A History of The Future of Psychoanalytic Education Conference
“I would even go so far as to muse that this conference was born partly from a covert agenda to punish the American–not to bring us together really, but rather to stabilize and strengthen the fact of our separateness. Some may even hope to do harm to the American, to weaken its influence.”
This ecumenical conference was my idea, and I would like to assure all of you that punishment and exclusion were not part of my agenda. Quite the opposite. So I would like to set the record straight with a brief history.
Our field has been fractious from the beginning. Those in Freud’s inner circle who dared to disagree were cast out; they formed their own factions and the battles began. While some feel energized by adversity and debate, I prefer to seek the security of unity. My wish is for all of the groups to join together, to derive strength in their combined numbers. We need not agree on everything, but we must respect one another’s positions.
For years I have experienced the competition of institutes and umbrella groups, oft times ignoring each other’s existence. For instance, there has been little, if any, cooperation between the 5 IPA institutes in
Celebrations aside, there are more pressing issues facing us – issues involving psychoanalytic education, credentialing and licensing. We are all seeing a decline in the number of applicants for training, and yet the tension between us continues, particularly in
Most recently, NAAP succeeded in lobbying the NYS legislature and psychoanalysts were required to be licensed by the state. Only Social Workers, Psychologists, and Psychiatrists could practice using their various degrees (scope of practice). People without degrees were required to apply for grandfathering in order to be licensed by a certain date.
The training analyst situation has always been problematic, and in 2007 the NYFS took the lead in making the application process into a civil, fair, and self-selection based one, respectful of the integrity of our members.
In sum, within our field of psychoanalysis there is more red tape and infighting than camaraderie and cooperation.
I believed with all my heart that every psychoanalyst, regardless of institute, persuasion, or degree could and would benefit from meeting each other and beginning to work together. One day I shared my idea of an ecumenical conference about the future of our education with Arnie and Arlene Richards, my friends and neighbors in the country. I realized that I was in no position to organize a conference alone, and Arnie agreed to help. Arnie is an organizer and I did much of the creative work. We produced the conference with the help of an organizing committee that in and of itself was designed to be representative:
Lewis Aron — NYU Post Doc and Div. 39
Kenneth Eisold – WAW
James Fosshage – AIPSP
Jennifer Harper – NAAP
Sam Herschkowitz – NYUPI, an APsaA institute
Doonam Kim — Candidate at NYUPI
Arlene Richards — APsaA, Iptar, NYFS, CIPS
Joann Turo – NYFS
Arnie Richards —
and myself — NYFS, APsaA, CIPS, AAPCSW, Div. 39
The committee worked hard to facilitate full representation across the panels, and Judith Logue presented a roundtable discussion including the Presidents and leaders of umbrella groups. It took much effort to include everyone – but we persisted and ended up with about 40 sponsors and 40 presenters.
This was our first experience as an independent group, representative of all major umbrella organizations and of many individual institutes, and certainly there were details that were overlooked, but we have learned good lessons for the future.
The changes occurring in the education and credentialing of psychoanalysts will have a major impact on our future, and I still believe that thinking and learning together will facilitate and give direction to the ongoing transitions in psychoanalysis and perhaps even mend some of the fragmentation in the field.
This lengthy description of how our conference was born is meant to assure Lynne Moritz that our organizing committee made every effort to be inclusive. I can promise her that absolutely no covert intention to show disrespect to APsaA was operative. I can assure her that the philosophy of the conference was and continues to be based on inclusion and respect. As psychoanalysts we are bound, I believe, to listen to each other as we listen so well to our patients. None of us have all the answers and in fact as we deepen our knowledge we find more questions. Only when we work together do we have the chance to keep this profession alive and vibrant.
I’d like to thank Lynne, the President of a most important association, for participating in this conference, and end with another quote from her, one which echoes my sentiments perfectly:
“Splintering, fractionizing, fractious-izing, to me, is a sure path in the wrong direction.”
I hope this brief yet wordy history convinces her of our true motive.
P.S. This independent yet representative organizing group is now planning for our next conference on The Future of Psychoanalytic Education: Innovation and Preservation (working title). A call for abstracts will be announced as soon as our date is set.
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Can we speculate and muse and suggest that at this conference there was ambivalence, conflict, and perhaps hostility toward APsaA and from APsaA? Yes, of course. Unconscious or even conscious hostility toward APsaA at different times for different reasons is understandable and acceptable — who among us has not had some?
Lynne Moritz, President of APsaA, whether you agree with her or not, said what she believed. That she appeared at all at the conference, with the flu and hard travel was admirable. That she is/was willing to take the stones and arrows for what she said is to be respected. In addition, she went beyond the call of duty in much of the pre-conference planning with me, the Chair of her Roundtable, and on many of the difficult details to get this ecumenical panel off the ground. She was incredible in her support. The Roundtable and the umbrella panel had punch and passion because of HER.
I urge readers to look at the complete talk. We are smart and wise people with fairly high IQs (many off the charts). Some will agree with Lynne, others will think she was off the wall, and some will wonder why is such a big deal being made?
It was almost inevitable that there would be a nodal point for the expression of the hurt, pain, and hostility between the medical analysts and the nonmedical analysts - and Freud’s original ambivalence about being a physician. It is OUR HISTORY and it makes sense to honor it. The Future of Psychoanalytic Education conference was a turning point among others, yet a reflection of Frued’s own difficulty and ambivalence about being a physician. When you re-read “The Question of Lay Analysis” it’s amazing how we are still living with the same issues.
For example, Freud states clearly (S.E.XX, 1959, p.253):”After forty-one years of medical activity, my self-knowledge tells me that I have never really been a doctor in the proper sense.” The roots of our messiness are well described in this paper to an impartial person, later revealed (by Jones) to be an officer to whom he was defending Theodor Reik against the accusation of quackery.
The entire talk by Dr. Moritz should be required reading — not because you have to agree with her, but because of the essence and the passion with which she tells it like it is from HER point of view. She could have air brushed her talk to avoid the criticisms of arrogance and undignified expression of direct anger. But she did not.
This conference was about academic freedom in psychoanalysis and the right to say what we think and feel. As in individual analytic hours, it isn’t always pretty or dignified or politically correct.
Regardless of whether Lynne’s musing is right, it was and remains very clear to all who participated and planned the conference that everyone who was there — despite any ambivalence in his or her unconscious — wholeheartedly wished to collaborate and “join” with APsaA as Lynne Moritz so passionately requested.
She concluded with genuine emotion and authenticity:
“People search through a void for a center that holds. We try to be a center that holds. Join us. Come with us. Help us. We need your talents. We need your strengths. We need one voice. We need common cause. Help us - help me! - heal the wounds. Help us find a way.”
This says it all.