I realize some of you have heard about several controversies in the I PA Board over our Regional Association (RA) designation. In order that all members are informed, I am taking this opportunity to describe the issues and our response to date. As a reminder, our RA standing in the IPA conveys to APsaA the responsibility for setting standards for psychoanalytic education, whereas the IPA component societies (individual societies of the IPA unlike APsaA) follow the standards as set by the IPA. While APsaA will continue to strive for growth, it will be with consideration for the following controversies.
One controversy concerns a feature of APsaA’s current Standards for Psychoanalytic Training. While they are largely based on the IPA Eitingon Standards as a baseline, the noteworthy difference is APsaA’s polices for remote distance analysis via telecommunications. Our standards permit more variation of the in-person requirements (than the IPA’s) for remote training, as we currently require that the “portion” of distance analysis necessary for an analysis to be feasible can be allowed, as long as it’s not all remote.
The IPA’s position is that more specified and extensive requirements are necessary for successful remote analytic training. For the IPA, the remote training analysis must first be authorized by IPA interviews; if approved, then a minimum of one year of analysis in-person is required with at least one month a year in-person thereafter. As a result, these requirements impose substantial limitations on the likelihood of a remote distance training being feasible.
We know the challenges of doing conclusive research in our profession; so it is not surprising to find contradictory views on the requirements for remote training, each with its own substantiation. Given this controversy APsaA decided to be less restrictive, in part due to the wish to train more analysts and the desire to more thoroughly study remote training. We cannot study what we prohibit, keeping in mind that our educational standards are a living document. The APsaA educational standards document will be revised as needed to maintain our high level of analytic training.
Another controversy with the IPA concerns APsaA’s policies for admitting new groups and individuals who have not met all the IPA standards for education. Active analyst membership in APsaA conveys IPA membership without separate IPA vetting. This conveyance of IPA membership to our active analyst members of APsaA is another feature of our RA standing in the IPA. Several considerations are relevant. Does APsaA take in (and confer IPA membership) to new groups who are outside our region? Does APsaA take in (and confer IPA membership) to new members who live and work outside our region?
Some IPA members are concerned that there are analytic institutes and analysts who are refused membership by the IPA (perhaps due to their type of remote training) and then seek APsaA membership as a “back door” into the IPA. To be clear, APsaA is interested in membership only for those analysts who meet substantial APsaA equivalence in their training, and whose primary interest is belonging to APsaA, especially if they live outside our region. For example, we have recently deferred to the IPA and declined to accept two analytic institutes outside the U.S., and we are developing policies to respect the IPA’s jurisdiction over its own membership. Since we already have categories of APsaA members who do not automatically get IPA membership, a new APsaA active membership category that does not include IPA membership is one possible solution. APsaA will work with the IPA to limit IPA membership to those APsaA members who also meet all the IPA standards. The best way to accomplish this goal is under consideration.
Another source of antagonism toward APsaA’s RA standing in the IPA derives from the unfortunate APsaA policies prior to the 1986 resolution of the lawsuit that opened up training in APsaA institutes to nonmedical, mental health professionals. For many years, psychologists, social workers, and other mental health professionals, including me, had to jump through additional hoops to be accepted for training at an APsaA institute, or were outright denied access to analytic training with no alternative. This has left old scars, hurts, disappointments, and anger at APsaA, especially at our RA standing that made the exclusionary policies possible. While these exclusionary policies are history, the hurts are not. I am now proposing APsaA make a formal apology for the pain these policies caused. The Executive Committee has already endorsed this apology. I will soon ask the entire Executive Council at its next meeting to endorse this apology as well; it is in my opinion long overdue.
At the same time, these controversies in the IPA over our RA policies are to be considered by a task force of the IPA and the IPA Board, then any feedback to APsaA will be reviewed by the APsaA Executive Committee, the APsaA Executive Council, and the DPE where indicated. Hopefully we will all work together to arrive at mutually beneficial solutions for both the IPA and APsaA. On July 17 (prior to the IPA Congress meetings in London), I wrote to the president of the IPA, Virginia Ungar. I think my letter to her will further clarify our position.
Dear Virginia,
I believe there are multiple points of belonging to the international psychoanalytic community, on local, national and regional levels. This sense of belonging to the IPA requires recognition and respect for all these affiliations.
APsaA greatly values its 100-year place within the IPA community and intends to continue this collaboration to advance psychoanalysis. We recognize the need for ongoing communication and understanding, in order to maintain our international sense of community for all constituent groups that make up the IPA community. In fact, embracing change has been an essential feature of both the IPA and APsaA’s histories.
But first and foremost, in order to have a mutually respectful sense of international belonging it’s necessary to know one another’s cultures both locally and nationally. That means we need to listen to each other with an open mind, and learn how our actions impact each other. In this spirit I ask for your understanding of APsaA. The culture of APsaA is over 100 years old and APsaA is uniquely the only Regional Association (RA). We are an organization with 3,000 members comprised of 32 training programs within 38 societies and centers across the U.S. We are an organization with 9 departments. Within these 9 departments we have 56 committees. Adding the 11 Council committees, there are a total of 67 committees. Also, we have 13 staff members headquartered in NYC. We have two annual national meetings around the country.
While I could not possibly describe everything APsaA does in this short space, please note how the culture and organization of APsaA, the one Regional Association of the IPA, is unlike individual IPA component societies. In some ways, it is more like the IPA itself, with a similar size staff, budget and scope of activities, albeit within one country. What is more, APsaA’s place in the IPA is not comparable to the regional organizations: EPF, FEPAL, or NAPsaC. As a result, the IPA community’s vision for the inclusion of its one Regional Association is essential for APsaA to have an international sense of belonging.
At the same time, APsaA must be a sensitive member of its IPA family and culture, which will require good communications and cooperation. In the end, our mutual sense of belonging will thrive if we know each other well, if we are responsive to each other’s needs, if we show tolerance when our needs differ, and if we are sensitive to the impact our policies have on one other.
Best wishes,
Lee Jaffe