Psychoanalysis, Leadership, and the Challenge of Engaging the Social
Questions about how psychoanalysis engages the social world—while remaining grounded in clinical rigor and analytic method—have become increasingly central to our professional life. They evoke strong convictions, thoughtful disagreement, and a wide range of perspectives across our membership. Precisely for these reasons, they call for clear, informed, and containing leadership.
At the most fundamental level, psychoanalysis has always understood the intrapsychic as inseparable from the interpersonal and the social. We are shaped by complex relational, cultural, and historical contexts, just as our internal worlds shape how we experience and interpret external reality. To speak meaningfully about one without the other is ultimately not possible.
At the same time, these questions are not only theoretical. They raise important distinctions between personal conviction and institutional responsibility—between how individual members engage social issues as clinicians, scholars, and citizens, and how our professional organization defines its mission and speaks on behalf of its membership as a whole.
I find it helpful to hold two definitions of psychoanalytic work simultaneously. A narrower definition refers to clinical practice—whether in psychoanalysis or psychoanalytic psychotherapy with individuals, couples, families, or groups. A broader definition refers to psychoanalytic thinking as it is engaged beyond the consulting room, in scholarly, educational, organizational, and societal contexts. This expanded domain includes not only clinicians, but also researchers, academics, scholars, and other psychoanalytic thinkers working in a wide range of settings.
My orientation to these questions developed early. My commitment to integrating individual and collective perspectives was reflected in my choice to combine a residency in community medicine with psychiatry, and it has remained a through-line in my work as a clinician, educator, and organizational leader. As a child analyst, it is impossible for me to separate the intrapsychic life of the child from the social contexts in which children live. In my training and teaching, including work with concepts such as the social unconscious, I have seen how social realities enter moment-to-moment clinical and leadership experience.
During my analytic training, I was immersed in an educational approach that places "group affective learning" at the center of psychoanalytic thinking and practice-an orientation that past IPA President, Stefano Bolognini, has described as a "fourth pillar" of psychoanalytic education. Additionally, I participated in a psychoanalytic group relations conference that brought together clinicians and professionals from other fields interested in bringing psychoanalytic and group-based thinking to organizational, social, and leadership contexts. These experiences deepened my appreciation of how psychoanalytic concepts can illuminate collective life without displacing the centrality of clinical work, and they continue to inform how I think about leadership and institutional responsibility.
From a leadership standpoint, I think it is important to distinguish personal convictions from institutional responsibility. From my perspective, and informed by my experience, APsA’s mission rests in studying, teaching, and advancing psychoanalytic theory and practice,. This also requires leadership to differentiate carefully between the many ways members engage social issues as clinicians, scholars, and citizens, and the more bounded circumstances in which APsA itself speaks institutionally on behalf of all members.
Within APsA, I have seen the importance of working toward thoughtful integration firsthand through the close collaboration between the Social Issues Department and the Department of Psychoanalytic Education and Leadership (DPE). As Chair of the Psychoanalysis in the Community Committee, I have been involved in supporting projects aligned with this integrative aim, including initiatives. One such example is ROOM, a psychoanalytic community project whose recent recognition underscores the value of socially engaged psychoanalytic work that remains firmly grounded in analytic principles.
I will offer one concrete example of how I have tried to put these ideas into practice. In February 2022, in the earliest days of the war in Ukraine, I designed and began leading a weekly International Town Hall. In that work, we do not gather to influence the course of the war. Rather, we gather to use our analytic minds to examine how our unique histories, identities, and training shape how we experience one another in the here-and-now. The work has been painful and destabilizing at times and has required ongoing attention to safety, limits, and containment. I have often found myself learning in real time, making mistakes, and rethinking my own assumptions. I think of this work as a kind of humanitarian corridor-one devoted to psychoanalytic thinking in relation to our shared and deeply conflicted human experience.
In my role as Secretary, I worked with colleagues on the Executive Committee and Board to help develop a policy clarifying how and when APsA issues or cosigns public statements. That policy was created precisely because the social dimensions of our work evoke strong and divergent views, and because leadership has a responsibility to create structures that support thoughtful engagement without collapsing difference.
Another part of this conversation concerns the state of our own organizational life. The association has experienced significant membership attrition over the past several years. Across APsA, multiple groups appear to have encountered barriers to joining or remaining engaged. From an organizational and analytic standpoint, these patterns are not random to me-they are signals deserving of careful attention and thoughtful engagement.
This is why I think of our current moment as a consequential one for APsA. To optimize our effectiveness in engaging the broader social world, we must also attend to the internal conditions of our own association. Current efforts at governance reform, along with thoughtfully designed containers (in the Bionian sense), are essential to supporting constructive dialogue across difference.
At the same time, I recognize that a "turn to the social" can feel, to some, like a turn away from the intrapsychic. When either dimension eclipses the other, we lose something essential. The task of leadership, as I see it, is not to resolve this tension by endorsing a single stance, but to hold it thoughtfully and responsibly.
Ultimately, my hope is that APsA becomes an increasingly intellectually alive, welcoming, and forward-looking professional home—one that people actively want to join and remain part of. I envision an association that can hold difference without fragmentation, engage conflict without rupture, and sustain psychoanalytic rigor while remaining responsive to the world in which we live.
I see this as a core task of leadership at this moment: not to collapse complexity or enforce unanimity, but to create the conditions in which thoughtful dialogue, institutional trust, and professional vitality can grow together.











