At the Board meeting in December, the primary discussion was not the major work in creating checks and balances so that Board and Council might work together more effectively. It was whether the Board would vote for the provision granting full voting rights to all affiliate members of the American.
A “very preliminary” straw vote passed, with thirty-nine Board fellows in favor, fifteen against, and six abstaining. The discussion, only the second BOPS debate on the issue, was lively. Despite the rather lopsided vote in favor, many questions were raised that need further airing.
Before de-linkage, the right to vote was only the privilege of certified members. The current proposal would end thirty years of strife by giving all active and affiliate members full voting rights and allowing all active members to hold national office. The right to vote would be a membership right for all, thus democratizing our entire organization. Exclusion was a part of the old hierarchical American. Inclusion shifts us toward a more horizontally organized American.
What does this process accomplish for our training functions, which the Board is mandated to promote and protect? Are the training functions hierarchical? If so, is that good or bad?
Project 2000, chaired by Larry Chalfin, weighs in heavily on these issues: “Tradition has its value, but it must not be allowed to stand in the way of imagination, innovation, and experiment in the flow of teaching and learning.” Hierarchy and its frequent companion, authoritarianism, interfere with imagination, innovation and experimentation. Reported Project 2000, “Adults learn best when they carry responsibility for their own education. … Our inquiry shows that candidates are extremely eager to assume more responsibility for their education, but often need permission to take an active stance.” At this point, it seems that our training function must actively promote this permission process by valuing the candidates' mature learning capacities. The report notes that “the spirit of the class cohort may be one of the most precious gifts of the whole experience … and ways should be found to maximize it.”
“If we make certain, by enfranchising the candidates, that candidates know they are members of the psychoanalytic profession, as well as a part of its future, we should see a reduction in both the power differential between supervisor and candidate and candidates' fear of failure and humiliation. Inclusion has the power to bridge the differences between teacher and student so that both are working toward the student's increased sense of mastery.”
Many institutes have found that involving candidates in the educational process, in curriculum committees, and as co-teachers increases the value of their cohort's psychoanalytic learning and aids in the development of their analytic identity. An interesting example is the new institute in Minnesota where candidates serve and vote on all committees of the institute. They have developed from the start a sense of being pioneers and are fully involved with psychoanalysis in their community.
In most institutes as well as committees of the Board, candidates have become an essential part of their own psychoanalytic educational experience. This seems analogous to the two-person analytic process we work so hard to make fully effective. This two-sided educational model is gaining ascendancy; when we talk about teaching, the subject inevitably turns to what the candidates are learning and what they are teaching us in the process.
There is growing interest in supervision, where the one-on-one process with the supervising analyst necessarily demonstrates differences in power. One survey showed that it remains problematic for the candidate to switch supervisors. Even when permitted to do so by institute policy, some candidates fear the power of the “rejected” supervisor.
In contrast, most supervisors sense, over many years, an increase in openness and truthfulness about problems, mistakes, anger, and even loving feelings. Countertransference feelings in candidates have become an essential part of the supervisory process.
What changes might make the supervisory process less hierarchal and more thoughtful? More frequent mutual evaluations of the supervision might help, particularly if conducted in an atmosphere of collegiality and openness. Is the supervision working to make the candidate more thoughtful and less fearful of failure and humiliation, as well as teaching sound psychoanalytic theory and technique? If we make certain, by enfranchising the candidates, that candidates know they are members of the psychoanalytic profession, as well as a part of its future, we should see a reduction in both the power differential between supervisor and candidate and candidates' fear of failure and humiliation. Inclusion has the power to bridge the differences between teacher and student so that both are working toward the student's increased sense of mastery.
The discussion about enfranchising our affiliate members made us think that the danger foreseen by some on the Board is that of unforeseen consequences. Discussion must proceed in this area so that we might become more confident of the changes most of us want to make.
Some have said that candidates are not yet psychoanalysts, so they are not fully able to grasp the educational issues that we face.
Calvern E. Narcisi is acting chair of the Board on Professional Standards. Ralph Engle resigned as chair of the board on January 15, 2001. This article was written and received by TAP prior to Engle's resignation.
Others are concerned about candidates' capacity for independent thinking while involved in their own analyses. Still others wonder whether we shouldn't ask the candidates to wait several years until they are fully involved in analytic work and therefore more fully informed about the workings of the American, before they are granted full voting rights.
Some are concerned that we mistake our wish for the candidates' success with a wish to involve them in the political process. Wouldn't it be best for them to concentrate on their analytic work? Are we mixing messages about activism and academics? Perhaps not all candidates will want to be affiliate members of the American or members of their society. Could this create another unintended hierarchy of two groups of candidates?
Others are concerned about the effects on local institutes if our affiliate members are enfranchised on the national level.
We believe that such concerns reflect a spirit of inquiry that requires further study and discussion. However, having participated in the deliberations of the Task Force on Education and Membership from the beginning, and having worked closely with our candidate members both locally and nationally, we believe that full voting rights for affiliates would strengthen our educational enterprise.