre-Congress, which took place in New York City in
connection with the 31st IPA Congress. In a very successful two day program, it offered students from all over the world the opportunity to present papers and participate in workshops on psychoanalytic education, psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. (IPSO represents the international psychoanalytic students and was founded in 1973.)
It is in the process of conducting a survey on Psychoanalytic Education. All aspects are being studied, from admission procedures to supervision, training analysis, seminars, progression, graduation as well as personal attitudes and demographic data. CAPE will share this information with the American and the institutes.
It raised the issue of psychotherapy prior to psychoanalysis in December 1978. At that time Richard Hertel, Ph.D., was appointed as the chairman of the CAPE committee to study this issue. Dr. Hertel reported to the Executive Committee of CAPE in 1979, and it was decided to bring this issue to the attention of Dr. Sydney Pulver. This led to the May 1980 Workshop on this issue, sponsored by the American.
CAPE is currently studying the possibility of re-instituting a workshop for psychiatric residents at the annual APA meeting on Dynamic Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis. CAPE has notified the American and hopes to have officers and members participate.
In December 1979, CAPE voted to fund a three year scientific program during the winter meetings, at times not to conflict with the program of the American. The first to occur will be held in December 1980 and will be a workshop on “Writing Psychoanalytic Cases for Certification: Resistances and Challenges.” CAPE hopes that Dr. Krent and members of his Committee on Certification would participate, to bring direct information to candidates on this crucial issue.
In addition to its scientific projects, CAPE sponsors social meetings. And CAPE publishes a quarterly newsletter. “Clearly, CAPE is a vital and active organization that tries to live up to its aims and name. It is a worthy organization that the American and its members should support. CAPE welcomes you,” Dr. Lymberis concluded.