The IPS — that is, the Confederation of Independent Psychoanalytic Societies in the United States — is eight years old this year. The IPS includes four component societies and one study group of the PA, none of which is affiliated with the American Psychoanalytic Association. Today, the IPS works more and more closely with the American in a variety of formal and informal ways, but this cooperation was not always the case. Without attempting to explicate the complex intent of those in APsaA leadership during the early years of the growth of psychoanalysis in this country, I believe that by and large they rebuffed most efforts at application for training and membership by non-medical mental health professionals as well as others who could at that time find welcome in other parts of the world where psychoanalysis was developing.
The IPS grew from those origins of discrimination and exclusion by the medical community that controlled psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic training in the United States. Despite that discrimination and exclusion, psychoanalysis influenced thinking in academic settings, particularly among academics who were also lay mental health professionals. These non-medical people sustained their interest, creating flourishing institutes outside the aegis of the American, in particular in New York and Southern California. Four societies/institutes would later form the IPS: the Institute for Psychoanalytic Training and Research (IPTAR) and the New York Freudian Society (NYFS) in New York, and the Los Angeles Institute and Society for Psychoanalytic Studies (LAISPS) and the Psychoanalytic Center of California (PCC) in Los Angeles. In the mid-1980s, the New York Freudian Society added a Washington, D.C., program, drawn initially from psychologists and social workers who had been unable to obtain training via institutes of the American in the Washington area.
At about that time, another development had far-reaching implications for the demographics of psychoanalysis in this country. Several psychologists supported by the American Psychological Association instituted what might be called a restraint of trade lawsuit against the American and the IPA. Settlement of that lawsuit opened the door to membership in the IPA by qualified groups from the United States who were not affiliated with the American. (The lawsuit also had an impact on the American itself, which moved its approach — nudged in response to the lawsuit — from the previous trickle of acceptances of lay professionals for psychoanalytic training to the current open policy toward qualified non-medical applicants. Some even have claimed that the lawsuit was instrumental in re-energizing the American!)
On the basis of the lawsuit settlement, the four groups mentioned above — IPTAR, NYFS, LAISPS, and PCC — applied directly to the IPA for membership, and by 1991 they had all achieved provisional status. Within the IPA, they came to be known as “the Independents.”
In 1992, another step toward the formation of the IPS occurred at a meeting of the presidents of component societies of the IPA with the president of the IPA, Joseph Sandler. A successful drive toward the IPA's democratization led to the framework for establishing a new House of Delegates to share governance with the Executive Board and Council and to draft new IPA by-laws. The need for a work group representing the three regions of Europe, South America, and“ North America to plan for these new developments highlighted the presence of the new groups from North America. No longer the sole representative, the American acknowledged its new partners in the Canadian Psychoanalytic and the four new groups in the United States.
This signal of the first full participation of the new U.S. groups in IPA policy-making generated the decision on the part of the four groups to inaugurate a formal confederation, called at first the Coalition of Independent Psychoanalytic Societies in North America. The awareness of their shared goal of wanting to join the larger psychoanalytic world of the IPA dedicated to high standards of training and the preservation of psychoanalysis, at the same time remaining a voice for diversity and independence, united the four groups to a common cause. The leadership from the brand new coalition joined with those of the Canadian and the American to hammer out an equitable arrangement for North American representation in the IPA. A new regional organization was formed: the North American International Psychoanalytical Association Groups or NAIPAG, similar to those of FEPAL in South America and the European Psychoanalytic Federation.
This successful cooperation followed coordination in another critical area: protecting American psychoanalysis from the efforts of the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis (NAAP) to claim for its organization, the American Board for Accreditation in Psychoanalysis (ABAP), the status of sole accrediting body for psychoanalytic institutes in the United States. Led by the NYFS in 1990 and continuing through 1995, the IPS and the American joined in opposition and worked together, ultimately helping to defeat that application of the NAAP/ABAP. (Ramifications relevant to the subject of accreditation have, of course, continued to evolve but may best be left for another context, since they take the narrative too far afield of the specific development of the IPS.)
