We Must Deal with the Real World

Dear Colleagues,

Sunday’s very pertinent article about psychoanalysis in the New York Times
Week in Review section has led to several notes on our member’s list. All of these postings strongly suggest the need for us to be far more actively involved in very real world issues such as: demonstrating the validity of our ideas, validating the utility of our treatment, and working together with other colleagues in the academic, psychoanalytic and mental health communities. I completely agree with those sentiments and I have expressed that view any number of times in the past and during this campaign.

Unfortunately there has for many years now been a major impediment to our ability to turn our eyes towards these outside communities, namely the continuing divisiveness of our struggles over the current centrally mandated link between certification and TA status. I have consistently stated that we need to solve this dilemma so we can finally move on to deal with the kinds of crucial problems facing psychoanalysis as described in the NY Times article and the responses to it.

Since this will be one of the last times I will get to write to you prior to the mailing of ballots next Monday I’d like to reiterate my position on this issue. I believe that certification in its current form, at least as an absolute prerequisite for TA appointment, must be laid to rest. Period! It has caused too many hurt feelings, raised too many questions about reliability and validity, and has simply been the source of far too much organizational ill feeling and stasis to continue in this form. Attempts to rehabilitate or resurrect mandatory certification for TA appointment in some externalized facsimile or by means of “alternative” requirements which reproduce all the same problems under a new guise will only perpetuate our problems and lead to way too much additional organization demoralization, thus setting us back ever so much more.

Here are a few recent facts which support this. First, two years ago, in a record turnout, a strong majority of 57% of the members of APsaA voted against maintaining BOPS’s ability to require certification for TA appointments. Let me repeat this for emphasis, 57% voted against our current system. While this wasn’t a sufficient vote to enable the proposed bylaw amendment to pass anyone can see the organizational peril of attempting to maintain a very key procedure which is opposed by a robust majority of the membership.

Second, in a survey concerning certification conducted by the Association about five years ago there was already strong opposition expressed to any external certification process, and a mere 50%, consisting predominantly of those already certified, supported having any kind of a certification process within APsaA. Any of you who are interested can request a copy of the results of this survey. I recommend you do so.

Third, the current process must be considered a “market failure”. Our recent graduates are voting “with their feet” on the issue of certification and their feet are indicating a very decided “no” vote. It appears that only about 15-20% of these colleagues are choosing to pursue this process at all.

Should we continue to put so much organizational support behind a process that such a paltry fraction of our graduates now finds sufficiently meaningful to take seriously? I think not.

I have made clear my stance on this issue throughout this campaign and I have reiterated it here for all of you as we prepare to receive our ballots.

Warren Procci, Candidate for President-Elect of APsaA