“CULTURE SHOCK:” WHAT THE AMERICAN PSYCHOANALYTIC ASSOCIATION CAN LEARN FROM GENERAL MOTORS

I first want to thank the members of the New Center for Psychoanalysis
in Los Angeles who came out Thursday night for the “Meet and Greet.” I
was moved by the turnout, dinner and terrific discussion about the
issues facing APsaA. Special thanks to Paulene Popek, Jeffry
Seitelman, Mel Mandel, Jeffry Prager for putting the evening together.

Much of the discussion focused on how a president or president-elect
can seriously effect change or lead our organization.

In an early election posting this summer, I said I worried we were at
risk of becoming “the G.M.” of organized psychoanalysis. I am
sometimes relieved that my father, born and raised in Detroit, did not
live to see how a once vibrant industry of which he was always in awe,
crashed and burned. However, as today NY Times reports, G.M. has
emerged from bankruptcy with a new vision and culture. And the
lessons?

In the article titled: “Culture Shock: GM Struggles to Shed Its
Legendary Bureaucracy and Remake Its Attitude.” The reporter writes of
the “old” G.M.: “Decisions were made, if at all, at glacial pace,
bogged down by endless committees, reports, and reviews that
astonished members of President Obama’s auto task force.”

One former consultant wrote: “…the [old] culture emphasized past
glories and current market share, rather than focusing on the
future…..’Those values were driven from the top down, and anyone
inside who protested that attitude was buried.”

And finally, “In the old G.M. any changes to the product program would
be reviewed by as many as 70 executives often taking two months for a
decision to wind its way through regional forums, then to a global
committee, and finally go to the all powerful automotive products
board.”

Hmm. Replace the word “product” with “the graduate psychoanalyst.”

WE ARE NOT BANKRUPT. WE HAVE A TERRIFIC PRODUCT, BUT WE HAVE NOT KEPT
UP IN THE MARKET OF PSYCHOANALYTIC EDUCATION, PRACTICE AND RESEARCH.
WE HAVE LOST OUR SHARE OF THE MARKET TO OTHER INSTITUTES AND
ORGANIZATIONS. I AM RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT-ELECT BECAUSE I KNOW WE
CAN CHANGE THIS.

Last evening at the NCP, I tried to emphasize that the president and
president-elect of APsaA must lead with vision, transform old
attitudes, but most importantly, have the willingness to acknowledge
what is not working, and take action. Not behind the scenes. Not in a
plenary or papers, but openly and in ways a leader, well, leads.

My opponent, who has voted against two of our most significant reform
bylaws, (ironically, versions of which are finally being discussed in
the BOPS tasks forces for major revisions) has suggested he does not
believe in bylaw change, but rather more task forces or special
discussion groups to create more process and reach greater consensus.

I’m afraid we are far past such a position or strategy. He suggests
that we need “more consensus,” yet when he was president 9 years ago,
he has acknowledged, in Chicago and last evening in L.A., that he was
unable to get that consensus and effect change.

This election is about a new leadership and new strategies.
Leadership is not about campaigning on the promise of change, only to
default back to old ways or more inaction. The President and
President-elect are responsible for moving the organization forward.
If structures are seriously interfering with the growth and well being
of the association, leadership must act. If a committee of the
corporation is not functioning in the best interests of the
association, then the Council is charged to make changes.

Institutes must continue to create innovative ways of educating and
recruiting. INSTITUTES ARE NOT REBELLING. INSTITUTES ARE TRYING TO
COMPETE IN THE CURRENT MARKET OF PSYCHOANALYTIC EDUCATION TO REGAIN
THE MARKET SHARE, AND AVOID BANKRUPTCY, LITERALLY AND FIGURATIVELY.
HOW CAN WE NOT SUPPORT THEM IN TRYING TO DO THAT?

Haven’t we have done things the old way for too long? The majority of
members want serious change as was seen in three by-law votes only
slightly below a 2/3’s majority. Let’s try something new. If new
strategies and new ways of functioning do not succeed, the minority
will again become a majority and vote in that direction.

Last evening, the worry about about “splits” came up in the
conversation, sometimes another “elephant”. Let me be clear. I’m
from the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis, established in 1932.
WE DON’T DO SPLITS. We continue to passionately debate, argue, and
then together, go to lunch. Really.

Let’s try something new. My style, as any of you who know me would
attest, is about passionate debate, and finally, a course of action,
and then, “Let’s go to lunch.”

The G.M. article ends with an G.M. executive saying, “There has been
fear in the organization, and people have been afraid for their jobs.
But now we need to be open and more and transparent and trust each
other, and be honest about our strengths and weaknesses.”

