Presidential Letter

March 6, 2007

Dear Colleagues and Supporters of IFPE:

Having assisted with the conception, delivery, and development of IFPE, it is most humbling to find myself addressing the membership as President.  In 1989, 1990, and early 1991, exploratory conferences were convened by many of the most prominent and accomplished psychoanalysts in the USA.  Panels were developed by these same psychoanalysts and sponsored by some of the most prominent psychoanalytical organisations in the USA as well.  It is noteworthy that, even in these early meetings, academicians, practitioners, and inter-disciplinary scholars representing the warp-and-woof of psychoanalytical thought had transcended their respective vested interests and assembled in a unique experiment at developing an all-inclusive, ecumenical forum for substantive discussion of many highly complex (and charged) issues of common interest and concern.  While shared, the political and paradigmatic vicissitudes of the psychoanalytical movement had typically foreclosed on any such gathering.  At that time, creating a national accrediting program and body for psychoanalytical training was part of the interest prompting the development of the meetings.  This followed in the wake of the non-medical psychoanalytical communities’ interest, prior to the settlement of ‘The Lawsuit’, and the rise, at that time, in the development of alternative psychoanalytical training institutes and other types of organisations, the development of alternative training and educational programs, as well as pedagogical models.  These meetings also explicitly offered a point of entry for other educators, philosophers of science, and inter-disciplinary programs to become more ‘legitimized’ within the psychoanalytical fold (eg, film and gender studies; semiotics; literature, etc).  We can only look back, from this vantage point, and perhaps marvel that it came together at all. 

As a candidate in my psychoanalytic institute and local chapter of the American Psychological Association’s Division of Psychoanalysis, I was sent as an observer and emissary.  Although I was still a candidate, and very much the novice with respect to the broader political and organisational movement[s] that also constitute psychoanalysis, I was immediately put to ease by the gracious, collegial welcomes with which I was received.  I was immediately struck by the egalitarian ambience, as well as an enthusiasm born of finding myself in a forum that was so philosophically and theoretically diverse.  My involvement became more on-going and gradually solidified on the basis of volunteering to work with the committee exploring the ever-controversial and potentially divisive matter of accreditation processes.  As an academician and administrator, this was something with which I was/am intimately familiar, and became my way of being useful, in an on-going way, to the good-faith works being put into motion by the organisers and participants of the meetings.

At the Fall 1991 meeting in San Francisco, with its formal coming into being as the International Federation for Psychoanalytic Education, and following upon the Panel on Accreditation’s final report (chaired by Stanton Marlon, PhD), the representatives sagely decided against IFPE becoming involved in accreditation in any form or fashion.  This was a wise decision in my estimation, as it preserved the ethos, essence, and reality of the early formative gatherings.  This permitted IFPE to remain apart from more polarizing political vicissitudes, enabling its mission, agenda, and associated conferences to remain in a sense, as ‘working groups’ – exploring the ever-evolving nature of the psychoanalytical discourse – that retained the open, stimulating, and all-inclusive forum that it had been, here-to-fore.  In a culture that so often denigrates the psychoanalytical enterprise, the field’s renown for self-sabotaging internecine warfare hardly can be said to further the promulgation and acceptance of psychoanalytical thought in the lay, professional, and academic communities.  IFPE provides a salutary departure from such an approach, and has remained an inclusive organisation – a most helpful reminder that such things are not only possible, but raise the question as to why this is not more the rule rather than the exception.  

As an academician, administrator, and clinical psychoanalyst, I am deeply committed to the vision of IFPE as embodied in the position statement, ‘About the Federation’.  Its interest in being a home to ‘anyone with a stated interest in psychoanalysis’ cannot be more precise in its democratic opening of a profession often seen as otherwise esoteric, elitist, and exclusionary.  As the Past-President of the Chicago Open Chapter for the Study of Psychoanalysis, and its Mission Statement, I have found great overlap with IFPE’s stated ethos with respect to its striving to provide a democratic and egalitarian atmosphere for the exchange of ideas.  Nor does it view ‘psychoanalysis’ as the privileged domain of the mental health disciplines and their cadre of practitioners.  It has been within such organisations and relationships with colleagues and mentors that I developed my own professional identity and view of the possible. 

IFPE, as a charitable organisation, bound by its public and professional trust to educate the professions-at-large and the lay public-at-large to the variegated meanings of psychoanalytical discourse, thought, paradigms, applications, and treatment modalities is uniquely positioned to offer [re]interpretations of these generally time- and rule-bound notions of all things ‘psychoanalytical’. 

It is in this spirit that I have set before myself and the Board of IFPE, elected by and answerable to the membership, to consider additional projects to further refine and open up a space for several IFPE projects.  Some of these have been considered before; others have been more-or-less in process; and some are more nascent in nature.

As such, I have formed a new edition of the Committee on Psychoanalytic Research, chaired by Barry Dauphin, PhD, of the University of Detroit.  It is unfortunate that research can assume negative connotations in the psychoanalytical community.  However, it is completely understandable, given how certain quantitative, logical-positivistic definitions and practices have held sway.  As such, this has become a highly politicized issue, as seen in the rise of certain groups capturing the professional and public imagination as to what constitutes legitimate forms of theory and treatment.  To assert, however, that psychoanalysis (in some of its incarnations) is not based upon empirical support or any type of research at all is egregious.  Dr Dauphin holds a faculty position at the University of Detroit, and an abiding concern about the direction the discourse has taken in this important domain.  It would be unfortunate however, if in reaction to this, psychoanalysis as a movement, did not address itself to the narrowing rather than the opening of dialogues in this arena. 

I have asked that Richard R Raubolt, PhD continue with his chairing of the Publications Committee. at this time, I have asked that he explore the strengths and limitations of our major publication:  the IFPE web-site, and deliver a report to the Board at our Mid-year meeting.  He has a very important task, as this is a key resource and service for our individual and organisational members; as well as the lay and professional publics.  Amongst possible questions Dr Raubolt will be addressing in his Survey of other psychoanalytical web-sites:  How can the IFPE web-site be a more inviting, user-friendly, and informative resource for members, as well as the public?; How can IFPE make greater use of extant technologies in electronic publishing and dissemination of information?; What are some of the ethical considerations that must be explored as we move forward with increased electronic-publishing? 

Jonathan Lewis has moved into the position of Chairperson for the Committee on Trauma.