The creation of the Institute of Contemporary Psychoanalysis was announced in December, 1990. As of early February, 1991, it comprised 44 members. The Founders have stressed their continuing commitment to their local institutes and to The American. They have expressed their intention to continue efforts for change within The American while working within the new institute to achieve broader standards and new principles.
At ICP's first general meeting in February, the founding members outlined the goals and philosophy of the new organization. Their broad principles include the following:
Only members active in the workings of the institute may vote.
All training analysts or supervisors will be required to participate in study groups with colleagues engaged in the same activity.
The curriculum will be framed in terms of current understanding of psychoanalysis and will be proportioned roughly in reverse of the usual psychoanalytic education. That is, rather than focusing mainly on Freud and other classical analysts and secondarily on contemporary thinkers, the main concentration will be on contemporary thought; Freud and other classical theorists will round out and provide background understanding.
The institute does not adhere to any single theoretical point of view.
The 12 founding members currently constitute the Board of Directors of the ICP, but in future years the Board of Directors will be constructed as follows: senior members (those who graduated five or more years ago from an approved institute) will hold six positions, regular members four, and candidates two. Candidates will have full voting rights on the Board.
All senior members will be eligible to serve as training and supervising analysts in the institute, a decision that reflects a
general concern that The American's present criteria for achieving training analyst status are more divisive and demoralizing than effective in upholding high standards. Many analysts have come to believe that, contrary to the assurances of The American, cases that are not “classical” are not considered successful demonstrations of the psychoanalytic process and that certification is thereby reserved for those who present cases from a classical point of view. Moreover, since only certified analysts are currently permitted to become training analysts, the result has been the creation of a hierarchy and a particular direction that precludes acceptance of work as analytic that does not conform to these restrictive, preestablished criteria.
The ICP's decision not to affiliate with The American is connected to its experimental interests and belief that investigation should encompass and question such factors as frequency and the use of the couch. Estelle Shane, one of the founders, stressed the positive potential of setting up a model for psychoanalytic process. She emphasized that, although it is important to change ongoing institutions while maintaining them, educational progress requires that new models be structured and their success or failure be assessed. If they do succeed, then the innovations can be incorporated into the operations of other institutions.
Morton Shane, another founder, agreed that the prospect of being able to participate in an experimental school provides an exciting challenge. He pointed out that the slow and gradual rate of change in The American, a pace that has undoubted advantages, also makes experimentation with certain features of psychoanalysis difficult. Dr. Shane focused on the issue of criteria for becoming a training analyst in The American, including certification and examination. He articulated his opinion that, at present, the training analyst hierarchy in The American is a destructive feature that has led to a bifurcation of the membership, both nationally and on the local institute level.
Dr. Shane recalled that between 1968 and 1973, LAPSI had instituted a policy by which the principal criterion for becoming a training analyst was length of membership in the Institute, rather than any standards or requirements set by The American. The experiment was concluded not by a decision that the policy was flawed or inefficient, but rather by a directive from The American that instituted an examination in the form of a case presentations as a requirement for training analyst status.
Dr. Shane spoke of the benefits of an institute that remains independent of any outside authority. He stressed that there would be greater freedom in terms of admissions and criteria for defining what constitutes psychoanalysis. Possibilities for extending the outreach of psychoanalysis could thus be increased, he indicated. For example, today in California significant numbers of mental health workers do psychotherapeutic work in hospitals, often, but not always, supervised by psychiatrists. These people typically have no psychoanalytic training. The ICP would be free to admit and train some of these candidates, creating a beneficial effect in areas where psychoanalysis is currently not greatly represented. Moreover, the Institute would be able to negotiate other types of broadening collaborations with, for instance, universities. Dr. Shane emphasized that admissions criteria for candidates at ICP would match the postgraduate training requirements established for licensure of the PhD in psychology.
Reactions of the SCPI and LAPSI to the formation of the new institute have been mixed. LAPSI is experiencing scant internal conflict because of the founding of the new institute. SCPI, on the other hand, which continues to struggle with differences of opinion on a number of fronts, has experienced more divisiveness in reaction to the formation of the new institute. Richard Rosenstein, a member of the SCPI and also a founder of ICP, indicated that the ongoing difficulties within SCPI made the ICP particularly appealing to him. Rosenstein indicated that his position is the result, in part, of disappointment with recent developments both within the SCPI and with respect to The American. He noted his discouragement with the continuing and exacerbated fights within the SCPI and his disappointment with the watered-down version of the proposed by-law change concerning delinkage. He referred, as well, to the defeat of the Curtis proposal, which, had it passed, would have allowed local institutes to assess clinical competence and analyzability of nonmedical applicants without needing to present the actual clinical materials.
Doryann Lebe, another SCPI member, stated that she, too, was saddened by the divisive atmosphere at the institute. She expressed the hope that the existence of the ICP would stimulate more rapid change, both at the SCPI and nationally. In Dr. Lebe's view, the absence of a rigid hierarchy should allow for a broader selection of members interested in research, writing, and investigating the potential of applied psychoanalysis. A move into more social and cultural areas of exploration can have a broad salutary effect, she suggested, reiterating that the spirit of openness and experimentation is a basic goal of ICP: “We have to be open to be questioned, to be challenged.”