That’s the lesson of G.M. And, this election is about that kind of
honesty, change and moving forward. Thanks again to the NCP.

Veterans Day………..

This Veterans Day feels particularly poignant because of the
vulnerability our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, those returning
veterans and their families, and those soldiers murdered and wounded
at Fort Hood. Although psychoanalysts might piece together some
explanation for that horrific act after the fact, we, like President
Obama said yesterday, must deal with the “incomprehensible” aspects of
this unpredictable act of human aggression, and a frightening feeling
of utter helplessness.

As our Veterans Initiative describes, we must actively support the
availability of our services for the estimated 500,0000 returning
veterans that will be in need of our services, their families and
children. We need to be vocal to appropriate government agencies
about how such services are critical to the well being of our
soldiers. I urge all of our members TODAY to visit our website for
more information
(http://www.apsa.org/Programs/Soldiers_and_Veterans_Initiative/Mental_Health_and_the_Military_Position_Statements.aspx).

In thinking about our soldiers in combat, and those sadly lost,
President Obama’s remarks from yesterday are worth keeping in mind:

“Their life’s work is our security and the freedom that we too often
take for granted. Every evening that the sun sets on a tranquil town;
every dawn that a flag is unfurled; every moment that an American
enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — that is their
legacy.”

Brother Brian Carty, Community, and the American Psychoanalytic Association

When speaking of psychoanalysis in the community (in social issues,
the arts, business, politics, neuroscience and the psychology of
everyday life) I have always emphasized not only what we might
provide, but more importantly, what we as psychoanalysts can learn.
How does being “out there” enrich our clinical work, our training, and
our association?

Last Friday APsaA member Will Braun and I met with Brother Brian
Carty, the founder of George Jackson Academy (GJA), and De La Salle
Academy in New York. We are attempting to replicate aspects of the
Analytic Service to Adolescents Program (ASAP)
(www.chicagoanalysis.org/asap.php) in Chicago with GJA, a middle
school for severely disadvantaged kids. Many of these students go on
to high school in some of the most prestigious schools in New York and
the east coast.

What makes GJA successful? It’s not just the excellent teachers, the
principal, the support staff, the parents, and the wonderful students.
It’s all the above. “THE ONLY WAY EDUCATION WORKS IS WITH A
COMMUNITY,” Brother Brian underscored. “Our students not only receive
our help, they help each other.” This is someone who has founded three
schools for a troubled student population predicted to fail, and
raised private funds to support them under impossible conditions.
Brother Brian was recently the recipient of the Ellis Island Medal of
Honor for community service. If Brother Brian can succeed, why can’t
we?

What is the state of our psychoanalytic community?

Whether through our Council (Board of Directors) or our BOPS, APsaA
must be a “community,” and provide aid and guidance to local institute
communities, and members, while building these structures by example
and support. Currently, our educational standards are interfering
with our local communities in two significant ways.

Our current certification/TA structure interferes with recruitment.
Qualified prospective candidates are going elsewhere for training
because we are not perceived as a welcoming psychoanalytic community.
How could we be when many are asked to leave their analyses that, in
many instances are exactly the experiences that have motivated them to
become analytic candidates? This does not build a psychoanalytic
community.

And, our current TA system creates “have and have not’s”. After
meeting with and hearing from many colleagues over the last three
months, I hear of the resentment and poor morale caused by our current
system. The current TA structure creates a group of analysts seeing
many candidate patients in analysis, while others are not. Either we
create a more viable TA system that facilitates our local
psychoanalytic communities, or we dismantle a system that is proving
destructive in the long run.

Brother Brian distinguishes between “the teacher” and the
“instructor.” The “instructor” imparts knowledge. The “teacher” uses
the relationship to teach, taking into account the whole student. Do
our current educational standards guide curriculum, supervisors,
faculties, and analysts to educate the candidate of 2009?Standards are
about educating and supporting an educative and practice community.

And finally, maybe most importantly, communities must be generative.
Brother Brian describes students graduating, coming back to his
schools and complaining of the hard time they might be having at the
new high school. There is a need for a connection to the old school.
However, these graduates are encouraged and pushed to move forward and
take their education and community experience on to the new school and
re-create it. Everything is about moving forward.

Not being generative is one of our biggest limitations. Do we
encourage people to learn in our analytic communities, and move on to
be more independent and more creative and contributing psychoanalysts?
Or are we creating obstacles with direct or indirect messages of,
“You are not skilled enough….You are not quite doing analysis right
enough…You need yet more experience…Was that really an analytic
alliance or merely a therapeutic one?” Are we obsessively striving to
create “the perfect psychoanalyst” and hurting our communities in the
process?

