In recent discussions within APsA, important questions have been raised about educational language, local option, membership status, and governance. The statement below reflects my approach to these issues — grounded in respect for difference, clarity about organizational roles, and a commitment to collaborative leadership.
What this reflects about my leadership
- Commitment to local option and institutional pluralism
- Respect for democratic governance and shared authority
- Attention to language, power, and symbolic meaning
- Willingness to engage difficult questions thoughtfully and transparently
I support “local option.” APsA has long preserved local option in educational matters to avoid imposing a single model across institutes with very different histories and philosophies. Respecting local option does not mean endorsing authoritarian structures, nor does it require erasing differences that carry important meaning for some institutes or members.
I would only partially support the proposal to remove the remaining references to training analysts from APsA’s bylaws and educational standards. There are two uses of this term in our bylaws that I believe should be removed, as they appear to be remnants from pre–local option versions of the bylaws. Specifically, the bylaws require a certain number of “training analysts” for an institute to remain affiliated with APsA and allow a “training analyst” to defend an institute in an ethics case. I think this language was mistakenly left in the bylaws. Since the adoption of local option, several institutes — including my own — no longer use the term “training analyst” and prefer instead to use terms such as “personal analyst” or “analyst of candidates.” Thus, many institutes no longer have any training analysts (let alone the required 10 training analysts) to defend the institute in an ethics case.
My belief in local option prevents me from supporting the removal of the remaining references to “training analysts” in our standards and principles of psychoanalytic education document. On page 13, the term appears twice: once to indicate that it has been replaced by three function-based roles (analyst of candidate, supervising analyst, and faculty), and a second time to note that institutes may continue to use the term if they wish. Removing these references would, in my view, undermine local option and potentially have the opposite effect from what you want.
On page 21, the term is used to indicate that an institute that wishes to appoint a child and adolescent supervising analyst from another APsA institute may do so. It then refers to the child and adolescent supervising analyst from another institute as a “child and adolescent training and supervising analyst.” The use of “child and adolescent training and supervising analyst” here may reflect either a mistake (as there is no such term as a child and adolescent training analyst), or it may be an example of language used to respect another institute’s local option in referring to that role.
When I speak about respecting the “separate identities of different membership groups,” I am not referring to hierarchy, rank, or power. By “different groups,” I mean different backgrounds, training pathways, and relationships to psychoanalytic education — not better or worse, higher or lower. Difference does not imply hierarchy. I mean difference as a term of respect. The term “class” does appear in our bylaws, but it is legal language required under New York State nonprofit law and is not something we can remove. Importantly, it is used without value judgment. As the bylaws state, “The term ‘class’ is used in accordance with New York State Nonprofit Law. The spirit of this bylaw is to describe categories without any judgment that the term Class might otherwise imply.”
I do take questions of power and symbolic meaning seriously. Language matters, and words can unintentionally convey authority or exclusion even when that is not the intent.
Regarding the proposal that current voting members be given equal status and rights as lifelong learners of psychoanalysis, regardless of background or profession — I strongly support the idea that all APsA voting members are full and equal participants in the life and governance of our organization. In fact, this is the current situation in APsA.
Differences in types of practice, profession, education, or role should never translate into diminished voice or dignity within our professional home. None of us can make everyone feel they have equal status in APsA, but if I’m elected, I will continue to do everything I can to ensure that all members are treated with respect and that all voting members are given equal status and rights.
These principles guide how I understand leadership in APsA and how I would approach the work of President-Elect.
