As we look at how the concept of regionalism has taken hold in the IPA, we see that North America has been very late to the starting gate relative to Europe and Latin America. In large part, this has had to do with the constitutional status of APsaA within the IPA as the only “regional association.” APsaA, due to its size and influence, was recognized from the outset as more than an IPA component organization and, in this regard, it stood for the North American region.
Nevertheless, this was never actually the case. Psychoanalysis in Canada had been brewing since Ernst Jones settled in Toronto between 1908 and 1913. Finally in 1952, with influences from America, England, and France, the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society was founded. Centered in Montreal and Toronto but spreading to seven branches in six cities, the CPS represents a stable and productive psychoanalytic presence north of the 49th parallel.
In addition, within the United States, there was also a non-IPA, burgeoning, psychologist-dominated psychoanalytic movement whose members were prevented from joining the IPA because of APsaA's insistence on medical credentials as a basis for membership. When this barrier dissolved, four vibrant independent societies, each with its own long-standing history, were constitutionally incorporated into the IPA. Later, they developed an umbrella organization, the Confederation of Independent Psychoanalytic Societies (IPS). The presence of another four to five hundred IPA analysts in the United States has added richly to the diversity of the North American mix.
Despite these developments, it was not until the first major stirrings of IPA democratization occurred, resulting in the formation of the House of Delegates (HOD), that the North American leadership looked to each other for some type of formal interrelationship. They had to decide who would represent North America on the HOD and they needed a forum to discuss policy issues where a common voice would be advantageous to all. It was in this climate that North American IPA Groups (NAIPAG), the first organization of its kind, evolved. Despite initial enthusiasm and effort, after several years NAIPAG fizzled. The reasons for this represent some of the same challenges evident today.
First, there was no tradition of sharing among any of the component groups. The CPS had never had any formal links with APsaA despite many strong personal ties between members. In fact, links to France and England have always been as important as American influences in Canadian psychoanalysis. Thus, there was no pressing need for closer association, at least from the Canadian side.
NAPsaC has defined itself as a collegial and collaborative organization that seeks to bring added benefits to the individual members in the North American region.
Second, the independent groups within the U.S. could not be blamed for not trusting in the benevolence of APsaA, which had opposed their participation in the IPA for so many years.
Third, the size, depth, and diversity of APsaA allowed it to function as a regional association without apparent need for input from other groups.
Finally, the essential impetus for regionalization came initially from the IPA and its requirements rather than from the North American groups. Thus, the first steps were hesitant and the rationale for such inter-group collaboration was not so obvious at the outset.
However, starting in the late 1990's, an understanding that all analysts had to pull together for common cause grew. This effort to ensure the survival of psychoanalysis as a discipline, helped to dilute initial anxieties and, although NAIPAG faltered, the concept of North American regionalism as a worthwhile goal endured. In 2000, the IPA established a budgetary commitment of $10,000 toward the development of a regional organization in North America. In this spirit and context the North American Psychoanalytic Confederation, NAPsaC, was founded to continue where NAIPAG left off. The name change was intended to highlight the establishment of a new vision for psychoanalysis in our region. Two APsaA presidents, Dick Fox and now Newell Fischer, have proven to be essential supporters of this vision and opened the door to NAPsaC as a forum for dialogue among North American IPA psychoanalysts.
As Japan was also included in North America for purposes of IPA groupings (just as Australia is included in Europe), the fledgling JPS became a member of NAPsaC. Moreover, although Mexico (APM) is formally part of Latin America (FEPAL), NAPsaC remains committed to including the APM in its activities.
NAPsaC has defined itself as a collegial and collaborative organization that seeks to bring added benefits to the individual members in the North American region. Its organizational structure has yet to be finalized. Yet, it has initiated planning for a conference on psychoanalytic education to be held in early 2005.
NAPsaC is a joint sponsor with the European Psychoanalytic Federation (EPF) of the biannual European/North American clinical conference to be held in Tubingen, Germany, in July 2004. This meeting has a limited enrollment of 36 invited North American delegates. NAPsaC is also talking to FEPAL, the Latin American regional association, about resuming joint clinical meetings.
Arthur Leonoff, Ph.D., C. Psych., is chair of NAPsaC and past president of the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society.
The NAPsaC Board is currently studying the organization's future form and functions. Nevertheless, issues arise that NAPsaC must, by necessity, address already. The efforts by the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis (NAAP) to establish a watered down definition of a psychoanalyst for a New York licensing law, for example, has led to a NAPsaC committee to coordinate response to this political concern. In addition, the new governing structure of the IPA has created a caucus of seven North American board members. How this caucus communicates and receives input from our region suggests an important intermediary role for NAPsaC.
The borders between our various organizations are already becoming more permeable. I believe the momentum of this process will accelerate as members become more knowledgeable about the strengths and opportunities for new learning that lie beyond the confines of the home group. To our collective benefit, this will lead to identification with the larger group, which makes sense as our overall numbers are small and we share the same fate as analysts. Indeed, regionalism will promote pluralism in North American psychoanalysis, extending the need for an expanded regional framework. We can envision, for example, that psychoanalytic research may be organized through NAPsaC channels and become regularly multi-site and even multi-country in focus. Psychoanalytic education could benefit from a much broader faculty that could include great teachers from all the component organizations that make up NAPsaC. Lastly, NAPsaC will likely continue to serve as a forum for rapprochement between APsaA and the independent societies as well as among the independent groups themselves. This is an ongoing, essential process. As all recent presidents of APsaA have boldly emphasized, the risks to psychoanalysis as a profession are very real and we need to face them with a common front.
I hope you will endorse and work with your North American colleagues as we confront the challenges and opportunities before us. As we say in Canada:“Vive la NAPsaC.”