Efforts to more clearly define our organizational priorities and a mandate to reduce the internal tensions in our governance are action items on the Association's agenda. The need to address these all too familiar issues is made more pressing by the fact that APsaA, as a not-for-profit corporation, is not in compliance with New York statutes. Expert legal consultation has advised us and we have actively begun the process of studying our current organizational structures and functioning. We must come into compliance with State laws. Even more important to our Association's well-being, we must reduce the organizational tensions that drain our energies and distract us from addressing the challenges to our profession.
Reviewing the history of the psychoanalytic movement and the establishment of the American Psychoanalytic Association, it appears that from the earliest years, ambiguities, conflicts, and debates about internal governance have been intrinsic to our Association.
Introspection, so highly prized in our profession, can also be mobilized in the service of defense and to avoid confronting threatening external realities.
Freud set the stage for internal organizational conflict His intense battle to establish and define psychoanalysis in a hostile environment found expression in his delineating an inner circle of confidants and then extruding dissidents and detractors. Bob Wallerstein in his thoughtful book, The APsaA, the IPA and the Certification/Training Analyst Linkage developed the thesis that many of the contentious structural and governance issues that have been with us for nearly a hundred years find root in the struggle between the American Psychoanalytic Association and the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA) over the issue of lay analysis. This debate began as early as 1910 and reached critical proportions prior to World War II.
In addition to the historical roots of these internal struggles, the nature of our clinical work might fuel these organizational conflicts. As psychoanalysts, we work with intense intrapsychic and interpersonal affective pressures in relative isolation. We might speculate: Do the conflicts and tensions experienced in the privacy of our consultation rooms find expression and an arena for enactment in the more public domain of Association politics?
Though these speculations may be of importance in our ongoing discussions, at the moment we have a mandated task before us to examine and modify our governance with “due diligence.” I feel confident that this self-examination and the ensuing deliberations will result in a less conflicted Association and a more effective organization.
However, I also have some concerns about how we proceed, concerns that I believe require our attention:
Will this study and debate about governance become an end unto itself, preoccupying and interminable?
Will the “reasonable” caution about keeping the process insulated lead to organizational inertia? My first concern is that many of the issues on the table for discussion are invested with considerable passion. Old hurts, the sense of entitlement, the inequities of a hierarchical system, the privileges/benefits of the abused are just a few of the hot spots that can become the foci of personal agendas, which may obscure and derail the larger organizational mission. It is imperative that we keep in focus that this is a time-limited process to achieve certain objectives and that we not confuse an absorbing process with the mission itself.
As the challenges in our surround become more complex and more intense, there may be a temptation and some transient comfort in turning further inward and becoming totally immersed in studying the internal dynamics of the Association. Such a preoccupation might well serve to protect and blind us to these daunting challenges. Introspection, so highly prized in our profession, can also be mobilized in the service of defense and to avoid confronting threatening external realities.
The IPA devoted several years, and a great deal of money, to reorganizing its complex international corporate configuration as well as its internal governance structure. This restructuring process was certainly necessary and is still ongoing. But, while immersed in these complexities, no one seemed to notice the need to develop a strategy to deal with the worldwide crisis unfolding in psychoanalytic practice. It was only in recent months that an official position paper was put forward by Professor Daniel Widlocher, president of IPA, that the priority for 2003-05 will be to address the crisis in clinical practice. Unfortunately, the crisis has been with us for quite some time but we seemed to have been transfixed by organizational blueprints.
My second concern about our current process to study and reorganize governance structures is worrisome because on the surface it seems so “reasonable” and suggests a working premise that may be accepted without further reflection. This reasonable voice says,
Newell Fischer, M.D., is president of the American Psychoanalytic Association.
“We should not do things in a piecemeal fashion.” Such a position proposes that we avoid any changes in our current governance or the way we function because such changes will undermine and confuse the more comprehensive planning process now unfolding. The contention is a piecemeal approach will result in a patchwork of alterations that will prove contradictory and inconsistent with a broader plan of governance. I fear this reasonable-sounding proposition is a prescription for organizational inertia.
Yes, we may have to undo or modify changes implemented now if they prove to be inconsistent with a more comprehensive reorganization plan. But the difficulties that may eventuate are far less dangerous than the prospect of treading water for the three to five years needed to complete a comprehensive reorganization plan. For instance, we must move forward NOW in opening new avenues for membership, and for developing new alliances with groups that do not fit our mold. These efforts may well require amendments to our bylaws. We must rethink our financial priorities if we are to seriously invest in the future and do effective outreach. We must strive for a greater level of professionalism within our Association and develop our organization's infrastructure if we are to meet the future—before it is behind us. We simply cannot afford to wait for a comprehensive organizational plan to take form and congeal.
If we continue to wait until June 2006 (less than 3 years from now) and do not aggressively and effectively market ourselves, find new avenues to membership, and interest and facilitate young people to seek training, we can predict that by then our organization's demographics will look like this:
The average age of our total membership will be 65
The average age of our TA's will be 73
14% of our members will be 80+
30% of our members will be 70+
28% of our members will not be paying dues
This is alarming! A professional association with these demographics will be unable to support an aggressive, creative, and forward-looking agenda.
Though introspection and contemplation have great appeal in our professional lives, our vitality and indeed our survival will require risk taking, innovation, and some chutzpah. We must carefully and thoughtfully plan for the future, but at the same time boldly deal with the challenges and crises that are on our threshold.