A psychoanalytic institute that is still developing and has not yet achieved permanent institute status offers a pioneering and lively environment. Two candidates, one from each coast, have agreed to share their impressions of this unique training experience. From their accounts we can begin to appreciate what goes into the making of an analytic institute.
The Oregon Psychoanalytic Society and Institute (OPSI) was approved as a new training facility by the American Psychoanalytic Association in 1995 under the sponsorship of the San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute. Our first training class began in September 1998 and consists of two social workers (Betsey Iannuccillo and me), two psychiatrists (Linda Toenniessen and Svetlana Bonner), and a pastoral counselor (Jeffrey Lindner). A second class is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2000.
Our seminars convene on Friday afternoons. Approximately once a month, we have Saturday mini-courses with a visiting faculty member from San Francisco or from Boston, New York, or Seattle. The same instructor will later teach us via teleconference. This method of communication has been mostly satisfactory, though there are moments when the picture freezes or the line cuts out, and we must scramble to reestablish contact. Currently, all candidates have their first control cases, and one has a second case. Supervision for our first cases will be in Portland. For subsequent cases, we have the option of a local supervisor or phone supervision from training analysts in other cities.
The core faculty of OPSI consists of eight analysts. Five are from Portland (David Turner, Harold Boverman, Duane Dale, Howard Rosenbaum, and Georgia Lee), and three of our faculty have relocated — Gerald Fogel from New York, Ralph Beaumont from Boston, and Lee Shershow from Los Angeles — specifically to help develop this new institute. We have four training and supervising analysts, with a fifth pending.
One of the challenging aspects of a start-up institute is our small size. As a first class, we miss having senior candidates to provide guidance and support as we develop our analytic identities. Consequently, some of us began meeting with advanced local candidates who attend the Seattle Northwest Center for Psychoanalysis.
Because our faculty is small, we are frequently taught by our analysts and supervisors. This affects all of us. Classmates may have the same analyst, or supervisor, or both. At times, the tensions in the room are palpable and conscious; at other times, they are much more subtle. We have discovered that candidates' reactions are variable. What feels like an opportunity for one can feel like an enormous burden for another. We have had to learn to respect each other's need for privacy. Tutorial arrangements with other analysts are encouraged when appropriate. While learning in such tight quarters can feel challenging at times, our shared commitment to preserving the essential analytic space helps us discuss these highly sensitive issues with one another as we continue the process.
We have learned the value of obtaining outside help to diffuse tensions. This became vividly apparent last year when senior candidate Maxine Gann, from New York, visited with us and initiated a frank conversation about the complexity of our relationships with one another and the faculty. In January 2000, we had the opportunity to meet with two senior candidates from San Francisco, Era Lowenstein and Mary Ewert, in meetings scheduled over a two-day period. We had a structured agenda including issues that are universal for candidates, as well as specific concerns unique to our situation.
Visiting faculty members have been very helpful in providing an expanded arena for the open exchange of ideas. These exchanges seem qualitatively different from the discussions held solely within our institute. Specific arrangements were made for the candidates to meet with Marvin Margolis this fall when he came to Portland, and we deeply appreciated his perspective on the national scene of psychoanalytic training and activities. Harvey Rich joined us in class last year and delighted us with clinical anecdotes and discussions of contemporary literature.
One non–training/supervising analyst has served as the liaison faculty member who facilitates sharing of information in both directions between candidates and faculty. We have also had two community meetings that included our administrator and all faculty and candidates, where we aired many sensitive issues. Some of the candidates have begun meeting twenty-five minutes before classes to share information, identify issues to be addressed in the institute, and develop a process of support and mentoring for new candidates — when they come.
There are advantages in being part of the first class in a new institute. I am proud and excited to be an active participant in the launching of OPSI, for this is a unique time in the history of an institute which allows me personally to help shape the future course of its development.
As candidates, we can influence curriculum and policies at all levels of training. The committees of our institute are very small. We have recently discussed with the faculty the feasibility of increasing our participation in committee work and other institute business. We have been invited to have a candidate representative on the Curriculum Committee. As a small group, we have had the benefit of high-level individualized teaching from a wide range of gifted analysts invested in our development as candidates as well as in the formation of our institute.