I fear our current standards are so much the latter. You are not
really “competent” even after 5+ years of analytic practice, until
proven otherwise. This is NOT community building. This creates
ongoing resentment.

And the proof? While co-Chairs of our Committee on Foundations for 11
years, Selma Duckler and I frequently heard institute directors and
foundation boards complain that the faculty and alums of their
institutes were the most difficult from whom to obtain donations to
the institute. As one director once said, “It’s as if they resent the
institute following graduation and it gets worse as time goes on.”
Our most successful universities succeed in raising funds. What is
not working at our institutes, also institutions of higher education?

The average age on the faculty at my institute in Chicago is 72. It
is close to that in APsaA. We have not yet become a generative
community.

Our current BOPS Task force attempting to revise our current standards
must consider what kind of new standards will facilitate educational
and practice oriented communities locally. Nothing less will work.

Finally, it is not what I or any leader could do to move us forward.
It is all of us speaking up and contributing in any way possible to
make these critical changes happen. Only then will we catch up with
Brother Brian in continuing to build our psychoanalytic community.

Again, thanks for your emails. They make this effort absolutely one of
the more meaningful in my career. Please keep writing. And, I will
be in L.A., this Thursday night at the New Center For Psychoanalysis.
I look forward to meeting many of you in person.

THE AMERICAN PSYCHOANALYTIC ASSOCIATION VS. THE NEW YORK YANKEES: THE YANKEES ARE WINNING, WELL FOR NOW……….

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Bob Pyles and I were invited to speak last night at the Chicago Institute. Well, the turnout was anything but stellar, but the discussion absolutely terrific. It included the Dave Terman, Institute Director, Bob Gordon, Institute Dean, Ron Kramer, Society President, and faculty members (Bonnie Litowitz, Phil Lebovitz, Jerry Weiner, former Institute Director, and Jim Anderson, Editor of the Annual. The following are my top 5 reasons why so many did not attend:

1. Chicago analysts, fed up with the Cubs and White Sox have had a sudden conversion to Yankee fervor and would not miss one
second of the World Series (series tied 1-1).
2. My institute has not forgiven me for moving my home to Douglas, Michigan, population 1,165 (really, and with my family, 1,170),
and worries I will start another institute there and draw masses of Chicagoans and candidates to the other side of the lake
(those in Douglas worry about having more than one psychoanalyst in west Michigan–clearly I must do better public information
here).
3. The meeting broke the “Yetta Smaller (my mother) meeting rule”: NEVER have a meeting and not serve food. And the food does
not necessarily have to be good, but definitely in large portions (this is also a pitch for what works in recruitment).
4. Some Chicago colleagues associate me to Rich Rodriguez, head football coach at the University of Michigan, and are upset
with the Wolverines performance and current NCAA investigation.

And finally,
5. Bob and I clearly did not, in Chicago style, put up enough money to pay off voters.

I suppose there are other possible reasons but none immediately come to mind….

Highlights of discussion for me (I’m sure Bob will post his own):

All present hope that the BOPS current task force comes up with serious reform.

All present are concerned about the future of local institutes and APsaA.

Bob shared that currently PINE has 0 new Candidates, Boston has 3 new, and the independent institute in Boston has 12 new.

When asked about how either of us as president-elect would try to solve the apparent deadlock, I agreed that “process” was important, that all members are stakeholders and need to feel represented. However, the president-elect’s and president’s responsibility is also to the majority of members who have favored real change and to have the BOPS represent membership. We need change now, not in years (Please see Bob Wallerstein’s account of “change” over so many years, too many years in Lay Analysis: Life Inside the Controversy). We must not repeat but finally learn from our history.

Someone asked about Accreditation Council for Psychoanalytic Education (ACPE) and if their efforts could be used, for example in some way toward external credentialing. I think this group’s efforts have been terrific. I hope members visit their site and review: (www.acpeinc.org) their incredible document.

And finally, there was no disagreement about standards of education, but rather how our standards of education must seriously facilitate education, recruitment, practice, research, and advocacy, NOT inhibit it.

My impression of the small but committed group that generously gave up time at the end of the day to attend, was some doubt that local institutes can thrive again, and APsaA be a reliable source of support for all of our success.

With all the good we do, in our offices, out our communities, in business, the arts, in new and innovative research, and with solid public information, I don’t doubt for one second we can succeed. Really. I no longer joke about why I am running and whether my analyses worked or not.

Our field, our work, and our organization have played and will continue to play a critical role in the world today, and for the next hundred years.

