For the first time in its history the International Psychoanalytical Association has held an international Congress in South America; also for the first time, a President from Latin America has been elected—Horacio Etchegoyen of Buenos Aires, who will succeed Joseph Sandler in 1993. That this was a meeting of 3300 registrants (2900 participants and over 400 accompanying registrants), the largest ever in the association's 83-year history, seems to underscore the importance of the new bylaws enacted in Rome in 1989 and implemented this year. The approved amendments include provisions for rotating the presidency on an equal basis among the three main regions—North America, Europe, and Latin America—and allotting an equal number of vice presidents to each. These changes, the culmination of negotiation and demand, compromise and innovation, show a willingness by the membership to adapt to an extraordinarily changed reality as regards the composition, size, and geographical distribution of the component societies. (The issue of rotating the site of the Congress equally among the three regions continues to be debated.)
Faced with an enormous political and administrative challenge at the time of these changes, including the admission of several new societies, the organization was confronted with the serious difficulty created by the leaving of Irene Auletta, who after 30 years as Administrative Secretary retired from Broomhills. The present administration of the IPA, Joseph Sandler (President) and Jacqueline Amati Mehler (Secretary) had to absorb, with the support of Council members, the many office tasks necessary for the preparation of the landmark Congress to be held in Buenos Aires. To this end, Ellen Fertig performed astounding organizational feats. Also most admirable was the functioning of the local organizing committee in Buenos Aires, made up from the two societies of that city, as well as the Mendoza Society and the Cordoba Group, which at this Congress became a Provisional Society.
The number of registrants exceeded by 50 percent those of any previous Congress; they represented 37 countries and 44 societies. Despite daunting logistics of accommodating such numbers, the Congress ran smoothly throughout, from the gigantic cocktail party that kicked it off, to the elegant farewell dinner at the Alvear Palace Hotel. This near miracle was in great part possible because of the exemplary collaboration of the two Buenos Aires societies.
The Argentine capital, a metropolitan area of nearly 8 million people, is home to both the Argentine Psychoanalytic Association (APA), founded in 1942 by Angel Garma, Celes Carcamo, Rascovsky, Ferrari Hardoy, Pichon Riviere, and Marie Langer; and the younger Buenos Aires Psychoanalytic Association (APDEBA), which split from the APA in 1976 and whose founding members included Etchegoyen, David Liberman, Joel Zac, and Leon and Rebecca Grinberg. The traditional rivalry of the two societies was heightened by the fact that each could claim one of the two presidential candidates vying in this year's election. Yet Susana Lustig for APA and Isidoro Berenstein for APDEBA were tireless chairpersons, their joint efforts beautifully reflected in a jointly authored article published in Clarin, a local newspaper, titled “Do We Change Only Through an Analyst?” Bearing the subtitle “An international congress held in Buenos Aires debates the nature of transformations in people,” the article is a brief but excellent overview of the subject of psychic change, the Congress's theme. The article conceptualizes the relationship between suffering and change, gives an outline of psychic functioning highlighting the importance of the unconscious, and offers an overview of psychological treatment as contrasted with other vehicles of change. A fascinating feature of this Congress was the high visibility of the event in newspapers and magazines. The popularity of psychoanalysis, the outside observer could not help but notice (and not without some measure of wistfulness), is considerably higher in this part of the world than in the Northern hemisphere.
For the organizers, the current officers of the IPA, the successful candidates, and the many members who anonymously fought for this Congress, this was a fulfilling triumph. A smiling Etchegoyen reflected on the number of registrants a few days before the election: “There were many who said this meeting could not be held in Argentina.” In the words of Jacqueline Amati Mehler, this Congress was not only an important event for Latin America whereby it was fully integrated into the analytic community, but it was essential also in confronting “prejudice about strange exotic lands.”
Many who came to Buenos Aires for the first time were stunned by the sophistication of the city and touched by the warmth and graciousness of their hosts. The local organizing committee hit on the novel and extremely successful idea of inviting groups of registrants to evening parties at local analyst's homes on the first day of the meetings. Thus, particularly for registrants from abroad, the vastness of the Congress was transformed in the a sharing of experiences, the recognition of familiar faces, and the forming of friendships.
The American participants, numbering fewer than two hundred of the 3300 registrants, were
among the most surprised and delighted of the foreign visitors. Most of them first-time travelers to South America, they were quick to voice their gratitude toward their hosts. Many new members of the IPA, from the nonmedical societies just accepted at the Rome Congress, found the exercise of their new voting rights an exciting responsibility; before leaving the States they had sought and obtained the information necessary to make intelligent choices. In Buenos Aires their Latin hosts were especially sympathetic and helpful, possibly sharing with them the memory of long battles for acceptance now over. (The Argentine Societies have accepted nonmedical candidates on a totally equal basis with M.D.s since 1985.)
Some personal stories had a particular poignancy rarely associated with scientific meetings; a considerable number of American Jewish analysts, descendants of European immigrants, had in preparation for this trip traced branches of their families who had immigrated to South America. Encounters took place among family members who had never met and whose families had been separated for 40 or 50 years. Movingly, faded photographs, old letters, and personal souvenirs were shared and exchanged.
With varying degrees of formality, scientific exchanges were also arranged. Adela Duarte, twenty years ago an NYU Ph.D. student, located Merton Gill at his hotel for an unexpected reunion. Now chair of the Ego Psychology Department at the University of Buenos Aires, she timidly asked if he would consider meeting with her staff. He generously obliged and on the Saturday following the meetings presented a comparison of analytic models at the home of his former student. His fee for this endeavor was unusual: supper, a ride to the airport to catch the flight back home that evening, and the excitement and gratitude of the group.
Foreigners were encouraged to visit any of the institutes, but APDEBA hosted an official open house on Tuesday at which first-time visitors could admire the recently finished facilities: an open, modern building attesting the success of psychoanalysis in this part of the world. The next evening, Wednesday, the building was again overflowing when, following a special performance at the beautiful Colon Opera House (featuring Camernta Bariloche, an Argentine chamber ensemble, and a recital by Jaime Torres on the charango, an Andean mandolin made of an armadillo shell), an enthusiastic crowd descended on APDEBA to celebrate Etchegoyen's victory earlier that day. After rounds of drinks and tapas—another feature of this Congress was
the abundance of excellent food—the crowd filled the large auditorium. There Etchegoyen invited to an improvised panel some of the people toward whom he felt particular gratitude, but also those present who may not have supported him but whom he recognized as especially devoted to this Congress and to the IPA. His gracious speech recognized many, and while he obviously savored his moment of triumph, he could also train his gaze on the future of the organization.
On a different note, anyone who idealizes psychoanalysts should spend some time at an international meeting at which an election is held. Rumors and counterrumors, sidelong glances, tense exchanges, and hurt feelings leave no doubts about the regressive nature of group phenomena, the narcissism invested in small differences, the lure of power, and, in sum, the humanity of individual psychoanalysts.
The multilingual efforts of all, it should be said, were amply rewarded: to the audience's great delight, both Otto Kernberg—already considered by many Latin Americans to be one of their own—and Scientific Program Chairman Harold Blum delivered their keynote addresses in Spanish. As usual, Kernberg, mastering all the official languages of the IPA, circulated through the meetings without headphones, called upon at every turn to translate, to supply a particular word, to give a more refined meaning.
At the close of the meetings the experience shared by most was one of unusual warmth and camaraderie, of exciting new developments, and of hopeful perspectives on the future of psychoanalysis worldwide.