Chiarandini: My main objective in this interview, Horacio, is to elicit your vision for the IPA, and perhaps, since we are addressing the readership of TAP, your view of The American's position and role within the IPA in the context of problems arising out of the diversity of its three regions. But perhaps we should start with where you feel you are at, as president of the IPA, the international body representing psychoanalysis. Is this for you the culmination of a trajectory?
Etchegoyen: Well, to begin with, I think that many times the things that happen in our lives are not the things we thought of or wished for. Often, events simply overtake us. This is the disagreement I have with the Sartrean idea that we are the architects of our lives. To say this, I realize, implies a great deal of repression and projective identification. However, it is what I believe.
Chiarandini: It is not easy, particularly for us psychoanalysts, to make such a statement. I am reminded of Henriette Klein's remark to a supervisee whose patient was about to terminate with a very good outcome. “Well now,” she said, “what this young woman needs is a little bit of luck!”
Etchegoyen: Precisely! Although I am not, and have never been, the kind of man who leaves anything up to “luck” or chance, or to fate. Neither Elida nor I have left things up to chance. We both have worked hard all our lives. But I am convinced that some events in our lives, fortunately or unfortunately, do not depend on our will or even on our unconscious wishes or unconscious fantasies. When it was decided at the IPA to rotate the presidency among the three regions, I was on the Council and voted in favor. Yet I never believed that it might lead to my presidency. Years later, however, not long before the Buenos Aires Congress, I was debating with myself—full of doubt, like Hamlet—whether to seek the presidency. I remember my son saying to his sister Laura, “Tell me; Dad says he does not want to be president, but does he really mean it?” To which she responded, “Oh, he wants to! But it's a very repressed wish!” You have to realize that if the rotation had started differently, if it had gone from Europe to the U.S. rather than to Latin America, I could not have run four years later because I would have been too old. In this regard I must tell you, because it amuses me a lot, that sometimes I tell my friends: “Prepare to reelect me twelve years from now!”
Chiarandini: And do they believe you? And worry?
Etchegoyen: You know, maybe they do believe me. Because they say they don't think they will support me! Well, one thing you know with certainty: it was not easy for me to accept being a candidate. To begin with, Elida was overwhelmed with the idea of the responsibilities I would be taking up. Because of our age, we both knew it would be physically and emotionally wearing. I had two misconceptions that allowed me to accept. First, though I knew it would be a lot of work, I did not fully realize just how much it would turn out to be. And I think I can tell you why it is so much work: the reason is something you said, and I remember this a lot, something you said at the Business Meeting in Amsterdam. I think you said, “Efficiency does not always run parallel with democracy.” Did I get it right?
Chiarandini: Yes, I think I said even that democracy often runs counter to efficiency.
Etchegoyen: Well, then, so that to run things in a moderately efficient manner, and in a thoroughly democratic manner, takes a lot of work. For instance: I wrote a letter, not a very important letter, and after we had sent it, Estela, my secretary, checked the word processor and we had made thirty-two drafts! Why? Because we had to think and rethink the text, to take into account a whole host of factors. The next day, of course, I received a fax from the person to whom the letter was addressed—a friend by the way—saying that I had not really read what he had written.
Chiarandini: Was there input from other people in that letter? Was there consultation on it?
Etchegoyen: Of course! It had to be discussed with two secretaries, the society whose problem it pertained to, one of the vice-presidents for the region involved, and a few people I consider good, neutral advisors. That is not too many consultations, given the nature of the problem. You see, I try to give a lot of thought to what I write, but nowadays technology has become so efficient, it often runs ahead of us. I tell my secretary I need her to write such and such a letter, and with word processing and whatnot, sometimes, before I have sat down in my chair she brings me the letter to be signed! And the fax machine, that great invention, is like a psychopathic buddy, inviting you not to think too much, just be impulsive. I try also to give a lot of thought to decisions I must make. Take for instance the question of the Freud Museum. I began to consider the whole question already when I was president-elect. Although I don't feel I have a real solution yet, one of the main objectives of my presidency is for the IPA to participate in the Museum's scientific activities. The IPA, which Freud founded with Ferenczi, must guarantee the safekeeping of a cultural legacy that benefits the entire world. Muriel Gardiner's heirs generously help the Museum as a tribute to that admirable woman, who founded, with her own considerable resources, the New Land Foundation. The Sigmund Freud Archives also strives to keep Freud's legacy alive in today's world. The IPA must contribute to these efforts, and to some extent even lead them. It is our responsibility to take care of our inheritance.
