 |
|
|
|
PRESIDENT'S
COLUMN Membership As I write this column the April 8, 2000 Board meeting of the Division of Psychonalysis is less than a week old. A major focus of that meeting was a discussion of the membership category of allied professionals and whether or not they should be full members of the Division. This discussion was thought-provoking and insightful. Board members expressed their opinions and listened to the opinions of others with respect and collegiality. It is an example of the Board functioning at its best. It appeared that a majority of Board members were in favor of allied professionals (licensed mental health professionals who are not psychologists) having full membership rights. This is in contrast to prior Board discussions and actions regarding this issue. The Board determined that the next step in considering such a change in our organization was to involve the membership in this discussion. Thus, I am writing this column for our membership and in the the subsequent Psychologist/Psychoanalyst Board members will submit opinions supporting different points of view about allied professional membership. Additionally, a membership survery may be conducted and, at a minimum, the membership is strongly encouraged to give input on this issue by writing either myself (lbwagner@flash.net ) or the Newsletter editor (MacGroove@aol.com ). I want to review the evolution of the membership category of allied professional. The initial push to make psychoanalytic or psychoanalytically-oriented mental health professionals members of the Divison came from the Section IV, the Section of Local Chapters. The 30 local chapters are mulitdisiplinary and most, if not all, have equal membership rights for psychologists and other mental health professionals. Many chapters did not start out with equal membership rights, but they changed their bylaws over the years, I believe partly in response to the Division's increased emphasis on inclusiveness and plurality. A few chapters have full membership rights for anyone interested in psychoanalysis and do not require one to be a mental health professional. Section IV occupies a unique position in the Division and the multidisciplinary experience of its local chapters has served to inform some members of the Division about the positive impact of psychologists and nonpsychologists sharing full membership benefits and rights. Section IV bylaws allow for two membership categories: local chapters and individual members of local chapters. Individual members do not join Section IV nor pay dues to the Section. Instead, by virtue of joining a local chapter one automatically becomes an individual member of Section IV. However, local chapters pay dues to Section IV based solely on the number of Division 39 members in each chapter and a local chapter's voting rights in the Section IV Senate are weighted by the number of Division 39 members in the chapter. Thus, until the membership category of allied professional was established nonDivision 39 members of local chapters, while members of Section IV on paper, had no real voice or representation in Section IV. It is easy to see why the Section of Local Chapters spearheaded the campaign to bring nonpsychologists into the fold of Division 39. In 1991 and 1992 Murry Meisels conducted a survery of the then 26 local chapters, who had a total membership of 2887, with only 33% being Division 39 members and 26% being non-Division 39 psychologists. The membership of the local chapters was as follows: psychologists, 59%, social workers, 20%, psychiatrists, 4% and students, 13%. Thus, in 1992 there were 1,929 colleagues (both psychologists and other mental health professionals) who were potential Division 39 members. However, the nonpsychologists were not eligible for membership in the Division. The Section of Local Chapters began to discuss how to remedy this situation. At the August 1995 Board meeting Jaine Darwin,then President of Section IV, proposed consideration of membership for nonpsychologists. A number of Board members reacted negatively and seemed concerned that making nonpsychologists members of the Division would somehow offer them "legitimacy." Instead a "compromise" was proposed that nonpsychologist members of local chapters would be offered the Division's publications at cost. David Ramirez, then Membership Chairperson, worked out such a plan and theBoard implemented it in 1996. In 1997 and 1998 the Board was involved in a comprehensive review and revision of the Division's bylaws. The issue of membership for nonpsychologists was discussed at length at the February 1997 Board meeting, under the leadership of Marvin Hyman. This was a highly productive discussion and each Board member was given the opportunity to voice his/her opinion. Between August 1995 and February 1997 things had progessed to the point that the latter discussion focused solely on what category of membership should be available to nonpsycholoigsts, not whether or not they should be members at all. In February 1997 it was clear that the majority of the Board favored a category of allied professional for nonpsychologists, rather than full members.hip. Discussion ensued about how allied professionals would have representation on the Division board. Section representatives were expected disucss these issues with their boards and bring feedback to future Division Board meetings about these issues. No action was taken about changing the bylaws at the February 1997 Board meeting. The Board did not discuss membership for allied professionals again until August 1998, when sweeping bylaws changes were approved, including the membership category of allied professional. However, earlier in 1998 then President Lew Aron informally approached members of the Board and the Division regarding the possibility of full membership for nonpsychologists. Subsequently at the August 1998 Board meeting the Executive Commitee en masse recommended to the Board that nonpsychologists be given full membership rights. A heated discussion ensued, with emphasis being given to the last Board discussion of these issues in which the Board did not favor full membership for nonpsychologists. As a Member-at-large (and President-elect-designate) at that time I focused on the issue of democratic process and my belief that while the possibility of the membership category of allied professional had been fully discussed and been made known to both sections and the membership in general the possibility of full membership for nonpsychologists had not been fully discussed within the Division. Personally, I was against the Board implementing