As both a regular reader of The American Psychoanalyst and an editor for The Analytic Press, I would like to commend you on the high quality of TAP's content. Not only do I find it extremely readable, it is one of the most forward looking (and thinking) psychoanalytic newsletters being published today.
I particularly enjoyed a piece in the last issue, (Volume 37, No. 4) on “Marketing Psychoanalysis” (page 37) which had no byline. The article states, “Each TAP is now reviewed by a board member looking solely for unwitting instances of ‘arrogance.’ Our aim is to have one of the organization's most visible publications avoid unwitting instances of arrogance or exclusivity in our language or focus.”
This is a laudable goal. So, I hope you will forgive me for nitpicking and drawing your attention to a small error which nevertheless touches upon decades of historical exclusivity.
That very same article records the proceedings of a panel on marketing at the June 2003 APsaA meeting. It identifies Mel Bornstein as “the sole analyst on the panel,” but then goes on to identify my colleague, Bernie Gertler, as a “group relations expert and an analyst with the William Alanson White Institute.”
I suppose the author might have intended to identify Bornstein as the only APsaA-trained analyst on the panel. But even if that were the case, making the point would still seem contrary to the efforts at inclusiveness which TAP is trying so hard to promote.
Jack Drescher, M.D.
Training and Supervising Analyst William Alanson White Institute
Editor's Reply: As the anonymous writer, and the founder of TAP's “arrogance police force,” I am deeply chagrined at my error and extend my apologies to Bernie Gertler, whom I enjoyed meeting at the panel. I knew and know full well that Bernie is an accomplished analyst. I meant to say that Mel Bornstein was the only APsaA analyst, implying that these were welcome and fresh perspectives, but as Dr. Dresher points out even that identification sounds arrogant.
Your humbled editor,
Prudy Gourguechon