The Confederation of Independent Psychoanalytic Societies in the United States, or the IPS, as it has quickly come to be known, comprises all U.S. psychoanalytic societies that, though unaffiliated with The American, are component societies of the IPA.
TAP has been faithful in documenting the histories of psychoanalytic societies and institutes within The American. With the IPS such a close neighbor, one might say sibling, TAP thought readers would find its history of similar interest. The initial impetus for its formation arose immediately following the Rome Congress in 1989. At that time a convergence of events in the United States, South America, and Europe had led to a greater receptivity to nonmedical psychoanalytic organizations. At the Rome Congress, three societies from the United States unaffiliated with The American had been accepted into the IPA as provisional societies: the Institute for Psychoanalytic Training and Research (IPTAR), the New York Freudian Society (NYFS), and the Psychoanalytic Center of California (PCC).
In 1993, in the IPA newsletter (2/2), Robert Wallerstein looked back at that event: “Of any business meeting that I've attended in the IPA—and I have been attending them for twenty or thirty years now—the most moving was the time when that vote was announced, and the new members came into the room to take part for the rest of the day in the proceedings.” Here was recognition for a constituency that previously had gone unrecognized: a nucleus of U.S. organizations maintaining the standards of the IPA, distinct from both The American and the American Psychological Association's Division 39.
It was Norbert Freedman, then president of IPTAR, who took the initiative in conceiving a separate IPA entity in the United States. A phone call from Charles Hanly, chair of the IPA Committee on New Groups, informed Freedman that the Los Angeles Institute and Society for Psychoanalytic Studies (LAISPS) had also been accepted as a provisional society. This provided the impetus for concrete action. To lay the groundwork, Freedman began talking with senior analysts from the other new groups—Sheldon Bach, Abby Adams-Silvan, and Mark Silvan from NYFS, Ernest Lawrence from LAISPS, and Albert Mason from PCC.
The next opportunity to advance the project was the Buenos Aires Congress in 1991, where Freedman arranged an informal meeting for representatives from the four groups. There they learned more about each other and agreed to exchange catalogues, bulletins, and other information. From that point on, leaders of the four groups began to communicate on a regular basis.
Perhaps the greatest spur to the official formation of the independent group, however, came out of the Presidents' Meeting held in London on July 24, 1992. At Buenos Aires there had been a call for greater democracy in the governance of the IPA; this was to be the topic of the London meeting. From all over the world came presidents of the component societies, led by Joseph Sandler, then IPA President, to set in motion a successful drive toward the IPA's democratization. The meeting set a framework for establishing a House of Delegates that would share governance with the Executive Board and Council, and made plans for a working party, comprising representatives from the three main regions—Europe, Latin America, and North America—to draft new IPA bylaws. While in the past The American would without question have provided the representation from North America, that role had now for the first time to be clarified with both the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society and the four new groups in the U.S.
At a dinner meeting preceding the historic gathering in London, Adams-Silvan, Freedman, Mason, and Jean Sanville—then presidents of the four independent societies—had set themselves the task of communicating to the assembled presidents a new reality—the presence of the new IPA groups in the United States. This was to signal the first full participation of the independent U.S. groups in the shaping of IPA policy. Now, with the call for a House of Delegates, the times seemed propitious for creating the long-envisaged new IPA entity in the United States.
During the summer of 1992, immediately after the London meeting, the decision was made to establish a formal confederation, which at first was called the Coalition of Independent Psychoanalytic Societies in North America. The four presidents formed a steering committee, which over the ensuing months coalesced despite the transcontinental distances involved. Through conference calls, faxes, and letters, as well as occasional meetings in person, they managed to discuss a wide range of issues, including such matters as training standards, accreditation, and scientific exchanges.
The first big task the coalition undertook was to explore with The American and the Canadian Society the formation of a North American federation of IPA groups on the order of FEPAL, the regional grouping for Latin America, or the European Psychoanalytic Federation. The first exploratory talks were held in New York on October 24, 1992. Chaired by Bernard Pacella, then president of The American, the meeting was a frank and open working session, at times confrontational but ending up in an amiable resolve regarding the coordination of regional representation to the IPA. Many months of delay and negotiations ensued before a consensus was reached, but by the winter of 1993 the Canadian and IPS governing boards had approved the agreements. Finally, in April of that year, The American agreed that the three North American organizations should present a coherent grouping at the Amsterdam Congress fast approaching. A mutually satisfactory arrangement for a combined North American representation to the IPA was then worked out.
Meanwhile, underscoring a potential for further cooperation, the IPS and The American were coordinating closely in another area: that of protecting American psychoanalysis from the efforts of the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis (NAAP) to claim for its organization, the American Board for Accreditation in Psychoanalysis (ABAP), the status of sole accrediting body for psychoanalytic institutes in the United States. Sheldon Bach and Harriet Basseches, as cochairs of the IPS Committee on Accreditation (and later Basseches alone as chair), joined forces (and legal counsel) with Allan Rosenblatt, their opposite number in The American, to oppose NAAP/ABAP's application. Hearings were held in Washington, D.C., over a period beginning in 1990 and are still in process. Similar opposition to the NAAP/ABAP application to the U.S. Department of Education is also being coordinated.
