FIPAS, the Federation of IPA Societies in Los Angeles, held its inaugural event over the weekend of January 12–13. A Friday night dinner was followed by a presentation of history and extracts from the Freud-Ferenczi letters. André Haynal of Switzerland, senior editor of the correspondence, was introduced on Friday night and continued with a four-hour presentation the following day. The program highlighted the relevance of the Freud-Ferenczi relationship for contemporary analysts tacking between theoretical pluralism on the one hand and the pressing need for organizational unity on the other. Many in attendance spoke of the weekend as a pivotal event in the history of psychoanalysis in Southern California. Nineteen ninety-six marks the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the Los Angeles Psychoanalytic Society and Institute (LAPSI). Its founders soon found themselves in conflict, and a divorce was quickly arranged. In 1950 the organization split, less than five years after its formation, and soon the Society for Psychoanalytic Medicine of Southern California and its affiliated institute stood alongside the original society/institute.
The new organization soon changed its name, dropping the medical designation to become the Southern California Psychoanalytic Society and Institute (SCPS/I). Ironically, the institute eventually became recognized for the breadth and excellence of its program for training research candidates under the CORST program. By the 1970s site visitors were declaring that there were as many different points of view within each society/institute as there were between them. Since then the two organizations have continued along separate paths, in what many consider a friendly competition that generates interest, excitement, and creativity. Though the two societies have long collaborated in producing scientific programs and have held joint out-of-town meetings, each proudly maintains its own microculture. Discussions exploring the advantages and disadvantages of closer ties, up to and including reintegration, have repeatedly reached the conclusion that while the two groups may have affairs together, marriage is to be put off. It's the modern way.
Over the past few years, a small committee of prominent members of the two organizations have held regular meetings. As the discussions continued, members brought into focus the changing world in which psychoanalysis currently finds itself, both locally and nationally. A consensus emerged that a major undertaking is necessary to renew interest in psychoanalytic theory and practice and to reach out to the community. To accomplish this, analysts capable of making clear, interesting, and accurate public presentations, representing a unified psychoanalytic community, are a pressing need.
Committee members agreed that the analytic community would benefit from a common effort to reach out to lay and professional audiences in this sprawling metropolitan area. There were compelling reasons for inviting all legitimate organizations in the analytic community to join in pursuit of this goal, as the strengths of each would enhance the group effort. The next obvious step was to acknowledge that it makes little sense to continue separating the two local societies accredited by The American from the two accredited by the IPA. Consequently, leaders of the Psychoanalytic Center of California (PCC), oriented toward the work of Klein and Bion, and of the Los Angeles Institute and Society for Psychoanalytic Studies (LAISPS), formed many years ago, predominantly by serious nonmedical students and practitioners of psychoanalysis, were invited to join the discussions. They accepted an invitation to become equal partners in the enterprise, and the initial phase of mutual exploration got under way.
Society representatives came together convinced there is a need to appreciate innovative thinking without the groups' destroying themselves. It was agreed that a better way must be found to convince one another of the validity of divergent (or seemingly divergent) ideas without resorting to divisiveness and splits.
LAISPS had endured many years of official isolation, despite the fact that many of its members were respected and admired locally. Similarly, PCC had experienced tensions with various leaders and members of The American in years past, but for some time new relationships have been warming. Many founding members of PCC were members of LAPSI or SCPS/I who had failed to advance in those groups because of bias against their theoretical orientation. Despite this history of mutual antagonisms, those gathered around the table quickly focused on the task at hand. Mutual respect replaced suspicion and uncertainty, and cooperative planning became possible. Committees were designed to include representatives of each society.
The governing boards of the four societies are kept informed of the actions and goals of FIPAS, and their interests and right of approval are kept firmly in mind. The founding committee soon developed a mission statement for the federation, outlining its purposes and goals. This document was submitted to the board of each member organization and distributed to the various memberships for approval. In each instance it was obtained. Preparations for the Haynal weekend were begun, with Benjamin Kilborne chairing the program and overseeing arrangements.
A subcommittee of the larger group has held monthly meetings to track progress and operate as a think tank. Currently it is feeling its way forward, as various organizational structures are considered. The subcommittee hopes progress will be steady, constantly supported from below by the several memberships, in order to avoid any implication, let alone the possibility, that the authority of FIPAS would supersede that of its constituent bodies.
The current focus of the subcommittee is on finding the best means of meeting with each society's membership — entering discussions, answering questions, gathering support for moving forward. A second major program, scheduled for this fall, is currently in preparation.
There is every indication that the candidates of the member institutes are enthusiastic about these developments. Candidates from nonmedical backgrounds perhaps have an easier time with integration of disciplines, but since the end of the suit against The American, medical candidates too find integration less conflicting. At the Haynal lectures, many senior members expressed great satisfaction with the movement toward federation. They felt the time is ripe for greater collaboration and perhaps eventually the move to a single organization. That would mark a return to the way it all began in Los Angeles fifty years ago, when a person's disciplinary background was far less important in determining membership eligibility and candidate selection, as has always been the case in the IPA.
There is agreement that analysts should rid themselves of the narcissistic preoccupation with inventing new terminology and creating supposedly innovative schools; instead of advancing the field, it has simply led to increased fragmentation. The discipline can only suffer when analysts forget what binds them in common cause. The enemies of psychoanalysis are formidable. Managed care, pure geneticists, cognitive behaviorists, pharmaceutical manufacturers — these are but a few,
This article is the result of a collaboration among Mel Mandel (LAPSI), Ernest Lawrence (LAISPS), Robert Caper (PCC), Harvey Weintraub (SCPS/I), and Benjamin Kilborne (multiple affiliations).
and they are unyielding in their efforts. The four IPA societies in Los Angeles — two affiliated with The American, two free-standing — have come together in the recognition that in remaining apart they become their own worst enemies; together they can endure, perhaps even thrive, however modestly. Maybe in the end that is the best that the disquieting force that is psychoanalysis can hope for. It was in that spirit that the Federation of IPA Societies in Los Angeles was conceived.