This is a brief report to North American members of the IPA of steps taken at the Board meeting in Bologna June 2016. A more detailed newsletter will be mailed at a later date.
1. Summary of the IPA Board discussion of APsaA’s special status:
The special arrangement made with APsaA as a regional association after World War II was a topic of discussion. Historical factors like the former MD restriction on membership in the American, the lawsuit, and the positions of CIPS (the independent societies) and NAPSAC (the North American Region of scocieties) were reviewed for the Board. APsaA belongs structurally to NAPSAC but retains privileges established at the time of the original agreement.
A suggestion was made to invite APsaA to participate in the IPA like any national society. This was discussed at some length. The North American representatives explained that major organizational changes are now underway at APsaA and that discussions about its regional status were premature. The reps hoped that the on-going process would be respected by colleagues. The Board expressed support for this position and agreed with the need for time and space for the changes to proceed. Some members hope that the IPA will play a role nonetheless.
The NA reps made the point that the IPA itself has not resolved all issues about standards, which remain under discussion. There are already significant differences between IPA societies and tolerance for variations within the framework of international psychoanalysis. The authority of IPA and its basic position on standards needs to be clarified – just as APsaA is trying to accomplish for its own societies.
In the end, no decision was taken about the status of APsaA, but members of the Board expressed appreciation for the information about the North American situation. CIPS societies currently have the same authority over choosing their members, including admission of analysts with alternative training experience, as does APsaA. Further details of the meeting will be circulated at a later date.
2. Equivalency between IPA societies:
This topic was reviewed for the board. The current procedural code outlines the IPA’s policies for evaluating individual applicants or individual applicants within groups applying for IPA status who were not trained in IPA Constituent Organisations or Institutes, but who believe their training is equivalent to IPA requirements for either Adult or Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis.
The motion passed in Bologna clarified this procedure as follows:
Section 7. Geographical application:
a) Component societies in the United States of America may apply equivalency procedures to individual applicants or to applicants within groups applying for IPA status without the consent of the IPA Board.
b) All component societies outside of the United States of America may apply equivalence procedures for individual applicants only, without the consent of the IPA Board.
At the meeting, the Board also named a Task Force, including two members from APsaA and CIPS, to develop wording for a procedure dealing with the question of equivalency for groups (not individuals, who are covered by the above section 7) seeking to come into IPA. APsaA currently has the authority to accept new groups.
[As an historical note, at a Board meeting in April 2014, Bob Pyles, then APsaA President and an IPA Board member, informed the Board that the WAW had been invited to become an APsaA affiliate, although it was not asked to vote.]
—-
Martin Gauthier (martin.gauthier3@sympatico.ca)
William Glover (williamcglover@gmail.com)
Beth Kalish (beth.kalish@gmail.com)
Lewis Kirshner (lewis_kirshner@hms.harvard.edu)
Peter Loewenberg (peterl@ucla.edu)
Jack Novick (jackjnovick@gmail.com)
Arlene Kramer Richards (arlenerichards89@gmail.com)
Questions or comments? Please e-mail us.
If the Bulletin does not display properly, click here for the website version
Broomhills, Woodside Lane, London N12 8UD, United Kingdom