Early in 2001, active members of the American (who are automatically voting members of the IPA) will receive ballots for an election of IPA vice presidents. Seven analysts are running for North American vice president; three of the seven will win a position. The North American region includes the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society as well as the Independent Psychoanalytic Societies.
This election is unique. The IPA is in position to change in dramatic ways, and the choice of elected leaders in the 2001 election will have a major effect on whether and how that change occurs. Although under the present system of governance all IPA members throughout the world can vote for all officers, including the regional vice presidents, a high voter turnout among APsaA members can make a major impact on the choice of our own vice presidents.
Why should members of the American bother, since many feel the IPA is irrelevant to their careers? We constitute about one-fourth of the IPA's membership, and we certainly warrant a say in its business. We also contribute a proportionate share of its budget. On an individual level, $250 (or 29 percent) of your APsaA dues goes directly to the IPA. Moreover, the American has much to offer the IPA. We are ahead of other regions in many arenas such as the inclusion of candidates and welcoming homosexual analysts. We have vastly more experience with outreach programs than do psychoanalysts in most parts of the world.
Our president, Dick Fox, says the leadership of the American is pushing for more democratization and more regionally based representation in the IPA. We want to make sure, he argues, that we are getting a reasonable return on our large financial investment in the IPA.
TAP interviewed each of the seven candidates for the three positions of North American vice president and asked them the same two questions: What would be your top two priorities if you were elected vice president of the IPA? Where do you stand on the issues of regionalism vs. internationalism in IPA policy and governance?
The second question might benefit from some explanation.
Under its present governmental structure, the IPA is a highly centralized organization. All officers are either elected by a global electorate or appointed by the president. The provisions of SAM III (the third version of the new governance plan developed by the IPA's Task Force on Structure and Mission), expected to be approved in 2001, change the governance structure dramatically so that a majority of elected representatives will be selected by regional vote.
But SAM III leaves many questions regarding regionalism vs. internationalism unanswered. To list just a few:
What percentage of IPA resources should be spent on regional programs vs. international ones?
When the IPA is supporting regional programs or projects, who should control the funds — the central IPA administration, or the regions themselves?
How should the needs of the regions be determined?
What should be the global priorities of the IPA?
How can the IPA be relevant to individual members?
Activities of each candidate within the IPA are mentioned, but because of space limitations their activities elsewhere are not listed.
Grotstein is currently one of the North American vice presidents and is running for re-election. In this position he has served on the Executive Council for two years.
His overall point of view is that the IPA should redefine what's worthy of our attention and energy. His top priority is to promote the development of infant analysis as a separate discipline from child analysis. He envisions a whole new profession of perinatal and postnatal outreach and intervention informed by psychoanalytic thinking to help promote mother-infant bonding and attachment.
Grotstein sees a crisis in our field in terms of the relationship between psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. It's not fiscally feasible, he notes, for everyone to be analyzed. The IPA should communicate to institutes that the international organization believes in psychotherapy and supports it. The IPA should provide guidelines for its teaching and practice.
Grotstein believes there is value in regional representation and voting. As far back as the reign of Henry II in England, the principle that people should be judged (and represented) by their peers was recognized in society. People in a given region know their own candidates best. However, there are times when an international body can and should intervene in regional affairs. Grotstein cites two such instances from decades ago — one in Los Angeles, where IPA intervention would have been helpful, and another in Brazil, where IPA intervention actually took place. Help is sometimes needed and must come from the outside.
Jon Meyer is currently chair of the House of Delegates of the IPA, a member of the Task Force on Structure and Mission, and a member of the Task Force on Governance, charged with specifying the by-laws changes necessary to implement the structural recommendations of SAM.
The top item on Meyer's agenda is to work to implement governance reforms in keeping with SAM III to promote significant democratization of the organization, increase member and regional representation, improve accountability, and institute checks and balances — organizational features he maintains the IPA has not known nearly enough of. Without these reforms, says Meyer, the IPA can't function; it will be mired with internal stresses and hopelessly bogged down. Although the SAM recommendations are likely to pass, whether they pass or not it will still be up to those elected in this ballot to make sure SAM or similar reforms are implemented. The IPA needs a set of individual reforms, Meyer argues, that taken together constitute a virtual transformation.
