July's gathering in San Francisco, the first IPA congress to be held in the U.S. in over fifteen years, was attended by twenty-five hundred members and special invitees from around the world. Socially, a new climate of warmth and hospitality was in evidence. Scientifically, the congress provided a forum for examining established concepts and for airing controversial ideas on the cutting edge of knowledge in psychoanalysis and neighboring disciplines. Organizationally, those present saw the implementation of some dramatically new and democratic changes. In short, the congress was characterized by progress, innovation, communication, and acceptance of differences, as well as by steps toward unity.
Psychic Reality was the theme of the congress. It was selected because it is a classic, central issue in psychoanalysis that stood in need of reexamination and was capable of stirring up controversy among the diverse currents in contemporary analytic thought. To accommodate the expected debates, a new format was devised for the congress. Plenary sessions would be held on three separate days, each devoted to a different aspect of the topic. Psychic reality would be related to theory, to clinical technique, and to the life cycle. After the general introduction of the plenary, smaller panels on more specific issues would follow in the afternoon; here controversial and cutting-edge issues could be introduced. To facilitate the discussion, panels were chosen over individual presentations.
The decision paid off handsomely. Exciting philosophical discussions of the meaning and definition of psychic reality were held, while other panels presented the multiple or unstable “psychic realities” in psychotic and borderline conditions and in perversions. Yet another panel dealt with the interplay of the patient's and the analyst's psychic reality, and the question of who maps psychic reality in the analytic encounter. Interdisciplinary panels considered the origin of psychic reality in the child and changes in psychic reality during adolescence and throughout the female life cycle, while clinical panels sought clues for determining the patient's psychic reality, the so-called clinical facts. All were well attended and gave food for thought.
Another innovation in format was the decision to limit panelists to fifteen-minute presentations, leaving ample time for discussion and elaboration by panelists and audience. Yet another, intended to acknowledge the current pluralism and diversity of thought, was the inclusion of different theoretical frames of reference, different experiences, and different geographic regions on every panel. The frames of reference included classical Freudian thought, current ego psychology, British object relations theory, American object relations theory, self psychology, modern Bionian thought, intersubjectivity, etc. The different experiences that were included refer not only to cultural environment but to different degrees of analytic experience, as both well-known theoreticians and younger colleagues with innovative ideas were invited to each panel. Inclusion of the three IPA regions — Europe, North America, and Latin America — was a way of ensuring representation to the different cultures in each, and to their dominant schools of thought.
All this, the Program Committee hoped, would inspire lively discussion, controversy, and — possibly — rapprochement. They were not disappointed. The panels were indeed lively, and audience participation was enthusiastic. There was much commonality to be found, as well as divergent thought and new conceptualizations. Disagreements ran strong. For example, divergent views regarding the contributions of philosophy to the concept of psychic reality were advanced, and even the very definition of the term came into dispute. Various definitions were offered, ranging from Freud's original concept of psychic reality as the unconscious drives only, to a later view of it as an interplay between external objective reality and internal unconscious fantasy, to the view that it is the subjective preconscious experience of the patient; this led to a fine argument about the place of the unconscious, as against the conscious subjective experience of the patient, in the clinical encounter. There was even the suggestion that the term psychic reality had lost all usefulness. Nonetheless, there was general agreement on the importance and centrality of the concept of psychic reality as representing the total inner mind, the total inner “view” or Weltanschauung of the individual, either patient or analyst, and on the need to reexamine many dearly held concepts in light of contemporary analytic frames of reference, changing social conditions, and new currents in neighboring disciplines.
The innovations in format seemed highly successful and will be continued in 1997 at the Barcelona Congress, where the theme will be human sexuality.
On the organizational front, an enormous amount of work was accomplished — so much, in fact, that both the Executive Committee and the newly formed House of Delegates had to extend their meetings and schedule additional sessions on other days. Both the Program Committee and the Local Arrangements Committee met repeatedly, with interpreters and without, before, during, and after the program. Many other committees, including newly formed groups coordinating international relations and regional groups, met all week, scheduling early breakfast meetings and working luncheons, and the Business Meeting for members ran several hours over.
