David Brandt had a vision. President of George Fox University, a small university in Oregon, Brandt decided to develop a program to recruit and retain minorities in the university. The program, titled “Blueprint for Diversity,” developed a series of strategies to examine racial, cultural, and gender diversity with the promise of increased enrollment of minority applicants.
One of the strategies intended for alumni was called “Dinner for Eight.” Sponsored by the alumni association of the university, the dinners provided an informal forum for university graduates to network, share ideas, and develop collegial relationships with each other. The philosophy behind Dinner for Eight, which was hosted by faculty members, was simply this: When people can engage in a free-floating exchange of ideas, wonderful things begin to happen. Free of rules and regulations imposed by bylaws, minute taking, and the implicit constraints of a larger organizational structure, people feel free to explore feelings, attitudes, and beliefs.
The university's program, of which Dinner for Eight was a part, proved to be a resounding success. Although traditionally drawing their students from what a university official has called the “pale-skinned northwest corner of the United States,” their minority population has doubled in the last decade! Inspired by their story and encouraged by the fruitful replication of this program in other communities with different venues, the Committee on Racial and Ethnic Diversity (CORED) appointed two members from its group to develop and initiate a similar program for the members of APsaA. This is one program in a series of concerted efforts by CORED to increase understanding of racial and cultural issues within the Association. Since its inception in 1996, CORED has offered a variety of seminars, discussion groups, culturally sensitive movies, and workshops as part of outreach programs to inform members and introduce psychoanalytically informed understanding of such issues.
The first Dinner for Eight meeting was held during the January 2007 meeting in New York. The group, comprised of analysts from around the country, met at a local restaurant for an informal dialogue. Free of bureaucratic pressures, the group could indulge in an honest exploration of personal feelings, moving from surface issues to more personal accounts of what it felt like to be with someone who was different. The richly textured dialogue yielded several salient points.
There was wide acknowledgment that the psychoanalytic literature was sadly remiss in the incorporation of cultural and racial issues in its case reports. As someone said, “We notice when someone does not talk about his mother; it is an omission that alerts us and we ask at some point about this omission, but when someone does not bring up his culture, why do we not regard that as an omission as well?” In response, someone added that perhaps our analytical identities have evolved within the context of “cultural neutrality.” It is as though writing about culture is “unanalytical.”
Monisha C. Nayar, Ph.D., trained at the Michigan Psychoanalytic Institute and now practices in suburban Philadelphia. She is interested in issues of cultural diversity, psychic trauma, neuropsychoanalysis, and transformations of play during child therapy and analysis.
Participants readily acknowledged the deplorable decline in minority applicants as well as the lack of programs centered on awareness of cultural and racial issues. As many noted, in the larger society the number of minority groups continues to increase. They are increasingly seeking mental health treatment. Will analysts be sufficiently trained to address their needs?
An exploration of why analysts feel most comfortable talking about cultural issues within the context of clinical material alone led to the following comment: “Perhaps, we are not ready to talk about ourselves because it forces us to face things about ourselves we may not like to know. I believe that the tripartite model of psychoanalytical training must and should address this as the formation of an analytical identity depends on such explorations and understandings.”
When people can engage in a free-floating exchange of ideas, wonderful things begin to happen. Free of rules and regulations imposed by bylaws, minute taking, and the implicit constraints of a larger organizational structure, people feel free to explore feelings, attitudes, and beliefs.
Finally, while the first Dinner for Eight was heralded as a step in the right direction, there was an overwhelming feeling that local institutes must participate in the ongoing training of their members through a series of process workshops, perhaps sponsored by and implemented by CORED members.
The afternoon offered a rich array of ideas, thoughts, and feelings, all of which left me feeling hopeful and confident that the first seeds for change had been planted and would soon bear fruit. From all the way in Oregon, I think David Brandt would be proud!