Several weeks ago I attended a provocative and enjoyable scientific meeting sponsored by the three psychoanalytic institutes in the Maryland-D.C. area—the Washington Psychoanalytic Institute, the Baltimore-Washington Psychoanalytic Institute, and The New York Freudian Society, which for the past decade has had a presence in the region. The topic was “How The Analyst Thinks,” and the case presenter was a candidate. The three discussants were two training analysts and a faculty member, one representing each organization.
What was unique about the occasion is that it was the first joint effort of its kind (and I've asked around) to be made in the history of these neighboring institutes. Of particular import is that it was a meeting organized and run by candidates. In the early stages of this venture, there were those who wondered if such an activity would be countenanced by senior analysts. Fortunately for all of us, this concern proved unnecessary.
To my way of thinking, this is an important example of the opportunities that now lie before us candidates. Because we are relatively new to the psychoanalytic enterprise, and hence removed from the old political and ideological differences that kept institutes ranged against one another, like city-states guarding their borders from encroachment or contagion, we seem more able to approach one another in mutuality and common interest. The possibilities of this mutuality are endless, while the common interest might very well be, among other things, the survival of psychoanalysis.
The more enthusiasm we engender in ourselves and in the public, and the larger and more solid our ranks, the greater is the possibility of our being noticed and heard, and perhaps sustained and supported. The collective voice is necessarily louder. We, heirs apparent of psychoanalysis, can by working together secure benefits for our patients, for ourselves, and for colleagues in the mental health field who might at present find themselves in groups that share little interest in psychoanalytic theory and therapy.
In calling around for items of interest for this column, I was able to reach Sharon Zalusky, Affiliates Council delegate from the Southern California Society. I learned first that she had recently graduated (congratulations!) and second that she was eager to share her experience of a site visit from The American that had taken place some months earlier at her institute. “It was a wonderful experience,” she assured me; “the clinical associates felt so validated and accepted.” As I listened, she seemed to mirror the experience that I reported in my last column (TAP 29/2). In particular, Sharon felt that the visitors had “listened to what we went through, and they responded by pointing out what we had going on of value, and what they felt might be impeding us from getting candidates.” These “goodwill ambassadors,” she said, made her eager for greater contact with The American.
As I reflect on both of our experiences, it seems that important information is being garnered by the site visitors as they travel from city to city. They are gaining a national perspective on what encourages and what discourages candidate enrollment in training, and on what kinds of programs within institutes and societies promote high morale and participation. After a visit, we know, each institute receives a written report on its strengths and weaknesses. Equally helpful, however, would be an overview report of all the institutes and societies, in terms of what may or may not work in a given locale, sent out every one or two years. This would allow the sharing of ideas for improvement and growth in all of the many areas of society/institute activity. Currently, it seems that our various organizations know as little about each other's workings as candidates do about each other's training. It would seem that this is a systemic problem.
In another phone conversation, Paul Lynch, a candidate at the Boston Psychoanalytic Institute, suggested that I might be interested in relating in this column something about his and Cary Friedman's experiences as the Boston Institute's first openly gay applicants. When Paul applied and was accepted two years ago, his being gay was very much a focal point throughout the admissions process; in essence, his sexual orientation was subjected to close scrutiny.
Applying a year later, however, Cary was able to relate a very different experience. Although Paul's acceptance was not Cary's reason for wanting to apply (he had been planning to do so for some time), he did feel that because of Paul's having preceded him, he had “a good sense of where the institute said it was.” He felt that being gay would not be treated as a “blanket issue” and used as a reason for rejecting him. Thus, he approached his application with an attitude of “this is what I am, and it is not an issue per se.” The admissions committee seemed of the same mind, living up to what Cary had been led to expect.
In closing, I will mention an enthusiastic communication from Michael Bader, program chair of this summer's IPSO Pre-Congress in San Francisco, which he predicted would be “the richest Pre-Congress ever.” Some sixty papers were expected, and twenty case conferences offered to the over three hundred candidates who had registered for the event. Bravo to the candidates from around the world for bringing the event to fruition.