“NOT TO MAKE A POINT, BUT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE:” THE AMERICAN PSYCHOANLAYTIC ASSOCIATION CAN MOVE FORWARD

I have been “away” for a week. Last week I had the privilege of being a guest at the State Department for the swearing in of my good friend of 40 years, Micheal Posner, as the new Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights under Secretary Hilary Clinton. After being sworn in by Secretary Clinton, Mike described how for thirty years he had encouraged his staff at Human Rights First to strive, “not to make a point but to make a difference,” and that he would continue that principle in his new position.

My friend’s eloquent comment has been on my mind. I believe this election is not about making points, but rather about leadership making a real difference in the mission of our organization now highlighted on our hugely improved new website: Education, Research and Advocacy.

Are we fulfilling our mission?

Over half of what is written in our Principles and Standards for Education in Psychoanalysis is about qualifications and eligibility with barely over a page about curriculum, 2 sentences about research, and no mention of psychoanalysis in the community (advocacy, applied psychoanalysis, or psychoanalysis out in the world, etc). We must make a difference in our educational standards.

Institutes are having difficulty recruiting candidates for a number of reasons: alternative educational standards of independent institutes, cost of training, concerns about maintaining a psychoanalytic practice, and other factors (see Joe Schacters 10/22 posting on. This needs to be a priority of our organization, Council and the BOPS. My proposed Practice Initiative would create and provide members with innovative guidelines and suggestions about maintaining a psychoanalytic practice in today’s world. What is working at this Center or Institute? What is not? The “elephant in the room” needs to be more frequently addressed.

We can share creative ideas about these matters beyond our two annual meetings by better utiliizing our website to share such information. If we consider how much is shared on our listserves regarding governance and standards, we can certainly make better use of this vehicle to be a resource to institutes’ committees on recruitment, admission, progression, curriculum, research, administration, development (fundraising) and other critical matters.

Later in the week I participated in the 32nd Annual International Psychology of the Self Conference in Chicago. Although I heard a number of terrific presentations, I wanted to underscore some personal highlights relevant to my candidacy.

Oliver Turnbull, an internationally known neuropsychologist (co-author of the Brain and the Inner World with Mark Solms, both of whom I have had the privilege of working over the last 5 years) gave an extremely well received lecture on the intersection of neuroscience and psychoanalysis. One of Oliver’s studies on empathy and learning concluded that learning is significantly and positively impacted when teacher and the learner are working in a collaborative way. Such a study had important implications in our field, especially in areas of analysis, supervision, teaching, and maintaining standards. Also, as Oliver underscored, we cannot be psychoanalysts in today’s world and not be connected to the world of empirical science and the benefits are bi-directional.

I also heard a moving presentation by one of our members, Carol Levin, about the impact of her training analysis on her and her training. Carol’s soon to be published paper, a courageously honest and thoughtful reflection about her analysis years ago about which she felt seriously ambivalent, promises to facilitate much important general discussion about that aspect of our tripartite model of education.

And finally, I participated on a panel about self psychology out in the world (I presented clinical and evaluative findings from my Analytic Service to Adolescents Program-ASAP) along with Tessa Phillips, a South African therapist living in Australia who spoke of issues of race. Tessa described her personal experience both inside and outside the consulting room, and more profoundly, inside herself. She cited one of our members, Kim Leary and a presentation of hers years ago, that had a significant impact and provided an impetus for her doctoral research. The presentation received a standing ovation.

I do not doubt, for one second, the difference we as psychoanalysts are making out in the world, be it in our offices, classrooms, schools, the arts, academia, out on the streets, and out in the world. It makes educational reform even that much more important and essential; and, new direction and new leadership that much more critical.

Its great, “to be back after a week off.” Thanks again for your private emails. I look forward to continuing those important “conversations.”

LEARNING FROM THE PAST AND NOT REPEATING: THE AMERICAN PSYCHOANALYTIC ASSOCIATION CAN DO BETTER

“It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it
frankly and try another. But above all, try something.” Franklin D.
Roosevelt

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

I read Bob Pyle’s last posting with great interest. My 200 plus page
application along with my papers, dissertation, etc, filled those
heavy suitcases (see my 9/22/09 posting, “Waivers and Educational Trauma…”) he carried around.

Those suitcases were symbols of countless hours that I, like so many,
invested in that application (again, after already being accepted by locally by institutes).  Unlike being turned down for certification the first time (the experience Bob compares to my experience), the stakes were slightly higher. This was about my career, professional reputation, and livelihood. I was not applying for membership, as Bob writes. I only wanted to begin the rigorous training for which the Chicago Institute accepted me two years before.

More importantly, Bob’s post highlights our very different views of APsaA, and organizational success. He describes the the work of the CNMT as successful, and uses that as a model for how he would work toward resolving today’s political divisiveness. He has also stated (September 21) that waivers regarding non-TAs analyzing candidates, and immersion, would be a way forward.