Chiarandini: And what are the obstacles to such a collaboration? On the surface it would seem quite logical and rather simple to achieve.
Etchegoyen: But it is far from simple! There are many different viewpoints and many different interests, many of them noble. There is also, understandably, some mutual mistrust. I have had several meetings with Bernie Pacella and Harold Blum, the administrators of the Archives. Fortunately, both of them are good personal friends. I have also met with Albert Solnit and Peter Neubauer, also good friends, who represent the New Land Foundation. And of course I have met with Erica Davies and the Museum staff. Everybody wants to reach an agreement, and yet… . During Sandler's tenure he worked very hard on this. Efforts were made to expedite a decision, with an agreement signed by all parties, but the draft was never signed. I myself devote a lot of time to the Museum. For instance, last April, when I came to the West Point meeting commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary, I came a day earlier and stayed a day later. I met with the lawyer from the New Land Foundation, RobertWolff, who is highly respected by the Gardiner heirs. On that occasion I also talked to Harold and Bernie, as well as to Al and Peter. We came very near an understanding with Wolff; he seemed to like me and told me quite clearly that the New Land Foundation wants the IPA to participate in all aspects of the Museum. But he also expects that the IPA will contribute to the financial support of the Museum, an expectation that seems perfectly logical. Yet of course that would pose budget problems, as the IPA is not a wealthy organization. Unfortunately, he became ill, and we had to start all over again. But I want the IPA to be recognized by the Freud Museum, and to participate in all its activities.
“The democratization of the IPA depends on the transmission of complete information. It will be difficult for us to effect this, however, because we have inherited a tradition of secrecy since the times of the Circle of the Seven Rings. As you know, this was originally Ernest Jones's idea. He and the others were trying to protect Freud. At the time that may have been the correct thing to do, but it is not so now.”
But I do not want to gloss over your question. The problem of individual disaffection is serious, and not just in The American. It exists in many other places, too. I do not believe it is any different in North America from the way it is in South America—even, believe it or not, in Buenos Aires. I was amazed to realize that some of my students and colleagues there were interested in the IPA only because I am currently its president. Here is a problem of lack of information that is very serious, and it reflects the way the IPA has related to its component societies and the membership.
Buenos Aires is, as you well know, a sort of psychoanalytic mecca, yet many people there are indeed disconnected and uninformed with regard to the IPA. At the same time, the mass media, our general vehicle of information, appear uninterested in us, and, quite often, seem more interested in other psychotherapeutic movements or events, which are far noisier but a good deal less serious. I do not yet know how to remedy this, short of an all-out propaganda effort. In a city of such cultural vitality as Buenos Aires, when the media require information from an expert, they rarely consult an IPA member. Even a fact of such significance as the election of the first IPA president from Latin America would seem to go unnoticed.
Chiarandini: Does the IPA have some expertise it might share with component societies in regard to efforts at public information?
Etchegoyen: I believe the next step for the IPA should be an honest, scientific study of the means by which public information can be best implemented. We are in part hampered by the strictness of our ethics. Don't forget that we labor under ethical restraints that many others, even some who call themselves analysts, do not honor. One of these so-called analysts could say, “Oh, no, do not consult him, Horacio Etchegoyen is simply an old man, disconnected from the reality of practice,” or “Irene Chiarandini is an Argentinean who left, what does she know?” Whereas we would be enjoined from speaking in personal terms of anybody. But we must not let our characteristic restraint keep us from speaking out clearly in scientific support of psychoanalysis, and reclaiming for it the special place it so much deserves. I still have patients in analysis, and the more time passes, the more I confirm that psychoanalytic instruments are of incomparable benefit to patients. I am totally convinced of that. So let us take comfort, as Freud did, in the thought that the voice of reason, though soft, prevails in the end.