Meyer's second priority is the development of practice, which is suffering all over the world. The IPA should support — philosophically, programmatically, and financially — regional activities to combat government intrusions, fight for privacy, and promote access to psychoanalysis. Local regions know best how to approach these issues locally.
Meyer sees regionalization of IPA governance as extremely important. It's the only way to get people into positions of responsibility who are elected by people who know them. These regionally elected representatives can guide the IPA to respond to the needs of their region and represent the ideals of the global organization back to the region.
At the same time, he sees the IPA as having a major role as a global organization. Individuals may move across national boundaries. Membership in an international organization can be vitally significant to the individual. Moreover, the IPA should be involved with other international organizations — the UN, the World Health Organization, and international corporations — representing values of humanistic mental health.
Helen Meyers is currently the North American Chair of the IPA's Committee on Women and Psychoanalysis (COWAP) and a member of the Committees on Psychoanalytic Education and New Training Facilities. She helped set up the House of Delegates in the Sandler administration, served there for four years, and was the HOD representative to the Executive Council for a term.
One of Meyers' priorities is to make the IPA a more scientific organization — professionally relevant, furthering analytic identity, promoting a greater interchange and understanding among different groups and countries and different psychoanalytic approaches. The IPA, she feels, should emphasize research into the effectiveness of psychoanalysis, psychoanalytic process, and analytic education.
Another item on her agenda addresses the structure of the organization. She feels the IPA should have more real involvement of more people, should be less centralized, and should have more regional input and a simpler, more cost effective superstructure. There should be more input and involvement from the grassroots. In her own position at COWAP, she has recruited research team members by contacting every institute and society directly for names of interested people.
Meyers does not think that regional concerns are opposed to international ones. Regional needs do differ and merit special attention. Certain needs in individual regions can be productively thought through and approached by the international group as a whole. But these concerns should not interfere with the IPA representing psychoanalysis in general as a global science. As a North American representative, she would make our needs a primary concern. What the IPA can do for psychoanalysis globally will in turn help psychoanalysis in the various regions. The IPA should support education of the public and interchange with academia and related disciplines. It should show the world that psychoanalysis is clinically effective and theoretically important.
Nersessian is North American Chair of the Ethics Committee and was a member of the IPAs Committee on Psychoanalytic Education. He served on the nominating committee for treasurer and previously ran for vice president.
Nersessian's first priority is to improve scientific exchanges between regions. One of the major purposes of the IPA, he feels, is to advance psychoanalytic science. Officers of the IPA should help develop bridges between the various theoretical schools through organizing smaller, more frequent meetings among followers of the various schools.
His second priority is to do everything possible to make the IPA more interesting to North Americans. He supports Dick Fox's effort to give the presidents of our societies a more important role in liaison to the IPA. He notes that the Canadians and the IPS members have always been more involved in IPA activities than have members of the American. He thinks the IPA can help us financially in various ways: by supporting regional and smaller scientific meetings, and by supporting — with money and manpower — the development of new and small institutes and societies (just as the IPA does all over the globe). Nersessian also thinks we at the American need to think about what we can do from our side to improve APsaA-IPA relations.
Nersessian sees the regional representation system as set forth in SAM III as “fine for now.” Ultimately, he believes, the IPA could be viewed in a more global way. Elected representatives to the IPA should first be concerned about psychoanalysis in general: the decrease in practice, the decrease in influence in the universities, and advancing psychoanalytic science — all issues that span regional divisions.
At the IPA, Bob Pyles has served as a representative to the House of Delegates. He has been chair of the Subcommittee on Health Issues; member of the Committee on Societies, North America group; consultant to SAM; chair of the Subcommittee on the Status of Psychoanalysis; and participant at the Strategic Leadership Conference held at Esseborne Manor in 2000.