Our views are very different. I see that chapter of APsaA history as a sad and unfortunate one that we must stop repeating. His suggestions of more waiver procedures would be a repeat of that chapter–more heavy suitcases. All of us want the highest educational standards but also want honest systems that work and are reliable. Institutes can choose how to proceed in such matters and can use the BOPS as the resource, the model, for those decisions (see below).

My concern is that Bob’s CNMT lasted so many years after the lawsuit. Unfortunate and sad, but not successful. Even after a legal settlement, highly educated, committed, analyzed professionals who had already been accepted by their institutes, seriously reviewed and endlessly evaluated, still had to go through yet another vetting process. Does not this sound familiar in recent discussions about certification, local option, and local choice?

And, Bob shares, even after all the evaluation still more data had to be presented to the BOPS: follow-up on “these people” to check and see how we were doing (I never knew such follow-up took place). Hundreds of hours of committee members reading, discussing, evaluating, and APsaA money spent over years. I’m afraid this too has a familiar ring today. Where is the success?

The CNMT ultimately was “sunsetted” because ultimately history proved it unnecessary, and only possibly did it serve to satisfy members’ fears that all was lost with the settlement. The settlement was not just a legal decision. It was about righting a wrong.

I do not question for one second Bob’s or other CNMT members’ good intentions, in the same way I admire those who serve on the certification committee. No one is more committed to hard work, honesty and integrity than Paul Hollinger who I have known for 30 years. One of my dearest and closest personal friends was on the CNMT. People’s good intentions and decency are not for one second in question.

It was, it is the system that is in question. The system back then was seriously flawed and discriminatory and was apparently (as Bob’s posting implies) put in place to satisfy members who were afraid “barbarians” were at the door and would wreck psychoanalysis and our organization. Sadly, I know (I hear through private emails) some retain such a view today.

TODAY THE MAJORITY OF MEMBERS BELIEVE WE CAN DO SO MUCH BETTER. OUR INSTITUTES DO BETTER. WE CAN ALL DO BETTER.

WE CAN LEARN FROM OUR RECENT HISTORY AND NOT REPEAT.

WE CANNOT TAKE MORE YEARS TO MAKE SIMPLE CHANGES. WE MUST TRY SOMETHING NEW.

In the words of Franklin Roosevelt, “It is common sense to take a
method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But
above all, try something.”

For those of you (who write me privately) who doubt my commitment to
educational standards let me be clear. I also could have gone elsewhere
for training, but wanted to train at America’s second oldest institute, and the oldest psychoanalytic organization in the country because of standards–HISTORICAL STANDARDS OF EDUCATION, NOT STANDARDS OF GATE KEEPING BASED UPON FEAR OF CHANGE.

However, as one member wrote me, do we still really believe we can create the “perfect psychoanalyst?”

After having carefully read the BOPS educational standards a number of things are very striking (seriously, an incredibly well written document):

5 pages of that document (out of 37) are devoted to Selection qualifications;
5 pages are devoted to Selection qualification for Child and Adolescent Analysis qualifications and requirements.
6 pages are devoted to qualifications and selection of TAs;
5 pages are devoted to qualifications of telephone TA analysis.

And for Curriculum? Barely 2 pages.
Psychoanalytic research? 2 sentences
Psychoanalysis in the Community: not mentioned.
Ombudsman for candidates and members at their institutes? not mentioned.

Our institutes are regularly visited by the BOPS and essentially
“accredited.” We do, and always will maintain the highest standards
through these face to face visits over a few days where colleagues
observe, listen and then discuss with members of our institutes
strengths and limitations of the training program. Having
participated in two such visits, they were terrific. They helped my
institute do even better.

To me that is a Board of Professional Standards: PROVIDING A MODEL FOR THE BEST AND HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS IN PSYCHOANALYSIS.

Leadership is about trying new ways to solve old problems. Let’s strengthen and
support our institutes and inspire people to apply to our institutes, or be active participants in APsaA, and not scare people away.

Let’s finally get it right this time around. That to me will be success.

Making Derrion Albert’s Tragic Death Mean Something: One Solution to School and Street Violence

The recent tragic and violent death of Derrion Albert has evoked community grief for the horrible loss of one of our children and the loss for his family. Local and national media has given voice to concern for the safety of all our children on the streets of Chicago and elsewhere. This tragedy will be greater if current attention to this public health issue—violence in our schools—is not transformed into new direction in programs that are innovative and effective. Police protection will never be enough.