full membership for nonpsycholoigsts before the issue had been brought before the membership in a comprehensive way. I believe only two section boards (Section III and IV) had the opportunity to review the Executive Committee's recommendation before the Division Board meeting. Section IV was in favor of full membership for nonpsychologists, while Section III was not. At the August 1998 Board meeting the motion to change the bylaws and make nonpsychologists full members was tabled and a substitute motion was made and passed (by at least a two-thirds majority) to add the membership category of allied professional. In the fall of 1998 the bylaws changes were ratified by the membership and the category allied professional came into existence. The Section of Local Chapters experienced the "victory" as a bittersweet one and were torn on whether or not to actually encourage allied professionals to join the Division (See MacGillivray's column on Section IV in the Summer 1999 issue of Psychologist/Psychoanalyst). Other members of the Division governance were taken aback by this dissatisfaction, seeing the bylaws change as significant progess on the part of the Division. For many on the Board it was clear that full membership would not pass a two-thirds vote and, thus ,the allied professional category was an attempt to give nonpsychologists some membership, rather than no membership at all. In the past year and half approximately 150 allied professionals have joined the Division. In that same time some complaints (mostly from psychologist members representing certain sections) have arisen regarding the allied membership category: that it creates an unfair two-tier system, with allied professionals being "second-class" citizens, that the term allied professinal is offensive given that psychologists are usually relegated to the role of allied professional when applying for hospital privledges, and that while not having the right to vote or hold office allied professionals pay the same dues of $70 to the Division as do full members. All of these complaints were voiced at the most recent Board meeting by those in favor of full membership for nonpsychologists. Additionally, points were made regarding the desire to be welcoming and inclusive to the psychoanalytic community as a whole. Now that more and more mental health professionals from different disciplines are being psychoanalytically trained the Division of Psychoanalysis could serve as a home for these individuals. Many of these professionals are being trained at independent institutes, which were spawned from local chapters. While these independent institutes and local chapters are separate legal entities they maintain collegial relationships. On the other hand, other voices were heard in response to these concerns, as well as expressing concerns about allied professionals becoming full members. Regarding the issue of unfairness, the question was asked: "What is unfair about having only psychologists be full members of a Division of the American Psychological Association?" We are not an independent organization of psychoanalysts or psychoanalytically-oriented mental health professionals. If we were, then giving certain mental health professionals more rights than others would create a two-tier system and would be unfair. But that is not the case with the Division. Given that we are a Division of the American Psychological Association it is impossible to give totally equal (read, fair) benefits and rights to psychologists and nonpsychologists. Even if made full members the rights of nonpsychologists would be more than they currently have now, but less than those of psychologists. As full members nonpsychologists would be able to vote and hold office, but they would be ineligible to vote and hold office for Council Representatives to APA. Those in favor of limiting full membership to psychologits voiced the opinion that a name change would certainly be possible if the current term of allied professional is offensive. Taking the oppositve view regarding dues, some voiced the opinion that allied professionals benefit from paying only $70, as opposed to psychologists who must pay hundreds of dollars for APA membership, in addition to the $70 for Division membership. It was noted that psychologists benefit from their associaiton with APA. My personal read of the Board discussion was that concerns about exclusivity versus inclusivity were foremost in the minds of many. I believe that questions about our identity as a Division are at the heart of any discussion about membership. Our Division straddles two cultures: that of psychoanalysis and that of psychology. Our identity is tied to both cultures. How did we come about as a Division of Psychoanalysis of the American Psychological Association twenty years ago? We came into existence because psychologist psychoanalysts as a group did not have a home. We were excluded, most particularly from the American Psychoanalytic Association and the International Psychoanalytic Association. As a group we lacked power, influence and access. After twenty years and a lot of work, advocacy and a lawsuit on our part, that is no longer the case. The psychoanalyst part of ourselves is well aware that the history of psychoanalysis is riddled with fights about who belongs and who does not. The early membership fights in psychoanalysis revolved around the Wednesday night meetings in Vienna. Loyalty to Freud was the clear mark of one who belonged and disloyalty (as experienced by Freud) left one on the outside. Authoritanarism in psychoanalysis started with Freud and was perpetuated by his both his early and late disciples. Those who broke off from Freud and others often recreated the authoritarinsim they had fought against in the first place. In psychoanalysis membership fights have typically involved such issues as: adherance to a certain theory, which often approached the level of ideology, the lineage of one's personal analyst, the frequency of one's persoanl analysis and control cases, and the economic advantages of being in power and excluding others from having that same power. Having been excluded for so many years psychologists are particularly sensitive to exclusion and wish not to repeat what was done to them, with some awareness that just such a propensity often gets played out in psychoanalytic groups. For those in the Division who see themselves more as psychoanalysts than psychologists it follows that they may well want the Division to be home to a broadbased constituency of psychoanalysts and psychoanalytically-oriented clinicians. |
E-Mail Web-Editor
|
