The winter meetings over, I am headed back to Houston. At thirty-two thousand feet my perspective is somewhat different from what it was in the bustling lobby of the Waldorf, in the various discussion groups and panels, at the Friday morning meeting of the Affiliates Council, and at the more intimate meeting of a small group of affiliate members early Saturday. I now have time for reflection and an opportunity to put my New York experiences together.
For me, as a second-year candidate from a small institute, two aspects of the meetings stand out. The first was the exciting experience of attending an elaborate feast of clinical and theoretical ideas. Of course, there was no way to consume it all. Faced continually with having to choose which group or panel to attend at a given time, I more than once found myself wishing for a clone so that I might be in two places at once. Nonetheless, the choices I made were not only satisfying but unusually provocative. I expected to come away from each offering with new ideas, and I did, but I was less prepared for the persistent and urgent questions I kept asking myself about my work, both as a beginning analyst and as a more experienced therapist.
In working with the issue of creativity in my patients, for example, was I aware of the distinction between art as obsessive exorcism and art as integrated self-expression? Had I appreciated the extent of a paternal presence in the creative efforts of my female patients? These questions and more have continued to tantalize me, long after my participation in the discussion group “Psychoanalysis and Psychosocial Aspects of Female Development: Viewpoints on Creativity in Women.” I found similar reasons to ponder my work after the discussion group on psychoanalysis and couples/family therapy. There we grappled profitably but without resolution with the question of what constitutes psychoanalytic family therapy. As someone with an extensive family practice, I thought I knew. Now, not so sure, I have begun to rethink the way I work with families. This is what happens when analysts from all around the country (and the world) get together to share experiences and ideas. If you were in New York for the meetings, you already know this. If you weren't, I hope this whets your appetite for future involvement.
This leads to the other notable aspect of my New York experience: the opportunity to play an active role in The American, both as a member of the Affiliates Council and as a member of the Committee on Government Relations and Insurance (CGRI). As many of you know from reading Leslie Brown's columns in TAP over the last year, affiliate members are enjoying an ever greater level of inclusion in the activities of The American. The Affiliates Council has received overwhelming support from the leadership of The American, and increasing numbers of affiliate members have been appointed to standing committees. As a result, we have the potential to exercise greater influence on the future of The American and, concomitantly, on our careers as analysts. This too is exciting stuff, but it comes not without growing pains, or, as one member more aptly put it, “birthing pains.”
This was apparent at the Friday morning meeting of the Affiliates Council. It was evident to the representatives and alternates who attended the three-hour meeting that the council has already accomplished a great deal and will continue to do so. A packed agenda focused on goals for the new year, as well as on achievements of the year just ending. Among the latter were the near completion of an extensive survey of candidates; a remarkable increase in affiliate membership, combined with an effort to attract even more new members; the continuation of the mentorship program for affiliate members; and the initiation of a new mentorship program for prospective candidates.
Despite these accomplishments, there was a sense of frustration at having too little time to discuss issues or to deal with areas of conflict or confusion. All agreed, both at the council meeting and at the smaller meeting held Saturday, that further work needs to be done on structuring the council, and its way of conducting business, in order to achieve a better sense of balance and participation. This has become a top priority of the council's executive committee for the coming year.
Midway through the council meeting, a new slate of officers was elected. Outgoing president David Orbison turned the gavel over to new president Glenn Good, whom I succeed as president-elect. Ahron Friedberg was elected treasurer and Carolyn Leavitt secretary, with David Orbison becoming chair of the nominating committee. It is clear that we have a good foundation to build on as we continue to meet the challenge of providing the best forum possible for affiliate interaction.
Ahron Friedberg, Maxine Gann, and their fellow candidates at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute furthered that interaction by hosting a Friday evening party at the institute. As we feasted on the best Chinese food and brownies I have had in a long time and marveled (covetously) at the magnitude of the institutes library, we shared our experiences of candidacy in a more informal atmosphere. It helps to know that there is a certain ubiquity in the joys and frustrations of analytic training.
It also helps to know that we are not always expected to remain in the role of trainee. As part of an increased effort to include affiliate members on standing committees, I was invited to join CGRI; in New York I attended my first meeting of that body. Lately, the committee has been focusing on The American's lobbying efforts, and I was pleased to participate in deliberations that mean so much for our future as analysts. I was also relieved to know that The American is not playing a passive role in the health care revolution.
The pilot has just announced our initial approach into Houston, allowing me just enough time for a final reflection. I realize I am coming home with a sense of revitalization and reassurance. Because Houston has but one psychoanalytic institute, a small analytic community, and a growing interest in psychobiology in its medical schools, I have occasionally questioned the wisdom of pursuing this rigorous training in my middle age. I've wondered if I am embracing the ancient remains of a dinosaur while under the delusion that it still roams the earth. The winter meetings were a perfect antidote to this sort of professional self-doubt. There was no mistaking the vitality, diversity, inventiveness, and clinical value of the work and the ideas presented there.