As an adult and child psychoanalyst, I would like to put forth one small, inexpensive but effective program now beginning its fourth year. The Analytic Service to Adolescents Program (ASAP), is a joint treatment and research program of the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis and Morton Alternative School (MAS), a high school in Cicero. MAS is an alternative school where students expelled from the two high schools in the area are given one more chance to turn things around in their troubled lives, stay in school and graduate.

After two years of consulting at the school, one of the school’s part-time social workers, Dave Myles, the school’s principal Rudy Hernandez, and I designed a program that includes groups for all forty students in the school along with weekly individual counseling for 8-10 students selected by the teachers. These students are unable to make enough use of group intervention. The truth is, we would like to provide all forty students with individual counseling but we currently do not have adequate funding.

In trying to evaluate the impact of our efforts, all forty students fill out simple self reporting depression, anxiety, and stress level tests at the beginning of the year and in June. In our first two years we decreased levels of depression and anxiety, usually the feelings behind drug use, violent and disruptive behavior, and poor school performance. More importantly, those levels were even more significantly reduced in the students who received the individual counseling. These are students who are regularly referred for psychological help to local mental health clinics and agencies, but never make it. We provide service right in school as part of their school experience.

In addition, we provide ongoing support for teachers through clinical meetings and in-service programs. Parents of all forty students are also provided support, and offered regular presentations titled, “Parenting, the Impossible Profession.” And no surprise—the parents of students who accept our support, or come to our dinners and talks, are the parents of the students who slowly begin to succeed toward graduation.
And finally, the cost of ASAP? $20,000 per year, with funds from foundation grants, and individual donors who believe in what we do. $20,000 compared with the $35,000 to $60,000 it costs to incarcerate a child in our country.

Most of our students, once in the safe, reliable and predictable environment of our school leave much of their aggressive behavior, gang affiliations, and tough veneer at the door. Then they are just kids trying desperately to be listened to, responded to, and with ambitions to move forward. Some come from very difficult family situations, and others have experienced unspeakable trauma. We address and acknowledge the feelings connected to those experiences, but more importantly, respond to the part of them that wants to do better, that wants to learn, that wants to be meaningfully connected to each other and to caring adults.

There is no mystery to why our program works. It’s pretty basic, and I believe with proper support from principals, superintendents, and communities ASAP could work in any neighborhood in the city or suburbs. We see it working every day.
I hope similar programs emerge out of the horrible loss of Derrion, and we can seriously and creatively work toward protecting all our children. Nothing less is acceptable.

Doing Well By Doing Good: How Psychoanalysis Changes Our World

Three experiences in recent visits to Ann Arbor and New York are worth
sharing and are on my mind when I think about educational standards,
practice, and research. WHAT CAN WE DO TO FACILITATE RATHER THAN INTERFERE WITH WHAT COLLEAGUES ARE DOING AND DOING SO WELL.

Doing well by doing good………

Allen Creek School, the psychoanalytic pre-school created by members
Kerry and Jack Novick in Ann Arbor might be one of the best examples
of psychoanalysts, doing well, by doing incredibly good,
Pre-schoolers and their parents are provided with a psychoanalytic
pre-school education by a group of committed teachers and child
psychoanalysts that would make any one of you, like me, not only wish
our kids had gone to this school, but wish that we could have!
Seriously, after hearing how one teacher responded to a five year old
having a terribly hard day, I told the teacher that were I to need a
fourth analysis, I would commute to Allen Creek to see her for that
analysis!

And, its worth mentioning an important side effect. Allen Creek,
which has received support from your American Psychoanalytic
Foundation, has also supplied local analysts and candidates with adult
and scarce child patients. I kept thinking during the clinical meeting
how Anna Freud would be incredibly proud of her former students Kerry and Jack. I am proud to know them.

Doing well by doing good……..

This last Friday, I had the opportunity to visit George Jackson
Academy in the east Village, where member Will Braun of the New York
Psychoanalytic Institute, has been consulting the last two years.
Will and I, and Carla Solomon (Carla has ably led the NY Institute
Foundation for years) began speaking about collaborating last spring
because of their interest in my Analytic Service to Adolescents
Program (ASAP) in Chicago. My visit began with a tour of the school
by the incredibly skilled and charismatic principal David Arnold.

Every 4th through 8th grade student I passed in the halls would stop
and introduce themselves, “Hello, I’m Patrick, welcome to George
Jackson Academy.” Each one of these students arrives from at the
school from some of the worst neighborhoods in the city, many having
experienced unspeakable trauma, yet finish 8th grade on their way to
some of the best private and boarding schools in the area and on the
east coast. Will and another analyst work with students, teachers in
any way possible to address emotional difficulties students have in
trying to learn and grow.