Pyles subsumes both of his top two priorities under the rubric “the crisis in psychoanalysis.” He feels the IPA must effectively address the two components of this crisis: (1) the worldwide decline in practice and (2) government intrusion and regulation. The two major traditional functions of the IPA are putting on the biannual congress and setting standards for education. The IPA could and should function as a centralized think tank, Pyles believes, gathering and disseminating information that the regions accumulate on practice and government intrusion and regulation. The IPA could grant back some funds to local groups that are fighting government intrusion, as with our own efforts in Washington. The international conferences must be self-sustaining financially. If not, the location and frequency should be reassessed.
Regarding regionalization, Pyles describes the IPA as an organization in need of democratization. Its ability to function has been strangled by an oligarchic structure. “Some have feared that strengthening regions will weaken the centralized IPA — I feel the reverse,” Pyles says. He does not feel that the regions, particularly ours, have gotten their money's worth from the IPA. The North Americans haven't figured out what the IPA can do for us. We don't need what other regions need. The IPA is an organization in major transition and needs to change to meet new demands.
Stimmel is currently serving as associate secretary of the IPA, a position appointed by the president with a non-voting presence on the Executive Council.
She has been chair of the North American International Psychoanalytic Association Groups for two years. She has served on the IPA Task Force on Equivalency and is a member of the IPA's Committee on Psychoanalysis and Society. She is part of the sponsoring committee for a new IPA study group in San Francisco.
When asked about her top two priorities if she were to serve as VP, Stimmel said, “Love and work.” Everyone is concerned about having patients. Stimmel would like to help people with their practices by encouraging their active participation in the IPA. This leads to meeting colleagues from around the world, thus broadening networks and stimulating new and creative ideas for influencing the role of psychoanalysis in the world at large. This in turn is likely to increase society's willingness to turn to the psychoanalytic process for help. Stimmel also sees an increased need for analysts to consider a broad range of ways of applying a psychoanalytic mindset to other societal endeavors.
Stimmel sees the regionalism vs. internationalism debate as “an unfortunate and inappropriate dichotomization that leads to polarization.” The question shouldn't be asked, she feels. There are perils in too much regionalization — why have an international organization at all? Being in a non-voting position allowed Stimmel to transcend a regional point
of view. She feels that if the IPA creates a structure that is primarily regional, its regions will be at war with each other. If regionalism is the primary basis for the apportionment of power, it will destroy the IPA. It is not implicit, she maintains, that regionalization is more democratic. It's unfortunate that in North America the IPA hasn't been that important. The American should be very supportive of and active in the IPA. It's a global market, says Stimmet — we can't afford not to be all in it together.
Tyson is currently secretary of the IPA, appointed by president Otto Kernberg to a position with a vote in the Executive Committee and Council. He is also a member of SAM and previously was North American Co-Chair for the scientific program in 1993.
Regarding his top priority, Tyson says, “I would like to be among the last VP's of the IPA.” (Under the reorganization plan promulgated by SAM III, there would be no more vice presidents.) He would like to help in the transition from the current form of government to the new one (contained in the SAM III recommendations) that is more representative, accountable, workable, and efficient.
Tyson's second priority is to facilitate greater IPA outreach to areas where an international organization (as opposed to a local or regional one) can have an effect. Examples include outreach to the United Nations, the European Union, and multinational networks of university clinics and researchers. He cites the IPA's support of training interested analysts in research methodology as a prime example of this kind of effort. Translations are another key area where the IPA can accomplish something regional groups can't; translation is essential to breaking down barriers to understanding other points of view.
Tyson says that the regionalism vs. internationalism issue was central to SAM's work on governance. The new proposed form of governance will provide a better balance. He feels that different regions are at different points of development. For example, in some societies, the idea of candidates as members is as yet unthinkable. The IPA has to be sensitive to cultural and philosophical differences among its constituent groups and members.
Tyson offers this caution: “Everyone in every region feels the IPA should give money back [for local projects]. The more we do that, the less we have an IPA.”
Next year provides a unique opportunity for change in the IPA, both in its governance and its programmatic priorities. The governance reforms proposed in the SAM III plan need to be implemented by committed people, not just voted on. The mission of the IPA also has an opportunity to evolve. The group of vice presidents now running for office will affect the outcome of those potential reforms. They will be responsible for the IPA's survival in the current environment and its relevance to the needs of the members of the American.