This is the first of a series of articles to inform the membership of the various liaison activities of our Association with other organizations.
In accordance with the best analytic tradition, to understand an existing relationship one must know the history. The Association for Child Psychoanalysis was founded in 1965 by Marianne Kris and other child analysts. It has sought from the beginning to provide a forum for serious inquiry concerning child and adolescent analysis in a setting where child analysts might meet in professional collegiality and to attend to some of the special needs of this professional group.
Although the ACP has much in common with the much larger, better known, and older APsaA, the two organizations are quite different. For instance, only the APsaA has the functions of accreditation and certification.
Indeed it was only because there was no place within the APsaA for trained lay child analysts that the ACP was formed. The circumstances of its founding rather clearly committed the ACP to independent activity. Yet, there were many years in which panels and workshops at the APsaA meetings were jointly sponsored. Recently, however, the APsaA ruled out further jointly sponsored presentations.
Against such an uneven background, liaison function is especially worthwhile. As a declaration of mutual organizational interest, the appointment of a liaison person is, in itself, a positive act. Official blessing is thus conferred upon individual child analysts to actively participate and represent the field and its interests.
Liaison is an officially designated means to promote the areas of mutual interest while averting fractiousness over divisive issues. This can best be done by encouraging good workshops and stimulating panels through which child analysis can contribute to the ongoing vitalization of adult analytic practice and theory. As certain subjects become timely or popular, it is appropriate and constructive to utilize such interest, while avoiding program duplication. In addition, what is happening in training, curriculum development, case availability at various institutes, etc. are always of interest to both groups.
These liaison activities are carried out through corresponding appointments in both organizations, e.g., being Chair of the Program Committee of the ACP and a member of its Executive Committee, as well as a member of the APsaA Program Committee and the Committee on Child and Adolescent Analysis (a subcommittee of BOPS).
It is gratifying to see that the American has maintained its interest in analytic work with children; one hopes that this interest can be furthered and enlarged. It is precisely toward this goal that the effort of liaison must consistently be directed.
Peter Blos Jr., M.D.
Liaison between APsaA and ACP