Throughout the 1990s the IPS groups — first provisional, then component societies of the IPA — were fully integrated into the IPA fabric, participating in its life and functioning at many levels of organization. As individuals, IPS members have been represented on many committees and activities associated with the governance of the IPA. They have not only participated in the planning for pre-congress and congress events but have presented papers and programs as well. As a fitting exemplar of the changing times, the IPS shared with the American the responsibility for hosting the last IPA Congress held in the United States in 1995.
Meanwhile, NAIPAG has continued to meet, not only to deal with common political interests but also to consider the strengthening of joint scientific undertakings. Coordination between IPS and institutes of the American have blossomed in several locations. In Los Angeles [see “As LAPSI Celebrates 50th, LA Seeks Concord,” TAP 30/4], a federation of IPA societies including LAISPS (IPS), LAPSI (APsaA), PCC (IPS), and SCPS/I (APsaA) was formed to cooperate on projects. IPS
Harriet I. Basseches, Ph.D., is a training and supervising analyst and faculty member of the New York Freudian Society, of which she was president in 1996–98. She is the IPS liaison on TAP's editorial board, and was co-chair of the IPS in 1997–99.
and APsaA societies have been working together in Washington, D.C., as well. Beginning with a shared project centered on the Freud exhibit at the Library of Congress, the Baltimore-D.C. Society for Psychoanalysis (APsaA), the NYFS Washington Program (IPS), and the Washington Psychoanalytic Society (APsaA) have planned programs with both candidates and members, shared public information data, and participated with still larger local groups of psychoanalytically oriented organizations (in a unit called the consortium) to present research. In New York, five societies or institutes — Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research (APsaA), IPTAR (IPS), the NYFS (IPS), the New York Psychoanalytic Institute (APsaA), and NYU Psychoanalytic Institute (APsaA) — have made similar strides of presenting jointly sponsored meetings and conferences.
While Marvin Margolis was president of the American, the leaders in the American and the IPS began to meet for regular twice-yearly discussions. This liaison committee has found it a meaningful forum to discuss matters of importance to psychoanalysis as well as to discuss IPA issues of significance to the United States. Talks initially centered on issues of accreditation and the Psychoanalytic Consortium, an organization that does not include the IPS despite clear overlapping concerns (see “A Guide for the Perplexed Reader,” page 15). As time has passed, however, the focus has increasingly turned to the ways that the two organizations, the IPS and the American, could work meaningfully together on a variety of projects. Many such collaborations have resulted from these dialogues. One example is representatives from the IPS becoming members of committees of the American relevant to psychoanalysis and the community, such as the Public Information Committee and the Committee on Governmental Relations and Insurance. Other examples are participation by members of both organizations in workshops and shared knowledge from the work on the establishment of associated foundations. (Of course, some members of IPS who have also become members of the American have been active on other committees as well.)
TAP has been in the forefront of this exchange, having formally invited the IPS to place an IPS liaison on its roster during the editorship of William Jeffrey, and informally under Arnold Richards' stewardship. This salutary approach is also illustrated by the frequency of articles published by IPS members published, as well as the new glossary that mentions the IPS prominently.
It is clear that the APsaA of today is a very different organization than it was in those early days of rejection that led to the building of the IPS. Now a welcoming manner permeates exchanges between these two organizations with so much in common. In 1995, I wrote in TAP [see “IPS, Now Three Years Old, Spurs Move Toward Regional IPA Federation,” 29/2] about the first three years of IPS. It is such a pleasure, five years later, to see how much the IPS and the American have been able to thrive and enjoy the benefits of working side by side. It seems that the relationship has strengthened both organizations — a trend that we hope will deepen in the years to come!
With the IPS solidly functioning alongside its peer organizations and well integrated into the IPA, the IPS board and its constituent society boards considered it time to turn to the IPS's own internal structure and development along several avenues. One direction was in increasing communication and mutual scientific inquiry, to better get to know each other and our diversity of psychoanalytic thinking.
