IPA Members Join the American

Over the course of the past four years, a small but increasing number of IPA members have joined the APsaA. (So far, we number twenty-nine.) Most of us hold Ph.D.s in psychology, a few hold social work degrees, and some are M.D.s. When we applied to join the American, we IPA members were asked to submit extensive curricula vitae along with one write-up of a psychoanalytic case.

Of our group, twenty-one are members of the IPS (Independent Psychoanalytic Societies). This is an organization composed so far of the four psychoanalytic institutes that are component societies of the IPA. Two are based in New York: my own, IPTAR (Institute for Psychoanalytic Training and Research) and the New York Freudian Society. Two are Los Angeles-based: LAISPS (the Los Angeles Institute and Society for Psychoanalytic Studies) and PCC (the Psychoanalytic Center of California). The New York groups can be characterized, respectively, as “contemporary Freudian” and “ego psychological,” and the Los Angeles groups as “relational” and “Kleinian.”

Why join yet another organization? Why join an organization that comprises mostly medical psychoanalysts when one is a psychologist or a social worker? Why pay the additional dues, a substantial amount? What does the APsaA have to offer those from the IPA and IPS, and what do IPA and IPS members have to offer the APsaA? How will IPS members fare in such a large organization whose members belong to component societies, which we do not?

I can discuss my own reasons for joining the APsaA and assume that they are similar to those of the others who have joined. Before I joined the American, I attended its December meetings at the Waldorf-Astoria for more than twenty years. I found the program to be an important organizer and a way to review and think about my clinical work of that year. In my experience, those on the panels and presenting papers were the best and the brightest in the field and, therefore, people to be listened to and learned from. Each year, some new ideas and new people were introduced, and as a result I updated and reorganized my thinking about my clinical work, eliminating what did not seem to be useful. I was grateful for the education the APsaA provided me. After becoming an IPA member, I qualified to attend the workshops, which gave me the opportunity to present my own work and interact with colleagues.

Not Just Education

I was less aware, as an attendee of the meetings, of the considerable political activities taking place. The invitation to become a member of the APsaA came concurrently with my own growing need to work for the advancement of psychoanalysis as a profession and to try to safeguard its interests in this age of managed care. I felt I had much in common with the members of the American, with respect to the depth of my own training and the type of psychoanalytic treatment I conduct. I was therefore quite interested in joining.

My experience has been, for the most part, a positive one. I began to attend the May meetings and met quite a few members. I asked to join some committees. Being a member made me feel that I could take an active role. I am quite concerned about the issue of confidentiality and asked to join CGRI, chaired by Warren Procci. I was able to participate in some political action, attending special meetings in Washington, D.C., where we met with our lobbyist and congressional aides.

I became a mentor to an APsaA fellowship applicant, a “match” set up by Prudence Leib, the chair of the Fellowship Committee. The doctoral candidate assigned to me has been a joy to work with, and I have learned as much from her as she has from me. I have had the opportunity to present in some workshops and to chair a discussion; I hope to submit some papers in the future. Several years before I became a member of the American, I published some articles in TAP about cultural events in New York during the December meetings. This past year I became a member of the Editorial Board and hope to contribute in a significant way to this newsletter.

What have been the difficulties? Until recently, the APsaA had not communicated directly to IPS members that it was open for them to join and that they would be given opportunities to participate actively if they did join. This past spring, however, Bob Pyles extended an invitation in a letter published in the IPS newsletter.

My own society is a local society and does not work actively for the national interests of psychoanalysis. When I introduce myself to APsaA members and they ask what society I am from, many do not as yet understand what the IPS is and have not heard of my society. Some do not realize as yet that I am a full-fledged member. (Ironically, the year I joined, the American abolished the color coding of meeting badges that identified who the members were.)

I have not yet applied to be certified, but a number of my colleagues have gone through the process and have been successful. Several now serve on the Program Committee, the Public Information Committee and other major committees. Members of the IPS have participated for many years on the program at the APsaA meetings, and one of us, Martin Bergmann, was made an honorary member last year.

It is my hope that as more of us join and interact with the members of the American, we will have greater participation in its activities and leadership and that the outcome will be mutually beneficial.