The challenges mentioned above have provided us with opportunities to use our courage, creativity, and passion for psychoanalysis. I am honored to share this journey with my colleagues.
“Twenty-eight training institutes — soon to be twenty-nine.” These words rang clear as I listened to Calvern Narcisi, secretary-elect of BOPS, describe the history of the American during the Fall Meetings in New York. I began wondering, “Which is the twenty-ninth institute?” Sure enough, from across the way, another intrigued candidate asked the very question. The answer: “Florida.” For me, as a second-year candidate at the Florida Psychoanalytic Institute, Narcisi's proclamation brought to consciousness an aspect of every institution, its history.
At the time of this writing, we were all awaiting the Committee on New Training Facilities' site visit in February where, I imagined, the committee would make its final decision and grant us the honor of being able
Julio G. Calderon, M.D., is the candidate representative for the Florida Psychoanalytic Institute and a member of the Membership Committee of the APsaA Executive Council. Kelly Reams, L.C.S.W., B.C.D., is a second-year candidate at the Oregon Psychoanalytic Society and Institute. She is a licensed clinical social worker who has had a psychoanalytic psychotherapy practice for twenty years.
to delete “provisional” from all the stationery. As a candidate, seeing the word “provisional” can be disheartening. What does that mean, “provisional”? I was one of those good souls who were always fascinated with Freud and the workings of the human mind, but knew very little about the politics or infrastructure of American psychoanalysis. In a naïve way I undertook psychoanalytic training without much knowledge of the process or the inner workings of an institute. I knew it was supposed to be rigorous and an honor, but I new little else about it.
I was surprised when I was asked to write an article for TAP on my experiences at a new training facility, since in my mind my institute was not new. The Florida Psychoanalytic Institute dates back to 1965, when the Florida Psychoanalytic Society was founded primarily through the efforts of Gabriel Casuso, Joseph Gurri, Herman Selinsky, John Caldwell, and Harry Dean. It is to them that I owe my training experience, because of their dedication and commitment to establishing a psychoanalytic foothold within the South Florida community.
Most of our faculty analysts are graduates of the Baltimore-Washington Psychoanalytic Institute. In 1971, groups of candidates began the task of flying to Washington, D.C., to attend classes. It was not until 1992, when the American granted our institute provisional status, that candidates began to attend seminars in Miami.
Since then, three analysts have graduated from our institute, leaving four senior-level candidates along with seven second-year candidates currently in psychoanalytic training. I enjoy the intimate quality of being in a smaller institute, although I appreciate the benefits of being a member of one of the largest classes of candidates. My group is very learned and enthusiastic, which makes me hopeful for the future of psychoanalysis in our community.
The candidates reflect multiple theoretical and clinical perspectives that have made for some enriching dialogue. Some candidates have expressed their preference for more exposure to psychoanalytic perspectives within our curriculum that offer a contrast to the more traditional ego psychological approach. I guess that is one of the risks of being in a smaller institute where many of the analysts have been trained in the same traditions. Nonetheless, the institute welcomes other psychoanalytic perspectives introduced by visiting lecturers. Outside faculty and training analysts have become a part of our psychoanalytic community.
The cornerstone of our psychoanalytic training remains our own analyses and supervision of our own analytic work. Finding appropriate psychoanalytic control cases remains a problem because of the paucity of appropriate referrals to our psychoanalytic clinic. Most of the candidates are working toward converting psychotherapy patients within their current clinical practices. However, the institute will need to continue to strengthen its visibility within the community and enhance ties with other professional organizations.
Our long history as a “new training facility” reflects the commitment of generations of analysts along with the efforts of the Baltimore-Washington Psychoanalytic Institute and the American. The “permanent” Florida Psychoanalytic Institute will be a welcomed addition to the South Florida community. The institute maintains the highest level of educational commitment to training and will ensure the viability of the analytic community in years to come.