In June 2011, at the Annual Meeting of the Association, seven of our new members were unique in that they had not trained in an APsaA or IPA institute. Under the Membership Requirements and Review Committee (MRRC) provision, our organization for the first time expanded its membership criteria to applicants who had not graduated from an IPA approved institute but who had equivalent training. There were 10 applications—seven were accepted and three were deferred. Though the numbers were small, this program signaled a new chapter in the Association's efforts at outreach and inclusion and symbolized a further openness to diversity and enrichment from analysts who were not part of our alumni group. This initiative is to be applauded, and some historical perspective is in order.
During my presidency of the Association, one of the most rewarding and exciting aspects of my tenure was the opportunity to spend two weekends a month visiting nearly all of the 30 plus psychoanalytic societies and centers around the country. It was an exhausting odyssey, but it was highly educational and richly rewarding. The core of these weekend visits was my presentation centered on the Association's recent marketing study (learning what other professionals and consumers thought about psychoanalysis and about psychoanalysts) and developing an agenda for national and local outreach efforts.
Following a slide show presentation, most of my time was spent in freewheeling discussions with members and candidates, in small groups and with individuals. Some of the most enlightening exchanges were with recent graduates who had volunteered to chauffeur me around between meeting locations, hotels, and the airport. I listened carefully and learned a great deal.
To my surprise, I found that a significant number of members of local psychoanalytic groups were not members of APsaA. Upon inquiry, I learned that some of these local members had not joined the Association because they did not see what personal gain there was to national membership, and a few had some specific complaints about the organization. But then I found there were a sizable number of analysts who were dedicated local members (indeed, they had come out on a weekend night for my presentation) but who were not qualified by their training to be members of the Association. These were psychoanalysts who had arranged their own individualized analytic training (a personal analysis, supervised control cases, and suitable didactics). Often it was not clear why these analysts had elected this alternate route—a route that allowed them to join local psychoanalytic societies but barred them from application to the American Psychoanalytic Association. It appeared that in most cases these non-APsaA psychoanalysts had selected highly respected senior analysts for their personal analysis and case supervision and they also audited institute classes. These non-members clearly wanted and actively sought psychoanalytic training but did not want to be, or could not be, part of our organized educational programs. Indeed some of these analysts had had no choice but to pursue individualized training, because they were non-physicians who did not have the opportunity to train in APsaA institutes prior to the 1989 lawsuit, which was settled by allowing non-physicians to become analysts. In several cases some of these non-APsaA analysts were officers in their local psychoanalytic societies.
There was something wrong with this picture. These non-APsaA/IPA analysts were accepted and respected locally and yet they were not eligible to apply to our national organization, an organization that was becoming increasingly aware of declining membership numbers and aging demographics.
Our Association bylaws allow an officer to put forth a bylaw amendment and so in the final months of my presidency, I drew up a bylaw amendment that would permit dedicated non-APsaA/IPA psychoanalysts who had sufficient equivalent training to apply for membership in the American Psychoanalytic Association.
I decided not to publicize my proposal until just weeks before the Annual Meeting in San Francisco in 2004. I had been a fellow on the Board of Professional Standards for several years and then on the Executive Committee of the Association for eight years and I was weary of hearing belabored discussions of what we could NOT do, the daunting warnings about professional hazards and the “slippery slope” and the deterioration of our educational standards. I did not want to rehash old anxieties about outreach efforts and inclusion (“done that, been there”). I was concerned that such endless debate would lead to stagnation and a “fear of trying” (Plenary Address, Fischer, JAPA, 54/1). I also knew that Arnold Cooper (president of the Association, 1980-81) had proposed a similar initiative 25 years earlier but it had been debated, squashed, and lost for a quarter of a century.
The bylaw proposal to allow non-APsaA/IPA trained analysts to apply for membership in our Association was formally brought before BOPS and the Executive Council in San Francisco and the anticipated heated discussion followed. Several colleagues—Prudy Gourguechon, Harriet Wolfe, and Ellen Fertig—were particularly helpful in moving this proposal through our many meetings and
Newell Fischer, M.D., served as president of the American Psychoanalytic Association from 2002-2004.
Prudy Gourguechon, M.D., served as president of the American Psychoanalytic Association from 2008-2010.
committees. The proposed bylaw was then sent to the membership for a vote and it was approved in the fall of 2004 (87 percent of the voters approved the bylaw, 11 percent voted against, and 2 percent abstained).