The IPS has begun publishing a newsletter for its members. It has also held a variety of major receptions and meetings. Inaugurated at the reception at the 1993 congress in Amsterdam, the IPS has sponsored a reception at each of the congresses since, in 1995, 1997, and 1999. There has also been a major west coast scientific conference on film in psychoanalysis and an east coast symposium on Matte Blanco, both events open to the psychoanalytic and mental health communities. In addition to these, the IPS offered clinical meetings to its members and candidates. One was hosted in Palm Springs in 1998, another in the Hudson River Valley in New York in 1999. Each time, meeting over several days in small groups balanced among members from all the constituent societies, participants found these clinical events deeply satisfying. Clinical material heard within the intimacy of the small group setting gave IPS members the experience of learning from each other and appreciating the diversity of perspectives. The non-competitive atmosphere engendered a common bond with ample respect for differences.
Another direction relates to the structure and governance of the IPS. The principle of an equal partnership among organization participants is the foundation of the IPS. This led to setting up an Executive Board made up of two representatives from each constituent organization (currently totaling eight), selected in whatever way each organization chose, to be on the board for staggered terms. The Executive Board itself elected co-chairs from among those representatives, keeping representation balanced among the constituent organizations. All committees are made up of balanced numbers of members from each constituent society. The House of Delegates representatives and NAIPAG representatives have been elected from the Executive Board, again attentive to balance among the constituent organizations.
While this system worked more than satisfactorily for the first years of the IPS, it has become increasingly clear that a more democratic process would expand the participation and vital involvement of more of the members. Thus, the current board is orchestrating a new plan to elect officers nationally. This will require new by-laws since, under the principle of confederation, all decisions made by committees of the IPS and by the Executive Board must be approved by the individual boards of the constituent societies before becoming available to the full individual members for voting. The details are being worked out, but there will be a new structural governance soon.
One other significant direction of the IPS bears mention. Paralleling the growth of the IPS and the re-invigoration of the American, interest in psychoanalysis has increased markedly among mental health professionals. This intensification speaks to the sustaining power of psychoanalytic ideas even at a time when the public is often discouraged from turning to psychoanalysis. It is possible that the increased interest was encouraged by the news of the settlement of the lawsuit, the admittance of new societies into the IPA, and the changes in the American. However these events may be explained, new groups have been forming in the United States.
One such group, the Northwestern Psychoanalytic Society (NPS), has become a study group of the IPA and has joined the IPS. The study group status allows the NPS and the IPS time to work out this new relationship. The IPS hopes to integrate the NPS in the spirit thus far sustained in the IPS: a value for diversity and independence, while working together for a shared psychoanalytic future.
Many people both within and without the IPS have been important to its beginnings and growth. This article can only touch on some. The earliest planners include Norbert Freedman (IPTAR), Abby Adams-Silvan (NYFS), Ernie Lawrence (LAISPS), and Albert Mason (PCC). The first steering committee was co-chaired by Norbert Freedman and Jean Sanville (LAISPS). They later became the first co-chairs of the IPS. Steven Ellman (IPTAR) and Abby Adams-Silvan worked with the Canadian and the American to establish NAIPAG and an equitable plan of North American representation. Later co-chairs have included Albert Mason, Steven Ellman, James Gooch (PCC), Harriet Basseches (NYFS), Terrence McBride (LAISPS), and Ann Rudovsky (NYFS). Others who have been members of the IPS Executive Board include Fred Wolkenfeld (NYFS), Fred Pine (NYFS), and Barbara Stimmel (NYFS), who also has been chair of NAIPAG. The current Executive Board has James Gooch and Doris Silverman (IPTAR) as co-chairs and also includes Ann Rudovsky, Jeffrey Golland (NYFS), Harriet Wrye (LAISPS), Beth Kalish-Weiss (LAISPS), Steven Ellman, and Jeanette Gadt (PCC). The current representatives to the IPA House of Delegates are Ann Rudovsky and Steven Ellman; Ellman is also serving on the IPA Executive Council.
Outside the IPS there are many to whom the organization owes special thanks, including a number of members of the IPA leadership, starting with Robert Wallerstein. An appropriate closing note of thanks can be made to the current leadership in the American — especially to president Bob Pyles and Richard Fox, president-elect — who have consistently held out an honest and collegial hand to the IPS. The IPS and the American have reason to feel hopeful for the future of psychoanalysis in the United States with such congenial working partners.