Since the Psychoanalytic Society of New England, East, had not received final approval by the American, we had no opportunity to express our thoughts regarding delinkage in the issue devoted to that topic. Although at the time of this writing, the results of the vote are not yet known to us, we would like to set forth some of our concerns.
Many of us find ourselves agreeing with both sides. We feel that graduates of institutes should be able to participate freely in their own scientific organization. We also feel that the stature and credibility of the American rests squarely on the maintenance of impeccable standards.
Our concern, however, is that the by-law amendment does not really address the problem, which is that the organizational structure of the American no longer reflects its changing and varied functions. It seems possible that a good deal of the internal dissension which has developed in recent years may be a result of that mismatch between form and function.
The administrative framework of any organization ought not to be a static set of rules, but a dynamic embodiment of the beliefs and basic philosophy of its members; it may be that our philosophy has changed to a point that our shell no longer fits as it did in our youth, and is inhibiting our growth. The structure of The American and most of our institutes owes much to the original Berlin Institute, with a central Education Committee consisting mostly of training analysts. To be sure, this system has served us well, and has certainly protected standards for many years; however, it is a system designed for a small group, all of whom know and trust each other.
Applying the model of a central governing group to our organization on a national level is questionable. As an organization grows larger and problems more complex, a growing sense of disenfranchisement may develop; Institutes and Societies feel more locally beleaguered and more distant from the central group, regardless of how honorably that group may be discharging its duties. If organizational structure interferes with responsiveness, a sense of isolation and helplessness among the local organizations increases, and suspicions and mistrust develop.
We feel it is important for the organization to engage in a serious and objective self-examination: it is certainly encouraging that a joint committee of Board and Council has been proposed to that end. We would urge consideration of a thoughtful suggestion originally put forward by Dr. Cornelius Heijn—namely that the American be administratively separated into three parts—Board, Council and certification.
At this time Board and Council exist under a single entity, though their functions are as distinctly and naturally different as are the functions of Institute and Society. In the By-Laws, the Council technically has authority over the Board. In the past, a kind of “gentleman's agreement” has been in effect, preventing clashes between the two. As the organization grows larger, disruptive incursions by one group upon the other are inevitable: again, the culprit here is not the two groups, but the administrative blurring of their roles, which are inherently different and which do not lend themselves to a hierarchical relationship.
Dr. Heijn's proposal would have Board and Council operating under a central umbrella, but separated into a separate and equal bicameral system, reflecting their distinct functions, with Board representing Institutes, and Council representing members. This natural and logical step would be an organizational recognition of the pre-existing reality, under which each group would be able to operate more efficiently in their own appropriate arenas, without potential interference from the other.
Even more crucial is the establishment of an independent certifying body. Our certification process is thorough and scrupulously fair. However, in the present climate, an in-house certifying body lacks credibility to those outside our group. In our view the most important step that could be taken to protect standards would be to establish such a body, to achieve the status of a speciality board, and to seek recognition by the appropriate licensing, governmental, and insuring bodies. If we do not move to establish our own idea of standards as the general standard of the field, most assuredly, some other group will.
We can no longer continue as though we are alone in American psychoanalysis. Increasingly, there are Institutes which do not fall under the aegis of the American. Yet the American is still in a position of leadership in psychoanalysis in the U.S.. Rather than fearing these other Institutes, let us recognize that leadership carries special responsibility, and set up a standard for psychoanalysis based on sound educational and clinical principles.
If Dr. Heijn's tripartite proposal reminds us of the checks and balances of our Federal Constitution, it is no accident. This is a structural system which has allowed for continuing creative change. Adopting this or a similar proposal could go a long way toward dealing with concerns of both groups—providing professional membership, yet preserving standards.
We are concerned lest the passage or defeat of the delinkage proposal be seen as a solution of our organization's problems. That solution must lie in the development of an organizational system which expresses who we are and what we believe and which will allow us to focus our energies, not on internal dissension, but on engaging the exciting opportunities and challenges facing psychoanalysis.
Robert L. Pyles, M.D., President, Psychoanalytic Society of New England, East