Chiarandini: Well, Horacio, on that optimistic note we are going to end. Thank you for speaking to TAP and to its readers.
Chiarandini: What are the parties really? and the problems?
Etchegoyen: As you well know, the Freud Museum is in Hampstead, in Maresfield Gardens,
the house where Freud lived in London, and where he died, the same house that Muriel Gardiner bought for Anna Freud. The agreement was that at Miss Freud's death the house—now the property of the New Land Foundation—would become a museum in which Freud's books and personal belongings—currently the property of the Archives—would be shown to the public. At the moment, the Museum is administered by the Joint Committee, based in New York, and by the London Committee. The Joint Committee is made up of representatives from both the Archives and the New Land Foundation; it is the more important body and gives the general orientation to the management of the Museum. Yet the London Committee, together with the Museum staff, are responsible for day-to-day decisions regarding the running of the Museum. Members of the IPA have always had an informal participation in the London Committee, but not really as official representatives of the IPA. The most important participation was undoubtedly that of Adam Limentani, whom we recently lost. Officially, the IPA never participated in the Joint Committee, though it would be ideal if it did. Obviously, that would mean sharing expenses with the New Land Foundation. So it is not easy to arrive at an agreement that would respect equally all the interests of the three institutions involved. For the IPA to come in on an equal footing with the others might disrupt the delicate balance that has until now been maintained.
As you know, the IPA Executive Council met in New York last December, as usual. While there, I had a chance to discuss the whole problem of the Freud Museum with Ana Maria Andrade de Azevedo, Jorge Olagaray, and Samuel Zysman. We all talked at length with Bernie Pacella and Harold Blum, and with the representatives of the New Land Foundation—Solnit, Neubauer, and attorney Renée Schwartz, who has replaced Bob Wolff. I am not totally clear about what I am going to decide—or rather, since it is not really my decision—about what I am going to present to the Council. This of course is not an urgent matter, but to me it is very important, and I would like to arrive at a solution before the Barcelona Congress, when I will leave the presidency.
I brought up the Museum not only because I do think of it as very important, but also to illustrate why the job of president is so demanding. If a president asks for advice, talks to people, and listens, the work is greater than if he operates on his own, though in the latter case he risks falling into some form of authoritarianism. So, on the subject of how much work the job is, it's like everything else: what you do can always be improved. Take those thirty-two drafts. If there had been thirty-five, the letter would have come out better. That's the way I feel also about my scientific papers. I work and rework a paper, and eventually I come to a stop because I have to send it off to meet a deadline, but not because I can say, “Now it's perfect.” Nothing is ever perfect. Borges—who wrote fairly well, don't you think?—said the only way to finish a draft is to publish it. And he had genius! As for me, without genius, I try to improve on drafts, but when I publish I always know I still could have improved the piece further.
Anyway, we've wandered a bit, but that was the first misconception that allowed me to accept the presidency—I simply could not imagine the sheer volume of work the job entailed. The second misconception was a problem I did not expect to find; it relates to the democratization of the IPA. Because the process had already begun, however slowly, I did not think it would involve a true break with the past. I did not see things clearly in that regard. I think that the IPA has to a certain extent maintained the tradition of the “Circle of the Seven Rings.” That is at least one reason why the issue of confidentiality has been so crucial for the IPA. Sometimes I have observed, to my great surprise, that some of our leaders confuse the confidentiality of the office with that of the Council.
As you may know, I was on the Council until 1989. I left when Wallerstein and Weinshel left, at the Rome Congress. But just before I did, I proposed that the Council make public its minutes, a motion I didn't have time to defend, and the fate of which I do not know. At the Amsterdam Congress, Betty Denzler, then president of the Société Suisse de Psychanalyse, suggested a step in the same direction, recommending that the main resolutions of the Executive Council be published in the IPA newsletter. It is obviously difficult to publish everything that is discussed, but there is no reason not to make public the resolutions arrived at, as well as everybody's vote and at least high points of the discussion. Sometimes the Council moves as if we were dealing with a psychoanalytic diagnosis or an interpretation, an attitude that runs counter to the democratic process. One can make psychoanalytic hypotheses about the reasons for movements within the organization, but in the end one has to deal with the facts and decide what is right and what is not.
