Adding Out-of-the-Box Features to National Meetings: An Interview with Program Chair Glen Gabbard

JJN: The Winter Meeting was a big success. You're now a little past the midpoint of your tenure as program chair. Looking back on the last four years, what do you think are the major innovations you've implemented in this role?

GG: When I took over the job, I was really building on changes that Owen Renik had begun during the time I was co-chair. A great deal of concern had been expressed about the way analysts present themselves in public. One of my psychiatric residents at Baylor asked me the following question: “Why is it that analysts who present Grand Rounds read papers to us while everybody else talks to us?”

We've had a tradition of reading papers rather than speaking with one another. Members of our organization can read psychoanalytic papers in journals. Most of them would like to hear something at our meetings that they can't read in journals. Hence, I have tried to implement livelier formats, like panels and symposia. I have asked chairs of panels to pose questions to a few panelists so they can have a lively exchange among themselves and between the panelists and the audience.

To a great extent, analysts are afraid to be spontaneous. I have tried to go against the grain and encourage spontaneity. I've also introduced an hour of small group discussions following a two-hour panel, such as what we did with the panel on “Failed Analysis” in January. Audiences want to be involved. They're not as eager to be passive listeners.

The use of PowerPoint is widely accepted throughout the world at meetings, but we have been slow to implement it at meetings of the Association. I'm happy to report that that trend has changed, and we are now making wide use of PowerPoint at a number of formats at the meeting.

Research has always been difficult to sell on our programs. We used to have a format called “Research In Progress” that was often attended by fewer than 10 people, many of whom were family members of the presenters. The format was humorously called “RIP” because it was clearly moribund. We have now instituted a Friday research symposium at the January meeting that has drawn hundreds of attendees to hear about cutting-edge research from a group of outstanding presenters. Stuart Hauser has been a great help in organizing these symposia.

I have also tried to increase the visibility of child analysis by adding a child analysis panel at every meeting and a child analysis two-day workshop.

The majority of our members do quite a bit of psychotherapy in addition to analysis, so we have tried to make psychotherapy a greater presence in our program as well. Under the leadership of Dick Fox, a Task Force on Psychotherapy has been working diligently to think of ways that psychotherapy issues might have a greater role in our organization. I added Dick to the Program Committee, and he is organizing regular two-day workshops on psychotherapy. We have also brought panels on psychotherapy to the program on a regular basis since I have been chair.

JJN: As a member of the Program Committee, I heard many favorable comments about the small group discussions that were held during the last hour of the “Failed Analysis” panel. There was a lot of enthusiasm for the opportunity to express one's ideas and meet a new set of colleagues. What can you tell us about the special symposium that takes place Saturday at 5:15? How did that come about?

GG: In 2001, I was writing a book on The Sopranos, and I thought it would be fun to bring Lorraine Bracco and the writers of The Sopranos to talk about how they depict psychotherapy as a hit television series. I had in mind the concern about how we market ourselves. We need to bring greater visibility to psychoanalysis and what analysts do. This event received coverage in The New York Times and was mentioned in The New Yorker, among other places.

We then brought Harold Ramis to discuss his movies, Analyze This and Analyze That, the following year, and we had Andrew Jarecki discussing Capturing the Friedmans, his notable documentary, during the third year.

We wanted to include the world of music in this format, so we had Richard Kogan talk about Tchaikovsky at the January meeting.

This symposium always involves a role of the dice since it's difficult for world-famous artists to commit themselves far in advance, and they often don't know if they'll be in New York at the time of the meeting. Moreover, we have little or no budget, so we are relying on good will to a large extent.

JJN: This type of program involving film, music, and the arts is not only entertaining, but also highlights the relevance of psychoanalytic thinking outside the consulting room. What about the University Forum?

GG: The University Forum is a new part of the program that Charles Shepardson, Henry Schwartz, Bonnie Litowitz, and Stanley Coen have been working on. The idea is to create a dialogue between academics and psychoanalysts that is mutually stimulating and collaborative. Stan Coen is now chairing a subcommittee that works on this topic. We have the same constraints on budget here as we do in other parts of the program, so we have to do this on a shoestring.

JJN: Given the variety and inclusiveness of program planning, how does one submit an idea for the program?

GG: The submissions guidelines are published in every program book at each meeting, and they are also published in TAP periodically. Scientific papers and ideas for discussion groups must be submitted by May 1 for the January meeting and December 1 for the June meeting. We plan the panels far in advance, so that at the January meeting we are preparing for the following January's programs. Hence a panel proposal must be submitted by October 1, 15 months ahead of the next January meeting. For a June meeting, we must receive a panel proposal by March 1 of the previous year. Symposia involve applications of psychoanalytic thinking to nonpsychoanalytic settings. For the January meeting we need symposia by May 1 of the previous year, and for the June meeting by December 1 of the previous year.

All proposals can be submitted to me at the National Office. Our efficient program coordinator, Debra Eder, and I spend a great deal of time going over these together and helping members shape them so they are more likely to be acceptable.

JJN: I would like to close by saying how enjoyable it is to work with you and all the members of the Program Committee and to thank you for all your creative and inclusive efforts in programming for APsaA.