Once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away, a group of psychoanalysts realized they needed to reorganize their association. They were all intelligent and learned as well as committed people who were each devoted to their individual views of psychoanalysis. They wanted to call the new association APsaA and wished it to be representative, comprehensive, and inclusive. They also wanted it to value and promote high-quality standards, excellent education, careful and verifiable research, and pluralistic theoretical positions. They further wanted it to be national in scope; compatible with other national, local, and free-standing organizations devoted to similar ideals and interests; and to be part of an international organizational structure.
They wanted it to be a home for local organizations of similarly minded individuals, some of whom were devoted to professional and membership services, some more interested in educational and academic matters, and some to both. They wanted it to be collegial and user-friendly and to be responsive and dedicated to the public interest, especially in clinical and ethical matters. Pragmatically, they wanted a streamlined, democratic, professional governance and management system. They wanted it to conform to all applicable laws, local and national, and to the laws and customs in every state where it operated. Finally, they wanted it to be fiscally responsible and economically affordable.
The preceding organization had almost 100 years of history and a structure that was last revised nearly 60 years ago. Its members and the local organizations that were included in the national body were distributed from coast to coast and from the far north to the deep south. Each local organization had a unique history and all were quite different from one another despite being roughly similar in function.
The stakeholders in the organization were from differing educational backgrounds, had different degrees, and were diverse in gender, nationality, ethnicity, as well as racial, economic, and social backgrounds. Their ages ranged from fairly early adulthood to quite old age. Some were clinicians, some researchers, some academics, some authors. Some were deeply involved with psychoanalysis as a primary professional (and personal) identification. For others, it was only a part, sometimes a small part, of their identity.
Furthermore, many didn't really know one another very well. They often only knew each other through statements made on emails, positions taken publicly on political or governance issues, offices held, or occasionally through articles written for publication, some many years ago. Some only knew each other via rumors, gossip, or innuendo. Most had never had the opportunity to really sit down with one another to discuss their ideas, philosophies, backgrounds, worries, or hopes. Sound bites were more usual than deep conversations or extended personal relationships.
For those who did know each other well, many had formed alliances based on friendship or other common characteristics that resisted alterations in “their organization,” even when good ideas for change were developed. They may even have been the teachers or students of one another Some had been in analysis with others who were now their fellow stakeholders.
With all this disparity consensus was elusive.
Yet, somehow, a great transformation took place. Every stakeholder remembered that they and their fellow stakeholders were colleagues and were all devoted to psychoanalysis. They addressed their own motivations and tried to assume the most mature attitudes possible. They reflected upon the forces, inner and outer, that compelled them toward their present attitudes and opinions. They did their best to separate past from present, inner and outer, fantasy and reality.
So the stakeholders wisely chose fair and respected representatives to develop an architecture for their newly constituted organization. They adopted a detailed plan for constructing the organization in its new configuration. Everyone agreed to put their cherished, personal beliefs, identifications, and allegiances aside and really listen to one another's points of view. They agreed to be open-minded and not play identity politics, the politics of radicalism, the politics of demonizing people or positions, or the politics of favoring tactical victories over long-term solutions based upon careful consideration of novel ideas and of wise, principled compromise and consensus. They all agreed and acted on the premise that immediate personal advantage was always to be subordinated to the greatest good for the greatest number for the long term. Partisanship was seen as an impediment to the eventual good and not a virtue.
The stakeholders devoted a large amount of energy and their communal financial resources to getting the best and most objective advice they could about the possible options available to achieve their common goals. They were sufficiently patient so that all proposals were thoroughly discussed and debated until all points of view had been heard and all pros and cons illuminated. When the process had ripened and the final proposals and alternatives were brought forth, each variation was impartially considered and the stakeholders voted their fully informed convictions.
Naturally they succeeded and all issues yielded to wisdom and common sense. After the vote was tallied and a decision reached, everyone united and worked diligently to make the consensus and majority decision work optimally.
Of course, the consensus decision turned out to be the best, worked exceedingly well, and accomplished all of the aims of the stakeholders.
And they all lived happily ever after.
Ronald M. Benson, M.D., is chair of the Board on Professional Standards.