Of course, this was just the beginning and the ensuing struggle for implementation unfolded.
The original bylaw Newell Fischer proposed and shepherded to fruition established two things: First, that there would be a pathway to membership for qualified psychoanalysts who did not graduate from an APsaA or IPA institute. Second, that the criteria for such a pathway would be worked out by the MMRC, an elected committee of the Executive Council, approved by Council, and by a two-thirds vote of the membership—in other words, a follow-up bylaw amendment. It is important to emphasize that the MRRC, newly established, had a bylaw mandated responsibility to take this next step, without which the intention of the original bylaw could not be fulfilled.
I'll call the first bylaw, Newell Fischer's, the “establishment amendment” and the second step, which eventually went through several iterations, the “implementation bylaws.”
The first attempt at an implementation bylaw was written by the MRRC under then president Jon Meyer's leadership. It contained a great many details specifying the qualifications and procedures for evaluating the prospective members. There was considerable objection to this bylaw primarily because of the plethora of details and specifics, and the proposed amendment was defeated.
Following this defeat, a new implementation bylaw was written by the MRRC, now under the presidency of Lynne Moritz. This implementation bylaw took a very different approach. Instead of laying out specific qualifications in detail, it simply required that the MRRC develop criteria for membership such that admitted members would have substantially equivalent training to those who graduate from IPA or APsaA institutes. Additionally, the amendment specified policies according to which the MRRC would define substantial equivalence in sufficient detail that actual procedures could be written, submitted to the membership for comment, approved by a supermajority of the Executive Council, and then actually implemented.
There were objections to this implementation amendment too. This time, it was seen as too vague, and some saw it as a reneging on the principle that criteria for membership would be approved by the members (i.e., in a bylaw). I insisted rather persistently that “substantial equivalence” WAS the criterion that members were being given a chance to approve, thus no reneging was occurring. This did not satisfy opponents of this change who felt that it was too broad and vague a mandate to the MRRC and Executive Council. Because of unfortunate and, one might say, rather silly contortions in our bylaws regarding amending the bylaws, only a negative statement about this proposal could be included in the mailing to members. This implementation bylaw was submitted to the membership for a vote and, not surprisingly, it, too, was defeated.
A year later, I was now president, and I asked the three other officers at the time, Bob Galatzer-Levy, Judy Schachter, and Warren Procci, to join me in putting forward the same amendment once more. We felt it was an excellent amendment with the right terms and criteria for this process. By submitting the bylaw as officers, rather than through another means such as the Executive Council, we were able to include a positive supportive statement with the mailing. Finally, this amendment passed in June 2010, fully six years after the first amendment giving the MRRC the responsibility of articulating a pathway to membership for non-APsaA/IPA graduates.
I remember during this entire process I kept specific friends and colleagues in my mind, psychoanalysts who have made great contributions to the profession and to APsaA as well. I wanted to make it possible for them to join us as members—if we could make membership attractive enough. Keeping it personal helped me stay organized and on track.
The final step occurred in the fall of 2010 when the MRRC, now chaired by president Warren Procci, accomplished the task of developing specific procedures and the actual application forms.
Graduates of APsaA institutes have seen three supervised cases four to five times a week, have had a training analysis, and have taken a substantial range of courses in specific subjects. Prospective applicants through the new pathway are asked to demonstrate that they have received training in these three areas, at an intensity and depth “substantially equivalent” to APsaA graduates. However, exact equivalence is not a reasonable standard, so the application is considered in its totality and not based on any one number or fact.
So this story ends at the beginning of a profound philosophical change. As Newell Fischer said, seven new members were accepted in June 2011 through the new pathway. At this moment, the American Psychoanalytic Association was transformed from an alumni association to an association of like-minded psychoanalysts. The potential of this shift is enormous and exciting. Doors open and unimagined futures become possible.
Obviously, prospective members must see something of value in membership in APsaA to put up with the bother of applying and the cost of membership. It is our job to make it clear that membership in APsaA adds value to our colleagues' professional lives. We are under no illusion that there are bunches of analysts out there who seek the prestige of membership in APsaA. However, the depths of our programs—in advocacy, public information, research, scholarship—must be maintained, enhanced, and publicized so that many analysts will want to join us, use our resources, and share theirs with us.
To download an application for membership through the new pathway channel visit: .