In the words of the principal, “Will is kind of my analyst. We can’t
get enough of Will and all he offers me, the students and teachers.”
Three times David expressed to us, “I really can’t believe you
analysts are interested in us. That’s not what we think of when we
think of psychoanalysts.” Flying home yesterday I was thinking about
how many people Will has impacted by his psychoanalytic training and
work beyond his office. 137 students at George Jackson. Think about
that.

Like at Allen Creek, I didn’t want to leave at the end of my visit and
I’m going back next month.

Doing well, by doing good……

On Thursday in New York, I attended an ongoing study group with Mark
Solms. Our group, made up of analysts from NPAP, an independent
institute in New York has been meeting five years, hears case
presentations of a brain injured patients being treated
psychoanalytically. It was this kind of work that brought Mark from
neuropsychology to psychoanalysis 20 years ago, and was part of the
creation of our young field of neuropsychoanalysis. These cases are
also a part of ongoing neuropsychoanalytic treatment and research
project supported by the Neuropsychoanalysis Foundation.

The case was of a college honors student severely injured after being
hit by car, paralyzed, and having essentially lost her life. Though
well supported by her family, all were struggling not only with the
physical damage of this poor woman, but the emotional damage to all.
The patient sometimes can barely verbally communicate, yet the analyst
remains incredibly attuned, responsive and the psychoanalytic
treatment moves forward.

Hearing how the analyst began to help all begin to come to terms with
this loss was not only gripping, but was another reminder of how our
education and skills can change the course of peoples’ and families
lives. Again, the family often said to the analyst, and social worker
who referred them, “We didn’t know a psychoanalyst would be interested
in these kinds of things.”

Doing well by doing good…..

And finally, after hearing from many of you of you through emails,
meeting you in various places, and discussing organizational issues,
it becomes even more clear that OUR EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS MUST FACILITATE WHAT WE DO AND WHAT WE DO SO WELL. IT CAN NO LONGER INTERFERE.

Currently our standards of education interfere. Prospective
candidates seek training elsewhere. They hear of rigidity in
training, NOT flexibility. They hear of an educational process that
is not “user friendly.” Current members withdraw because they see us
being stuck in old unworkable ways.

WE CAN AND WE MUST CHANGE THIS. THE MAJORITY OF MEMBERS AGREE. THINK OF ALL WE DO, ALL WE NEED TO LEARN AND ACCOMPLISH IN OUR OFFICES, AND IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

Doing well, by doing good…

Psychoanalysis, Obama and Education Speech

As a psychoanalyst working therapeutically with high school students at an alternative high after their expulsion from the regular high
school, I am alarmed by these irrational reactions to President Obama
speaking directly to high school students about the importance of hard
work and and staying in school.
Our Analytic Service to Adolescents Program (ASAP), a joint program of the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis and Morton Alternative High School (visit www.chicagoanalysis.org) focuses on emotional difficulties usually related to trauma, that interfere with students wanting to work hard, and graduate. Many are the first in their families to do so. Is there anyone, Republican or Democrat who could be against that?

I fear that since the election of President Obama we are operating out of fear giving way to irrational responses. With two wars, severe economic stress, and uncertainty about the future, the President has become the object of this fear and subsequent rage. Our president is not the enemy, but anxiety about the unknown or uncertain future is.

Sounds of Silence: Implications of the Board of Professional Standards in Chicago

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

A younger colleague with great enthusiasm for analytic work, both in
and outside his office, wrote to me in response to my first election
posting, that he almost deleted without reading as he is inclined to
do of APsaA list emails.  He did not see the relevance of APsaA to his
everyday life as a psychoanalyst. Unfortunately that view is shared by
many members.

As I reminded you in my first posting, our “younger” and newer
colleagues are some of our “best recruiters” of new candidates, new
patients, new meeting attendees, and new ideas.  However, that
“recruiting” must be backed up by a national organization that
supports local institutes and members as we all address the changes
and challenges of a shortage of candidates, patients, and research
within our field and outside.  IF WE DO NOT KEEP UP WITH THOSE CHANGES WE WILL BE LEFT BEHIND, BOTH AS AN ORGANIZATION AND AS A PROFESSION.
My campaign is not about change.  It’s about responding to change that
has already occurred.

As I previously wrote, the discussion I witnessed in Chicago by the
BOPS regarding a “two track” means to address various views of
standards and education was a huge step forward.  The discussion by
the Committee on Institutes, though initially tense, also proved
respectful and productive in the end. Myrna Weiss, as I wrote her
following that meeting, deserved much credit for keeping the
discussion productive, respectful, forward moving.

