On Being a Psychologist in the American

Reading David Stevens's poignant description of the conflict he feels over his affiliation with the American reminded me of the psychoanalytic tenet we all take for granted — that lived experience affects how we see ourselves and others. I have friends who feel the same ambivalence that Stevens describes. My own experience with training and involvement in the American has been quite different. I would like to present an alternative view of the relationship between psychology and the American, not to argue that one perspective is right and the other wrong, but to demonstrate the psychoanalytic thesis of multiple realities, each shaped by the unique individual experiences of the individual with his or her own environment.

My own psychoanalytic training began in 1981 at the San Diego Psychoanalytic Institute. Division 39 was just beginning to coalesce, and there were few psychoanalytic opportunities for psychologists outside the American, except in New York City with its long tradition of independent institutes. The American was the only game in most towns, and a CORST waiver was the entry ticket.

Although I resented this extra hurdle for psychologists, I also took it for granted, given my post-doctoral training at the Menninger Foundation — where psychologists had been trained as analysts for decades with the proviso that they receive a CORST waiver. A similar

situation existed in New Haven at the Western New England Institute, where I was first accepted before I left the faculty at Yale to take a position in San Diego. In New Haven, the only other option would have been to commute to New York to train at an independent institute. I chose to apply to the Western New England Institute because my previous training had made me more comfortable with the Americans approach to psychoanalysis. The waiver did not pose a practical problem because I was committed to an academic career.

A major determinant in choosing to move to San Diego was the availability of an academic position that would allow me a CORST waiver and a local institute willing to train psychologists. I have never regretted this decision. The San Diego Institute never demonstrated any prejudice toward me as a psychologist. It had already trained one psychologist, Stephen Silk, and two others, Joanne Callan and Phyllis Tyson, were in the class ahead of mine. Referrals were made readily, and I felt supported fully by candidates and faculty. The fact that these three psychologists and I have all been appointed training and supervising analysts speaks to our institute's acceptance of psychologists.

My attitude toward and relationship with the American remained quite different during my training years. My resentment over the unnecessary CORST waiver was counterbalanced by its easy attainability and the excellent training I was receiving from the supportive San Diego Institute. I was more seriously dissatisfied with the American because of the problems a well-respected recent graduate of our institute experienced with the certification process and because of my experiences at the meetings of the American.

These meetings felt so stodgy, formal, and uninviting that I found myself as bored and uncomfortable at the Waldorf as I had felt attending orthodox High Holy Days services as a child. Even the mean age and appearance of the participants reminded me of those childhood experiences! Not surprisingly, I found myself preferring the Division 39 meetings, where those participating did not, on average, qualify for SSI benefits and where the program seemed more contemporary, alive, and vital. In short, becoming involved in the American felt tantamount to joining a stultified and ultraconservative club where decorum, manners, and thinking followed rigid rules.

Consequently my response to being asked to become more active in the American in 1991 was a reflexive “No way!” But active persuasion by our institute's director, Al Robbins, convinced me that Marvin Margolis's chairmanship of BOPS meant a genuine effort to revitalize the organization. I accepted the invitation to become a member of the Committee on New Training Facilities, and along with Fred Busch became its two psychologist, non-TA members.

To my surprise, the committee proved one of my most rewarding professional activities. Disproving my stereotype was a group of people both interesting and genuinely committed to helping new training facilities to develop. The stodginess, excessive control, and conservatism that I expected was nowhere to be found. Nor was there any apparent bias toward Fred or me as psychologists. To be sure, the committee was, at times, unaware of issues particular to psychologists. But the members always seemed appreciative of our input. And a position of the importance for new training facilities to work with local Division 39 groups, not to compete with them, was voiced regularly by members, particularly Ralph Engle.

Rather than feeling an outsider, I came to feel an active participant in the American, both as a psychologist and as a psychoanalyst. This sense of belonging integrated these two identities rather than causing conflict.

In fact, my involvement in the American was crucial to my developing identity as an analyst. Attending the meetings kept my thinking centered on psychoanalytic issues — technical, theoretical, and pedagogical — as newfound inclusiveness made the program more contemporary. I found myself converting psychotherapy cases to analytic ones regularly after returning from the meetings. Further committee opportunities arose as I was appointed to the Program Committee and, eventually, became co-chair of two committees, the Ad Hoc Committee for Outreach for Scientific and Educational Programs and the Ad Hoc Committee for New Psychoanalytic Centers. Both committees involve outreach toward newcomers, including psychologists, to the American. Sharon Zalusky, another psychologist, has done a wonderful job as chair of the former committee by encouraging younger professionals from all disciplines to attend and participate in APsaA meetings. The involvement of psychologists is revitalizing our meetings.

An unfortunate side effect has been a gradual diminution of my involvement with Division 39. I remain an associate editor of its journal, Psychoanalytic Psychology, but I have only a limited amount of time to devote to organized psychoanalysis, and the two meetings of the American each year are as much national involvement as I can handle. This does not reflect a lack of interest in Division 39 or a disavowal of my primary discipline. One simply has to make choices, and my involvement with the American and with my local institute occupy as many hours per week as I can devote to this aspect of my life.

From a personal perspective, I enjoy the opportunity to choose between two organizations, Division 39 and the American, and am not so eager as Stevens to see the American become the sole national psychoanalytic organization. I remain unconvinced of the value of his grandfathering proposal. To me there is value to different organizations with somewhat different theoretical and training approaches, so long as healthy dialogue and controversy do not deteriorate to pathological competition and mutual devaluation. Such differences can stimulate debate and growth in our field.

At this point the main differences seem to revolve around theoretical and pedagogical issues more than medical vs. non-medical ones. Thus, the American feels as much my organization as does Division 39. Stevens and I have different perspectives on the American based upon our own personal experiences. But to paraphrase Garrett Morris's character from Saturday Night Live, Chico Escuela, the American's been very, very good to me!