The following remarks are adapted from Dr. Margolis's address to BOPS upon completing his term as chair.
Many of you will recall that four years ago, despite the diligent efforts of the Board to uphold standards while making thoughtful changes in our policies and procedures, there was in our Association considerable unhappiness about the Board.
Many on the Council resented the Board and felt it exercised undue power that was interfering with the growth of The American. Many Board members were alarmed at the possible encroachment of Council into Board affairs, with the purpose of diluting educational standards. These mutual suspicions coalesced around the issue of delinkage of certification from membership.
As you all know, in the spirit of such other historic compromises as the Gaskill proposal, which allowed nonmedical training, we finally crafted a delinkage proposal that allowed membership upon graduation but protected the Board by requiring that only certified members vote on proposals affecting Board functions. This compromise represented The American at its best. We made this momentous change only after very careful in-depth national discussions, with the change being in the spirit of gradualism and including safeguards to accommodate the legitimate concerns of a substantial and respected minority. Now, years later, passions have cooled and a growing majority of colleagues are satisfied with the results. Our younger colleagues feel enfranchised, the Association is more democratic, and the worst fears of those opposing delinkage have, in the opinion of most, not been realized. The number of graduate analysts seeking certification has remained stable, and the Board has not been interfered with in its functioning.
We have had many other controversies, both national and local, since that time. Overall, however, there seems to be less contentiousness in our organization. We have made strenuous efforts to diminish unnecessary, fratricidal disputes, and have striven to conduct Board business with the maximum of civility and tact. Unfortunately, some of the old tendency to polarize proceedings still flares up, unnecessarily, both locally and nationally. While we need not avoid direct disagreement when we honestly differ, we cannot afford the recurrent hemorrhaging of our pfecious energies.
In order to address this problem, we need to increase our attention to institutional conflicts and to learn or even invent methods of mediation and conflict resolution that are grounded in psychoanalytic understanding.
Many would agree that our remaining deficits in democratization contribute to a sense of alienation and feed the undercurrents of anger, resentment, and jealousy that often lead to bitter disputes having less to do with theory or practice than with narcissistic injury. For example, many of our institutes have power concentrated exclusively in the hands of training analysts. These colleagues, well-intentioned and overburdened, make all decisions via the bylaws and traditions of their institute. Faculties often have no vote, are only consultative, and meet infrequently. In these institutes it is not only candidates who are thus infantilized; it is also the bulk of their faculties. The Board, through its committees, particularly COI, has played an important role in mitigating this problem through its questioning of such governance arrangements. There are many possible ways of sharing power and decision making, which include extending the right to vote for faculty members in appropriate areas of our institutes. Greater inclusiveness and flexibility do not lead to chaos, anarchy, or a lowering of standards. My experience is that the opposite is often the case. I am therefore suggesting that the Board continue and even increase its encouragement of experimentation with more democratic local structures.
Let me now focus on the Board itself. You have been remarkably effective in strengthening psychoanalytic education and maintaining standards. This has been accomplished in an atmosphere of being facilitative to colleagues and institutes who have sought your consultative aid as well as your imprimatur for certification, training analyst appointments, or waivers for nonmedical training. The painful experiences that institutes and colleagues so frequently complained of in their encounters with the Board and its committees have declined dramatically in the past four years. The Board today is engaged in a vast array of outreach efforts and surveys in order to both encourage participation and learn how we can better serve our institutes.
The positive regard and respect for this Board's standards and educational influence has steadily increased. While this Board grows stronger, the Executive Council and its committees continue to grow in stature and significance. We need not fear this development. We are one organization and have elected leaders who will do everything they can do to promote unity as we work together in our respective areas for the common purpose of strengthening psychoanalysis.
In regard to democratization and inclusion, I would like to make a final comment. I believe that our institutes are influenced by our Boards style and spirit of governance. If we act more democratically ourselves, they will be encouraged in a similar direction.