Unfortunately, the letter that was ultimately sent out by the BOPS,
with a fairly adversarial if not threatening tone (later retracted by
a letter to disregard the previous letter) gave me cause to worry. I
want to underscore that this first letter DID NOT reflect the tone
that prevailed in Chicago. I also recently learned that some affiliate
members, again, our best recruiters and the future of APsaA and
psychoanalysis, are worried as a result of that first letter.  How do
they speak of their training when asked by those potential
applicants to their institutes?

The sad irony is that decisions by the Chicago Institute, supported by
a majority of faculty, rightly or wrongly, were intended to help some
talented and motivated individuals become psychoanalysts, while
respecting the benefit and protecting the integrity of their personal
analyses. These analyses were/are being conducted by well regarded
graduates of our institute (a previous decision required the analyst
to be five years beyond graduation).

It is important to underscore that for many of the faculty, voting in
favor of the proposal was about not asking individuals to leave their
analyses.  To do otherwise would have been, well, anti-psychoanalytic.

I am also concerned that it has taken so long for such a conversation
like the one at the  BOPS meeting in Chicago, with real movement
toward compromise, to take place.  The two track proposal was
thoughtfully and creatively put forth by Prudy Gourguechon and Lynn
Moritz, our current and immediate past presidents.  I kept thinking
during that discussion why  this or similar proposals had not been
previously put forth?   Our membership numbers have been in decline
for years.  The majority of members wanted educational standards to
change for many years. It often emerged that some leaders, toward the
end of a term office, were privately committed to moving forward, but
publicly, were silent.

That deadly silence by some of our leaders for many years contributed
to those within and outside APsaA to understandably question whether
we were/are an organization capable of moving forward and away from
exclusionary ways, or longstanding ideas that are in need of honest
and open reassessment and research.  Even a former Secretary of the
BOPS exclaimed at the Chicago meeting that maybe the certification
system was no longer viable.

Sometimes the sounds of this silence were accompanied by the argument
that we as an organization have other important matters to address. As
someone who has been active and committed to those other
issues–practice, education, outreach, research, public information,
foundations and development, social issues,etc) at times I felt
similarly.  However, I have always known that this one issue had been
and would continue to interfere with moving successfully forward in
these other areas that we in fact do so well.  I also couldn’t forget
that my becoming a psychoanalyst through APsaA only occurred after a
lawsuit.

In the 20 years since becoming a candidate I can’t help but wonder how
many potential candidates we lost because we were not more strategic
and forward looking?  Off the top of my head I can think of 7 people
here in Chicago who went to other institutes for training. Good,
clinically skilled, serious people who have become or about to become
psychoanalysts.

Aren’t we smarter than those executives at GM or Chrysler who saw the
writing on the wall years ago but chose to ignore it? I don’t want our
institutes boarded up in ten years like so many of those dealerships
by my home in west Michigan.

I want my enthusiastic younger colleague to proudly say that he is not
only a member of APsaA but can easily explain to someone the
advantages of psychoanalytic training at his institute.  He can
describe why THIS organization, full of rich psychoanalytic history,
skill and tradition, cares about and supports its institutes and
members, both in training, education, practice, and research.

Our younger and newer colleagues must be on the forefront of our minds
when the BOPS and Council members are sitting down and creating a more
responsive means to educate our members or evaluate who can analyze a
candidates.  It’s interesting to note that this kind of collegiality
and face to face discussion takes place repeatedly in site visits by
the BOPS as such visits make institutes even better at what they do.
WE SOMETIMES FORGET WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME SIDE.

Concerns of our younger colleagues must organize the the discussion of
real compromise. Will 1/3 of all institutes sign on to a “contemporary
track” if that emerges as a solution?  That is unclear but if that
number is not realistic then we immediately go back to the drawing
board until we reach a real compromise.  I want younger colleagues and
all affiliate members to feel and with absolute certainty that their
careers and futures are being considered in these discussions.

Yes, it is incredibly important to recognize the huge step taken in
Chicago, but also not to underscore or minimize reactions to that step
on both sides of the discussion.

A compromise can be forged through flexibility, respect and creative
solutions, but it must be within the context and full acknowledgement
of psychoanalysis in the year 2009 and what it means to train and
practice in our world today, not ten, twenty or thirty years ago.

As I suggested in my first posting, I believe this election should be
about an ongoing discussion between nominated candidates and members.
I hope to hear from any and all of you, privately and publicly, about
your thoughts and feelings regarding these important matters, and
especially as they differ from mine.  NO MORE SOUNDS OF SILENCE.

I hope your summer has gone well.  Welcome back.  Yes, we have much
work ahead and I look forward to collaborating with as many of you as
possible about this and other issues over the coming months.

Best regards, Mark