APsaA: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: An Interview With Newell Fischer

HS: When did you join what was then called “The American”?

NF: I joined in the late 1960's as a student but did not become active until the early 90's when I became treasurer of the organization. Prior to that time I was very active in my local institute and society.

HS: What are some of the internal changes you have seen at APsaA since you became a member?

NF: The main thing has been the blossoming of the Council with its multiple functions. When I first began attending the Council, there was nothing really to talk about and some of the meetings were finished by lunchtime. We were primarily a training organization and BOPS was the only show in town. Now, we struggle to complete Council business in eight hours.

HS: How would you describe that business?

NF: Council is now involved in outreach activities, political agendas, insurance issues, membership benefits, scientific programs, and much more. This did not exist 25 years ago and this level of activity is reflected in the budget. Whereas, the BOPS budget has plateaued, the Council budget has skyrocketed. We have become very conscious of practices issues and struggle with educating the public and with our public image. In the past, we remained in the shadows—mysterious even to the sophisticated and worldly. We were unknown.

HS: How much do you think APsaA differs now from in the founders' era, which I am assuming spanned the time from its founding in 1911 to at least the heyday of psychoanalysis in the 50's and probably beyond that?

NF: Then we were a “training school.” Today our educational activities remain essential—but as an organization we are much more. In the beginning it may have been appropriate for BOPS to maintain the “keys” for candidates to enter our Association, but we have outgrown that structure. It was a structure to insure quality but it has now become far too narrow and often stifling to growth.

It is imperative to expand our thinking and our membership if we are to survive. In 2006 the average age of our membership will be 65. We need a strategy to welcome new, younger members into our organization. We must find ways to help younger members finance their education and ways to enlist their interests and creativity.

HS: Of course, the cost of training is not the only financial consideration.

NF: Right. In the 50's, I am told, there was an abundance of potential analytic patients. Now graduates worry whether they will be able to develop an analytic practice. Psychotherapy training programs have been added to many institutes around the country. Twenty years ago the thought of such additions to our institutes' curricula would have been blasphemous, raising concerns about blurring of boundaries, contaminating the “pure gold,” etc. Currently psychoanalysts see themselves as eminently qualified to teach psychotherapy—to practice, do research, and train in psychotherapy.

HS: Do financial issues affect the organization itself?

NF: As an organization we are holding our own financially—particularly in contrast to other mental health organizations. We can always use more financial resources to expand the many things we do.

HS: What are some of the other changes?

NF: We have moved toward becoming more and more inclusive. Initially this was forced on us by the lawsuit. But then our experience with candidates from several disciplines convinced us that these mental health professionals were excellent clinicians, thinkers, and contributors. As we gained confidence in them, we gained confidence in ourselves and did not have to retest the testers. The Europeans were far ahead of us in coming to respect diversity, which was one of the major factors leading to strife with the IPA and our insisting on autonomy after the Second World War. We have come a long way in appreciating this diversity, as evidenced by our scientific programs and our journal. Diversity makes us question and think and is not a threat. I hope that is the case—though some still consider such openness a major risk to our survival.

HS: Do you see BOPS as symbolically representing the founders?

NF: BOPS represents educational concerns and almost by function is a conservative element in our Association. It is probably helpful to have such a voice in our structure. It allows for a sense of continuity of standards. On occasion, however, this voice may restrict or discourage growth and as such reduce our flexibility to confront the future. Some of our more cautious and conservative members are either unwilling or unable to openly debate their beliefs. That is unfortunate. Such debate, discussion, and open disagreement allow us all to grow and be enriched. Silence lends itself to distortions, misunderstanding, and a good deal of rage.

HS: Why do you think there is so much tension being expressed at APsaA right now?

NF: I think it is because of the struggles or challenges we, as individuals and as an organization, face in the world around us—poor practice, managed care, government intrusion, poor image. As these issues increase, we seem to get more and more preoccupied with our inner tensions and discontents. It almost feels like a defensive avoidance of the outside threats that seem so overwhelming and intolerable. We get increasingly involved with inward gazing.

I understand the argument that if we got our house in better order, we would be in a better place to deal with the world around us. Granted, but I remain dubious about the motive. I have often wondered if we could provide two new full-fee analytic patients for every member, would we be so involved with struggles concerning internal governance?

HS: Where would you like APsaA to be in five years?

NF: It is imperative for us to focus more on the world around us. Outreach and genuine involvement with the scientific community, other professionals, and the public are vital. It is of course very important that we continue to offer the best psychoanalytic education in the world. But we must also educate the public about psychoanalysis—what we can offer, what our limitations are, and how we can apply psychoanalytic understanding to so many areas—child rearing, politics, corporate entities, families, art, and to the study of the brain.

I hope also that our research efforts will multiply, so we might learn more about people, human development, health and illness, about what works in treatment, and how we can contribute more as psychoanalysts. These things are all possible. We have to put our minds to it.