If last December's meeting of the Council of Affiliate Members is any reflection of the current level of interest in candidate issues vis-à-vis The American, we should expect much support and energy in bringing about changes and innovations. The vast circle of tables and chairs in the immense Hilton Room, so large I had to squint to see across it, was packed with candidate delegates and accompanying non-delegates from most of the institutes around the country. Equally noteworthy was the genial and enthusiastic atmosphere; we were as eager to meet or reconnect with one another as we were to get on with business.
Although the agenda was daunting, David Orbison, our newly elected president, kept us on course, and we managed to get through it all, with time left over for open-ended discussion. We began by adopting an official set of bylaws, the product of Glenn Good's competent and hardworking Bylaws Task Force. Most controversial seemed to be the proposed amendment that all appointments of candidates to committees of The American be made through the Council. Many of those present agreed this would centralize the appointment process, rendering it less mysterious and more accessible to greater numbers of candidates. In addition, it would give the Council a raison d'etre for any candidates who might wonder how the organization is of relevance to them. Membership enrollment would be served by providing a place where individuals could make their interest in doing committee work known, and where they would have support for pursuing this endeavor—a democratic and responsive clearing house, so to speak. Others articulated vehement disapproval of this plan. They argued that the channeling of all appointments through the Council would create a bottleneck, and that candidates are better served by having both formal and informal systems for seeking appointments.
At present, candidates are asked to serve by members already on committees or by senior analysts to whom they are known, a phenomenon at times more reflective of networking than of ability. It was acknowledged by all, however, that it made no sense to enact such an amendment before structures are in place to support such a plan. Hence, December 1996 was chosen as the date to reevaluate this proposed amendment, at which time it should be clearer how the new Council is progressing.
Several new candidate committees were instituted in response to ideas and interests articulated at the meeting. The Membership Committee will focus on getting out “the word” on why it is important for candidates to join and participate in both The American and the Council. In addition, the committee will pursue reduced or graduated dues to ensure that candidates are not excluded by financial constraints from membership in The American.
A Training Committee was also formed. Its initial project will be to gather data, using a carefully designed instrument, that will enable the committee to compare and contrast various aspects of training and candidate experience across institutes. Currently we know comparatively little about one another's experiences, and in consequence do not benefit from innovations and reforms brought about in institutes other than our own. The Council expects the study to give rise to a report that might well be an important source of candidate activism.
In the interest of providing structure and stability to the Council, two other standing committees were established: Nominations and Bylaws. The Candidate Appointments Committee, the Arrangements Committee, the Candidate Diversity Committee, and the Communications and Publications Committee, formerly task forces, will continue to function under the new organization.
Mel Berg, who has acted as chair of the recently organized Candidate Mentorship Program, deserves our appreciation, as do those who have helped him. They not only managed to organize a nationwide endeavor in six months, but also accommodated the requests of thirty-six candidates for mentors for last December's meetings. Twenty-three senior analysts readily agreed to participate, and from what I hear it was a great success on both sides. Thirty percent of participating candidates returned questionnaires about their experiences, and all reported positive interactions with their mentors. Many felt that their encounters had been intense and intimate, and reported that they had talked on wide-ranging topics in a relaxed fashion that was extremely gratifying. However, there were also those who spoke with their mentors in more circumscribed ways, though these experiences too were quite rewarding. Numerous dyads and triads—some candidates met with their mentors in twos—have decided to continue meeting. Overall, what candidates valued most was that they were listened to as people, and that mentors were open to talking about themselves. That certainly was my experience.
I could not have felt more comfortable with my mentor, who answered my questions with spontaneity and attentive elaboration that made me feel we were both finding our encounter a rewarding experience. For his part, he shared with me his understanding of the workings and politics of The American, impressing me once again with the importance of staying active in the organization. It was particularly enjoyable—and enlightening—to have this discussion with a senior analyst from an institute in another part of the country. We are indeed all the same and different, it would seem.
As the representative from my institute to the Workshop on Women and Psychoanalytic Training, I had the opportunity to participate in another important arena, which I have been doing for several years now. First on the agenda in December was the Women's Mentorship Program. Unfortunately, this endeavor is being confused with the Candidate Mentorship Program, though the two do not overlap or compete in any way. As both are important resources for candidates, their differences should be noted.
The Women's Mentorship Program was begun this past year in response to several years of requests by women candidates and recent graduates from institutes with few if any senior women in teaching or supervising positions. They were seeking seasoned women analysts from other institutes to be available to them in various consulting capacities. Some of the needs expressed were for consults about leadership skills, discrimination, competition issues, and various clinical matters. Beth Seelig, chair of the Women's Mentorship Committee, has compiled a list of willing mentors. Already several pairings have been arranged. Requests have also been received for mentorship groups in which less experienced analysts or candidates can meet with a mentor. This program, still evolving, was created to be attuned to the needs of younger women analysts in these times, especially their needs for senior women analysts as role models and mentors.
For the past several years, in various settings at the meetings, I have heard and participated in informal discussions about The American's Resident Fellowship Program, which is supported by our membership dues. These discussions have centered on the question why this program continues to serve only medical residents at a time when candidate demographics are changing radically, with psychologists and social workers now in the majority in most classes. Why, many asked, does The American not reach out to these disciplines as well? Then, just this year, the program was extended to psychologists in postdoctoral training or junior faculty positions. This change makes a great deal of sense. However, since obviously there was deliberation about how to expand the program, why do social workers continue to be excluded? If the line has been drawn at the doctoral degree, then what of D.S.W.s, Psy.D.s, D.M.H.s, and Ph.D.s in social work? There are social workers holding these degrees every bit as impressive as the medical residents who until now have been the sole beneficiaries of the Fellowship Program.
It is my intention to take up this issue in whatever forums are appropriate. For starters, I will take it to the Council of Affiliate Members and the Committee on Affiliate Membership. I am also looking for ways to ensure that my membership dues are not used to finance a program that I believe discriminates unjustly against my profession. Social workers have finally been welcomed into The American, but apparently not across the board. I seek opinions on this issue, pro and con, for discussion and debate in this column.
I have been asked to encourage all candidates in The American to attend the IPSO Pre-Congress to be held in San Francisco before the IPA Congress there. The dates are July 29–30 and August 2. Candidates from around the world will present papers and analytic material that will be supervised by senior training analysts in group sessions. Candidates can register on the same form used for registering for the Congress itself. For further information, contact Stephanie Smith, IPSO vice-president for North America, at 617–437–8541.