A Reaction to My First International Psychoanalytic Congress

The 37th Congress of the International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA) in Buenos Aires was a true mosaic of theoretical and clinical ideas related to the theme of “Psychic Change: Developments in the Theory of Psychoanalytic Technique.” What made it personally gratifying to me was the rich mix of languages and cultures—a world I was privileged to enter as an English/Spanish bilingual.

At the Pre-Congress of the International Psychoanalytic Studies Organization (IPSO) the majority of participants were Argentinians (“Portenos” from Buenos Aires). The sessions were in Spanish, with some simultaneous translation. Not wearing a headset during sessions was my badge of honor. Every North American should have the experience at least once of being in the linguistic minority; it is a rapid route to overcoming ethnocentrism and linguistic arrogance.

But it was the between-session chats, shared meals, and social events that provided the most enriching interchanges. Candidates found common ground in discussions of institute requirements, theoretical perspectives, the professional literature, and descriptions of the analytic setting. It was fascinating to compare the lexicon of our profession across languages. I learned that “insight” and “holding” were among our terms of art that do not admit of easy translation. Professional cards were exchanged and sincere intentions to share research proffered.

The state of candidacy, viewed as a parallel to human development, can be compared to the adolescent struggle toward autonomy and self-definition, with an accompanying struggle against the parental demands of the institute. Thus one topic discussed at length was the word “candidate,” evoking for many the picture of a chrysalis which, upon graduation, emerges as a full butterfly-analyst. Many found this a bit paradoxical, as candidates work for years as analysts, if under supervision. There was a consensus: we saw ourselves as practicing interns or residents, as apprentices rather than candidates. Though the search for a more precise definition led to no conclusion, the discussion was extremely fruitful.

Another hotly debated topic was whether “training analysis” is a contradiction in terms. Many felt that the rigid training requirements of some institutes contaminate the open-endedness of an ideal personal analysis. Training analysts were perceived as crossing the boundary between the analytic frame and the function of the supervisor.

In the larger IPA sessions was an even broader sense of diversity—over 3,000 participants from 24 countries. The Buenos Aires Sheraton was transformed into a virtual Tower of Babel. People were struggling to communicate ideas across languages and different cultural world views. What united them was an underlying shared belief in the therapeutic value of psychoanalysis.

As a lifelong student of languages and cultures I was fascinated by the simultaneous translations—at times by trained interpreters speaking through earphones, at others more informally by members of the audience who attempted to help. As with ancient traders, new pidgins emerged from the contact between different languages and the strong wish to communicate ideas and feelings. I was reminded that as psychoanalysts we struggle to correct distortions through approximations and refinements of language. All analysts essentially work bilingually: our second language is the language of the unconscious.