“Conversations on Psychoanalysis and Race,” a three-part series, which concluded in the previous issue of TAP, focused our attention on a deep-rooted problem. In the final segment of the series: Dorothy Holmes made a powerful plea for organized psychoanalysis to become active in regard to racism; Beverly Stoute educated us about the poverty of non-racist thinking in the evolution of psychoanalytic theory; Anton Hart spoke to us as clinicians about doing what we are trained to do: maintain an authentic attitude of radical openness toward diversity, a disposition of curiosity that permits new learning, new pain, new clinical and theoretical gains.
Michael Slevin, Beverly Stoute, the editors of this series, and Doug Chavis, the editor of TAP, have given immense thought to bringing challenging, well-developed considerations of a complex issue to the members of APsaA. We owe them our gratitude for their hard work on this series.
And now our work begins. First, if you have not read the entire series, do it now. Second, we are challenged to develop a greater level of openness in respect to the topic. While the immediate problems are the destructive impact of the social construct of racism and the endemic presence of racialization, the precepts apply broadly to “otherness,” to the designation of someone who is different as “other than me” and how that designation closes rather than opens our minds.
It proves difficult, even when it dwells at the heart of our profession, to maintain a disposition of curiosity. The tension we live with is the tension between reflection and action. When we see something abhorrent, how can we not act? The better question may be: When we see something abhorrent how do we remain curious and take considered, moral action?
The series on race and psychoanalysis educates us and calls us to action. It also puts us squarely in a familiar dilemma. When we as a membership of highly educated and committed mental health professionals are overwhelmed by external realities and feel helpless to make a difference, we focus on ourselves, on our internal problems. They are familiar and must seem manageable.
The Diversities Section of the DPE aims to ensure that scholarly and clinical knowledge about diversity, including racism, is fully integrated into psychoanalytic training.
An example of this occurred last summer when I sent a note to the membership expressing concern about the racial violence in Tulsa, Oklahoma. My post led to a criticism of me as APsaA president for not speaking out faster and more clearly about Trump. There ensued a string of emails supporting me, both as a woman and as the organization’s elected
leader. In the context of members’ support, I could calm down, think, and realize that we had done it again: We had focused on ourselves and the overwhelming issue of racial violence had gotten completely lost.
The disposition of curiosity is not easy to hang onto. Nor is it enough in itself. The courage to take a moral stand is something that draws on our souls. There is a large segment of our membership that has endured or studied the Holocaust and its aftermath and has seen in President Trump the qualities of a demagogue. Truth has indeed become fungible on a national level and we as citizens and as practicing clinicians are facing a very complex and frightening situation in which basic democratic values are being severely challenged.
What happened last summer could happen again. The importance of psychoanalytic organizational action in relation to race could get lost in a broader focus on our national dilemma under the leadership of President Trump. But the destruction of racism has been with us for much too long. How do we avoid distraction and keep our attention on this important matter?
Thanks to the persistent efforts on the part of activist members of APsaA, I feel personally better prepared to keep the whole picture in mind. What might seem obvious to some are for me hard won guidelines based on the last nine months.
First, we need one another in order to stay informed and active in multiple domains. Second, we need to remain respectful of one another in order to create a climate that supports continued thought rather than psychic retreat. Group psychology teaches us that small groups form in the face of large group chaos because they offer a sense of stability and the illusion of control. When the small group becomes convinced it knows what is right and curiosity becomes irrelevant, the space between what is right and what is moral widens and the potential for corruption grows.
In the face of alarming disputes over truth in the public sphere, we need to stay informed, balanced and constructively engaged. The Diversities Section of the Department of Psychoanalytic Education (DPE) aims to ensure that scholarly and clinical knowledge about diversity, including racism, is fully integrated into psychoanalytic training.
Per Dorothy Holmes’s call to action, APsaA’s leaders will work with leaders of national and international psychoanalytic organizations to formulate, adopt and promulgate a firm position on the race issue. The complexity of the issue and the urgency of addressing that aspect of “otherness” have been made clear in this series in TAP.
A Note from the Editor
Thanks to our manuscript and production editor, Helene Wolff, a copy of the entire TAP series “Conversations on Psychoanalysis and Race” is available as an attachment. Request your copy for personal, professional or educational use at:
Doug Chavis
TAP Editor