An important milestone of the congress was the official inclusion of the House of Delegates into the bylaws and official budget of the organization. The House met for the third time at this congress, having met for the first time in London in the summer of 1994. The presidents of the IPA component societies had worked long and hard to establish a body that would represent them and their societies, giving them a direct voice in IPA governance. Members of this new body will discuss and study the concerns of the societies, with whom they will be in direct contact through the presidents (who will provide information, advice, and feedback), and will convey these concerns to the Executive Council. The House of Delegates is represented in the Executive Council by three representatives, one from each region. These representatives are full members of the Council and exercise full voting rights. One concern taken up at this meeting of the House was the “crisis in psychoanalysis” — that is, the decreasing demand for psychoanalytic treatment and training in many areas around the world. Other areas discussed were regional differences in training and financial arrangements between the societies and the IPA.
An important issue at the congress was the election, by mail ballot, of a president-elect to take office in two years, and of several vice-presidents and a new treasurer. While mail balloting is not entirely new to the IPA, as it was introduced in the last vice-presidential election, this was the first such procedure involving the election of a president. Perhaps as a result, this presidential election was hotly contested over the past two years, giving rise to hard feelings and confusing practices among the supporters of both candidates. It was therefore decided at the congress to set up guidelines for these elections in the future, and a committee was appointed to work on this. However, the need to work together for the good of psychoanalysis and the organization had already asserted itself: during the congress, many issues were being amicably discussed, and programs jointly sponsored, by recent opponents, a development both reassuring and inspiring. In addition, in the interest of better continuity, the new president-elect was already being included by the current president in many of the plans and decisions being considered for the coming two years.
Several provisional societies were advanced to full status, including the Los Angeles Institute and Society for Psychoanalytic Studies (LAISPS) and the Caracas and Cordoba societies. This was an emotional moment, both for these groups, whose members had worked long and hard to reach this point, and for the IPA itself; its desire for growth and greater inclusiveness was further realized, and the vitality of psychoanalysis worldwide was once again affirmed.
Social events at the congress were extremely well planned and very successful. Gala dinners for both the pre-congress and the congress itself were held in two beautiful San Francisco museums. The second was in the stunning new Museum of Modern Art, designed by Swiss architect Mario Botter and just recently opened. Both events featured fine food, dancing, and lovely surroundings. As for the opening reception, it provided a welcome novelty; the provision of ample and well-prepared food served at five separate stations, and enjoyed at well-spaced tables, allowed the thousands in attendance to be fed without being pushed, shoved, or stabbed by a fork. In addition, parties marked by gracious hospitality were held in the beautiful homes of several local analysts, houses perched on hillsides overlooking the scenic Bay Area.
Perhaps the most intriguing and innovative feature of the social program were the “restaurant evenings.” Here local analysts played host to numerous groups of visitors — not personally selected by the hosts, but international members who signed up at random — by taking them to some of San Francisco's finest restaurants. This provided an unusual opportunity for colleagues unknown to one another to meet and talk in a more intimate way. There were also several smaller dinner parties and a magnificent reception by IPA president Horacio Etchegoyen, the latter in the Tower Restaurant overlooking San Francisco. This social activity was supplemented by cultural events, including a special showing of Freud manuscripts and a film evening that anticipated a post-congress film weekend arranged by the Psychoanalytic Center of California. The latter was a fascinating experience for the analytic audience, which usually would have to confine itself to the cinematic text. Here, however, the filmmakers themselves were present to discuss their own states of mind in producing and directing their films.
In summary, much was discussed at the congress, and much was challenged and hotly debated — at the scientific meetings, in the committees, and over the dinner table. Agreement was reached on some issues, and much was learned even in its absence. And almost always the process was greatly enjoyed.