With regard to democratization, we still have a lot of work to do, and here the House of Delegates is very important, as it represents the societies in the person of their president. If the House of Delegates is to have any function, it must receive full and accurate information. If it does not, it either will do nothing or will
obtain information some other way. We therefore must pay the price of providing information, because the price of misinformation is far higher. I am in great support of this and think the Council is coming around to the idea. In general, there is no alternative. The democratization of the IPA depends on the transmission of complete information. It will be difficult for us to effect this, however, because we have inherited a tradition of secrecy since the times of the Circle of the Seven Rings. As you know, this was originally Ernest Jones's idea. He and the others were trying to protect Freud. At the time that may have been the correct thing to do, but it is not so now.
But there are paradoxes in all this. An obstruction of information is quite contrary to the psychoanalytic spirit. In the end, as psychoanalysts we think that knowing is better than not knowing. Of course, we cannot apply exactly the same criteria to our relation to the patient and to our political activity. But we also cannot tolerate such a major contradiction, such a split between our position as psychoanalysts and our political philosophy. I feel and think like a psychoanalyst, who for better or for worse got involved in this political thing. But I remain primarily a psychoanalyst. Once, when Bion was president of the British Society, he was asked why he was doing it, and he replied, “Someone has to do it.”
Chiarandini: Well, it's good that you are doing it. Since our time is getting short, is there anything you particularly want to say to American analysts? We are such a large organization, you know, made up of such diverse societies, and there is, it must be said, a certain disaffection with the IPA. Many analysts in The American wonder why we even need the IPA. What can you tell American analysts that will help them to better see their role in the IPA, and why it should be important to them?
Etchegoyen: I firmly believe the IPA needs The American, which is a key element of our international organization. I believe just as firmly that The American needs the IPA. The dialectic between the IPA, the various societies, and individual members is at the core of our organizational structure and of our identity. Whereas this is true of all societies, it is particularly relevant to The American, given its special position as a Regional Association, a position it has maintained even after the turmoil created by the lawsuit. With the entrance of the nonmedical societies into the IPA, this has to underscore the prestige that the IPA carries, and the importance of having an international forum for psychoanalysts, the possibility to share knowledge with colleagues from the rest of the world, and the potential for fertilization of ideas across disciplines and fields.
The American, like the Société de Paris, the Deutsche Vereinigung, the British Society, the Società Psicoanalitica Italiana, the APA in Argentina, and the Sociedade de São Paulo, is an important pillar of the IPA. Each society is of fundamental importance to the IPA—some, like those I just mentioned, because of history or political importance, but others because of the way they approach the practice or the teaching of psychoanalysis. I could not imagine the IPA without the Mexicans, the Austrians, or the Chileans, just to mention a few small societies of profound importance to the organization.
The best instance of creative cross-fertilization fostered by collaboration between The American and the IPA is the San Francisco Congress. The Local Organizing Committee, led by Reed Brockbank and Joseph Lifschutz, worked very hard to attract all IPA members, in order to ensure the success of the meetings. The scientific encounter, designed by program chair Leon Grinberg, secretary Helen Meyers, and cochairs Owen Renik, Jean-Michel Quinodoz, and Leo Wender, is such that all analysts will be able to meet on a subject of unending relevance to psychoanalysts: Psychic Reality: Its Impact on the Patient and the Analyst Today. As presidents of The American, first Bernie Pacella and now Judy Schachter have used all of their influence and skill to let The American offer itself graciously as the host, with the total cooperation of the Independent Groups. Beyond this, I must mention the Conference of Training Analysts, presided over by Germano Vollmer with the help of Arlene Kramer Richards, Dan Buie, and Jan Groen-Prakken. How else could such efforts succeed, without the cooperation of everyone involved? Let me also mention here the steady support of IPA secretary Ana Maria Andrade de Azevedo.