In my first communication in TAP, “Your APsaA: United and On the Move,” I focused on what we are now as an organization, and on the many positive projects that are in the works [See 52/3, page 3]. I aimed to convey a number of reasons to have a sense of pride in the value of belonging to APsaA. In this second article, I want to focus more on our future, on the need for you to be engaged wherever possible, and on a number of important issues that face us going forward.
For over a hundred years, APsaA has experienced growing pains. On the one hand, the growth has advanced psychoanalysis and APsaA. On the other, it has forced us to face some challenging and at times painful controversies. Recently we approved significant changes in our organizational structure; changes I believe will permit more growth with less pain. We are now a unified APsaA with one governing body: the Executive Council. We also derive strength and unity from our shared desire for APsaA and psychoanalysis to thrive. But in order to thrive, we will need to work together to adapt to advances in our knowledge of the internal world and to changes in the external world.
With the changes in APsaA, the consolidation of our governance has meant the sunsetting of the Board on Professional Standards (BOPS), which has been a significant loss for some members. With this in mind and on behalf of APsaA, I want to acknowledge the important contributions of the talented members who served on BOPS over the years. Please know how much APsaA now needs you to join in the realization of our reorganization.
Certainly, we will continue to face the need to change and to adapt, at times even facing more growing pains. If we confront these challenges democratically with consideration for all, with dignity, and with thoughtful discourse, we can be successful. To be more inclusive of all members, efforts are already underway to increase each executive councilor’s role as a liaison to and representative of their local constituency. While it is a challenge to achieve an inclusive, participatory democracy with 32 institutes, 38 societies and over 3,000 members, this challenge does not excuse us from doing the best we can.
At the recent meeting of the Executive Council in Chicago this past June, a motion was passed directing the Executive Committee to develop a survey of all members on “controversial matters” facing APsaA. In this way, the Executive Council will be informed by what members think and by their experiences. The goal is to respectfully fulfill the Executive Council’s role as the final arbiter of changes in APsaA policies, and where appropriate to bring recommended changes to the membership for a vote.
While we are still in the process of developing this survey, let me share with you some of the issues we are facing, beginning with consideration of how we work together. Hopefully, we can talk about our controversies openly and respectfully, so they are not deemed undiscussable. While I think we have more in common than divides us, at the same time no one’s idea of what is right is likely to be everyone’s idea of what is right. In most good compromises, many members will feel both pleased and disappointed. And last but not least, experience tells me we must take great care not to confuse idealization or certainty with wisdom, as this is a shibboleth that has afflicted APsaA and psychoanalysis in the past.
Our future presents a number of questions. In education, there are decades of questions about the training analyst function and system. There are controversies concerning analytic training and treatment that is conducted at a distance with modern technology, either in part or completely. There are persistent polemics over analytic training and the
relationship between psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy. More recently, there are varying views of the value of neuropsychoanalysis and the neurosciences to psychoanalysis. These are very healthy conversations to be having.
Locally, there are controversies over the implementation of “local option,” a new policy that delegates educational matters beyond APsaA baseline IPA standards to each local group. For example, on the local level: Who decides if more control cases will be required for graduation; who decides if certification will be required for advancement to training analyst; who decides if an institute will join and need to comply with the requirements of an external accrediting body? Will it be the Education Committee, the training analysts, everyone on the faculty or all graduate members? How democratic will the local governance be structured? The DPE has been designed to have a consulting role in resolving related conflicts and in assisting our approved institutes to learn from one another about best practices in both governance and education.
Nationally, the place of psychoanalytic psychotherapists in APsaA is another consideration. Will there be any reexamination of their membership category and privileges in APsaA? Another matter of concern is the reality of a membership policy where over half of APsaA members have reached an age where they pay no dues. How do we assure APsaA’s financial future? How will APsaA and psychoanalysis offer and publicize sufficient value to attract young candidates, analysts and new members?
I am optimistic about what remains to be done. APsaA’s recent reorganization gives us a unified governance structure that can meet the questions facing us. We are developing a survey to gather members’ input about the important matters facing us, including ones that are controversial. By recommending and approving this survey of members, Council voted to endorse an inclusive, national consideration of our future. When the time comes, please participate by making your views and experiences known. That is, PLEASE RETURN THE SURVEY! I will let you know when it is available.