More than 30 years ago, the National Candidates Council (NCC), a loosely knit organization of candidates in training at APsaA institutes, came up with a proposal for a candidate category of membership. The proposal, written by Robert Nemiroff, then in training at the Western New England Institute, was published in the April 1971 NCC Newsletter (Volume 1, Number 2, p. 2). His outline for creating the special membership category for candidates included: active representation on working committees (especially those that affect training), full voting rights, increased participation in the scientific meetings, as well as reduced fees for journals and bulletins.
As the saying goes, the rest is history. Thanks to the efforts of many candidates and analysts over the last three decades, there is now a candidate membership category in APsaA. Affiliate members vote, have their own Affiliate Council, participate on the committees of the Executive Council and BOPS, have the benefit of full involvement in the scientific program, and receive reduced fees for meetings and publications.
Internationally, candidate interest in organizational involvement has also progressed over the last 30 years, but with a very different outcome. Rather than seeking membership in the IPA, candidates organized and created an independent organization: the International Psychoanalytic Studies Organization (IPSO). Since the 1970s, no formal relationship has existed between IPSO and the IPA, even though membership in IPSO stipulates that a candidate must be in good standing at an institute of an IPA society.
The politics of IPSO remaining completely separate from the IPA are complex, not always clear, and certainly beyond the scope of this article. Keep in mind that APsaA's relationship to its institutes is based on a very different organizational structure than the IPA's relationship to the institutes of its societies. While there are minimal training requirements to be an institute within an IPA society, there is no IPA equivalent of BOPS. Unlike APsaA, the IPA is an organization of societies not institutes, so its relationship to candidates is fundamentally different.
At first, I was surprised to learn that there were no formal IPSO-IPA connections. I was used to the tradition at APsaA, where candidate inclusion has been growing rapidly. With the support of the IPSO Executive Committee and three notable IPA officers, Robert Tyson, Otto Kernberg, and Daniel Widlocher, an IPA “Workgroup” was established to consider possibilities for developing IPSO-IPA relations. One outcome of those efforts is the historic establishment of a new IPA standing committee to explore and develop mutually productive relations between the IPA and IPSO. Richard Fox, our own past-president, is the committee's first chair.
Our new IPA-IPSO Committee, now in its formative stages, is planning to hold its initial meeting in New Orleans in March. [Editor's note:TAP went to press before this meeting was held.] Scheduled to join me on the IPA side are Celia Katz de Eskenazi from Argentina and Sverre Varvin from Norway. At present, IPSO is represented by its new president, Bernard Keuerleber from Germany, and its acting, interim treasurer, Francesco Castellet y Ballara from Italy. Because their election was delayed by the cancellation of the Toronto Congress, the IPSO representatives from North and Latin America are expected to be named in March. Despite the delay in our meeting in person, the committee began its work by e-mail.
As someone who played a part in the development of APsaA's affiliate membership and Affiliate Council, there is a certain déjà vu quality as we begin our work, but certain cautions apply to this simple comparison. As Lee Jaffe points out, the IPA structure does not include a BOPS configuration. Training functions of IPA societies are defined locally or by national standards. Because training functions are not centralized internationally or regionally, neither IPSO nor the IPA has a clear idea of the names, numbers or location of all the candidates in training at IPA societies. Hence, one of our first tasks will be to identify our constituency and establish an international roster of candidates that then can be incorporated into the next IPA roster.
It may be difficult for us to recollect the kinds of anxieties that were associated with the early development of our own affiliate programs. Fears were raised that increased candidate involvement in APsaA would breach the ambiance of training relationships, not only that of the analyst and the analysand, but also that of the teacher and the student. Would the transference be contaminated? Would candidates act out or have their contributions interpreted and disregarded? What effect would this expanded student-teacher relationship have on the training hierarchy, and might such a change lower standards?
Lee Jaffe, Ph.D., is past-president of the APsaA Affiliate Council and past-president of IPSO.
Richard Fox, M.D., is past-president of APsaA and chair of the IPA-IPSO Liaison Committee.
The culture of societies around the world varies widely, as did the attitudes regarding candidate empowerment in APsaA and its institutes. In addition to language and financial considerations, our new committee will face the same kinds of fears that we in APsaA experienced as we proceeded on a similar path. Heeding Marvin Margolis' caution to take “baby steps,” we will proceed gradually as anxieties and hesitations are addressed.
Perhaps the greatest momentum will come when IPA members experience working alongside candidates. For this reason, one of our first steps will be to get IPSO members assigned to as many IPA committees as possible. Working together with candidates, IPA members will have more opportunities to appreciate the enthusiasm, creativity, and commitment to psychoanalysis that candidates bring with them. At the same time, candidates around the world will gain a living model of their place in the IPA, which upon graduation, will soon be their own association.