In other areas, the IPS and its societies were vigorously entering into the life and functioning of the IPA. For example, many IPS analysts were involved in the programming of the Amsterdam Congress and pre-Congress, as well as participating in panels and presenting papers. Ethel Person, editor of the IPA newsletter, appointed Adams-Silvan as a contributing editor responsible for news and notes
regarding the independent societies. Coverage of the IPS was later to be expanded to include special full-length articles. For the upcoming Congress in San Francisco, the IPS not only is represented on the Arrangements Committee but is cohosting the event with The American.
In May 1993, Freedman and Sanville wrote formally to Sandler as president and to Horacio Etchegoyen, who would succeed him, informing them officially that the coalition had been renamed the Confederation of Independent Psychoanalytic Societies in the United States; that Freedman and Sanville had been selected by the presidents of the four societies to cochair the IPS Steering Committee for the coming year; and that the group had established formal relations with The American and with the Canadian Society. This communication was formally acknowledged by Sandler in a letter welcoming the new group and containing recommendations for its future development. Later, Etchegoyen too sent his good wishes.
Then, in July, 1993, came the Amsterdam Congress. At the business meeting on July 28, full component status was awarded by acclamation to the three independent societies elected earliest to provisional status—IPTAR, NYFS, and PCC. Later that day, in celebration of this event and in appreciation of those who had helped make it happen, the IPS hosted a reception. Invited guests included members of the IPA Executive Committee (Wallerstein, Sandler, Etchegoyen, and Valerie Tufnell), new vice presidents Otto Kernberg and Harold Blum, Ethel Person in her newsletter capacity, and the site visitors who had led the three groups along the path to full recognition. Among the visitors present were Hanly, chair of the Committee on New Groups, and David Sachs, who followed Owen Renik as chair for North America. Officially representating The American were president Bernard Pacella and secretary Donald Meyers.
Norbert Freedman, raising a toast, spoke warmly of all those involved: “This is a homecoming for members of the Confederation of Independent Psychoanalytic Societies, who have been guests in a house which they considered to be home for many decades. This situation was corrected, for since the memorable Rome and Buenos Aires meetings, we have been guests no longer. Today we are completely home… . We are appreciative of a new working relationship that has been established with our colleagues from the American Psychoanalytic Association… . [W]e have come to work collaboratively and cooperatively to deal with the many problems which beset psychoanalysis in our own land… .We have [also] become aware of the importance of our colleagues from north of the border… . [with whom] we have developed a close relationship… .” Following closely upon the reception was an IPS celebratory dinner, wonderfully arranged by Harriet Wrye, in an historic canal house.
After the Amsterdam Congress, from the fall of 1993 through the following spring, representatives of the three North American groups—IPS, Canada, and The American—proceeded with their dialogue in a working group, a kind of steering committee. The previous spring, at a meeting called by Pacella, Helen Fischer had coined the acronym NAIPAG (North American IPA Groups), and a liaison committee had been appointed to formulate an agenda for a North American entity. In the fall of 1993, this committee, consisting of six representatives—Helen Meyers and Owen Renik for The American, Carlos Featherston and Brian Robertson for the Canadian Society, and Steven Ellman and Mark Silvan for IPS—met in Montreal. Setting as their first task the composition of the North American delegation to the new House of Delegates, they agreed on a formula based on the relative numbers belonging to the three groups (and therefore open to revision in the event of significant shifts). From a total of nine delegates, five would be from The American, two from the IPS, and two from Canada. In addition, since IPA bylaws require that one of the nine be the regional representative to the Executive Council, every two years a new council representative is to be selected from the nine-member North American delegation, this position to be rotated on the basis of parity among the three component groups. Helen Meyers of The American is the first such representative to the Council, a position she will hold until the summer of 1996.
The first formal meeting of the North American delegation was held in London preceding the first semiannual meeting of the House of Delegates. A spirit of cooperation allowed the delegation to prepare a constructive agenda that was to set the tone for the House of Delegates the next day.
The IPS steering committee, which continues to meet in person or by conference call on a monthly basis, consists currently of Steven Ellman and Norbert Freedman from IPTAR, Jean Sanville from LAISPS, Barbara Stimmel and Fred Pine from NYFS, and James Gooch and Albert Mason from PCC. Pine is serving out the term of his friend and colleague Fred Wolkenfeld, who died suddenly on March 10. Sanville and Freedman continue as cochairs, with Florence Williams as treasurer.
A major current project of the IPS is the Post-Congress to be held in Los Angeles immediately following the San Francisco Congress. The Post-Congress will focus on the unique contribution of film to American culture and will examine in depth the relationship between film and psychoanalysis. Last November, in preparation for the Los Angeles event, the two East Coast IPS societies (IPTAR and NYFS) held a fund-raising gala to provide scholarships for attendance at the Post-Congress.
In the light of these many early achievements, it will be interesting to follow the further development of the IPS, this energetic young sibling of The American, in years to come.