11
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INSTITUTE OF
I had co-founded with Rochelle Kainer and others, I was pursuing my own exploration of Kohut’s work in preparation for teaching a two-semester course. At that time, Joe and I were vaguely aware of each other’s interests.
Early in the 1980s, I received a call from Joe. He was interested in start- ing a Self Psychology study group and wondered if I might be interested.
I was, and so we compiled a list of other professionals whom we knew to be interested in exploring Kohut’s ideas. The group met for a few years with members who embraced or ultimately rejected Kohut’s contributions. Early in the group’s development, we each discussed what we hoped to accom- plish in this study group. In a quite spontaneous way, I spoke of my interest in applying self-psychological theory to my work as a group psychother- apist. Group psychotherapy seemed to be an ideal clinical application of these ideas. I presented my interest to the self-psychology study group and was especially attuned to Joe’s response to this idea. He responded warmly, and his encouraging response set the stage for the beginning of a lifelong pursuit of writing about group treatment. My fi rst paper was presented to a creativity group that was part of the Washington School of Psychiatry. It was well received and reinforced my desire to continue to explore clinical applications of self theory beyond the dyad.
During this time, Joe and I kept in touch. He was aware of my teaching as well as my writing about group therapy. By now, it was the late 1980s, and the self-psychology organization was to hold its annual conference in Washington, D.C. Joe was chosen to direct this conference, formulate its content, and ask people to present particular workshops. He called me and asked me to present on the application of Kohut’s theory to group treatment along with my co-therapists, Bruce Wine and Damon Silvers, with whom I had been co-leading therapy groups for about eight years. The three of us subsequently presented our theoretical work for the next 15 years. As I write this, I become more and more aware of the subtle and not so subtle infl uence of Joe on my development as a psychologist. He has the capacity to encourage others in a generous and open manner, without competing with or wishing to diminish their work. Of course, this also captures his confi dence in the development of his own ideas, which continue to fl ow at a remarkable pace even today, 25 years later!
By the mid 1990s, Joe had published several ground-breaking books, the latest at the time being Self and Motivational Systems ( 1992 ), co-written with Frank Lachmann and Jim Fosshage. His involvement with Self Psychology continued as did mine. We did not meet frequently but our contacts, either social or professional, were always warm. When we did meet, there was always some new idea to explore or story to share. Joe has always been a great storyteller and I have always loved to listen to stories.
The biggest story for me was the one we co-created. In late December, 1993, during the quiet time between Christmas and New Year, Joe and I met to dialogue about the possibility of starting a free-standing Psychoanalytic
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:57 12 August 2016
Institute with Self Psychology as its primary theoretical commitment. I was skeptical, since I had previously been part of an earlier effort to create such a learning and training organization, the Washington Psychoanalytic Society.
I received my own training in this local Institute where for four years I stud- ied with many fi ne professionals. That free-standing Institute, spearheaded by Rochelle Kainer, Ph.D. and Susan Gourevitch, Ph.D. was an early effort to bypass local psychoanalytic institutes where psychologists and social workers were restricted to applying psychoanalytic training to research. In the late 1980s, this rule was challenged and overturned.
I came to my meeting with Joe expecting to hear that he had some clearly formulated ideas but I did not expect to fi nd that his ideas and my own were so closely aligned. He suggested that we create something quite uniquely dif- ferent from the traditional Institute model. We chose the name ICP, Institute of Contemporary Psychotherapy, because the local community was still quite devoted to traditional Institute models. Our decision was to wait before we considered a psychoanalytic training track. As Joe formulated it, ICP would be a member organization that would offer training, study groups, as well as several conferences per year, open to members and other mental health professionals. Our focus was on creating a non-hierarchical organ- ization of mental health professionals from all disciplines that would offer a community to members who wished to be part of a group that encouraged open-minded exploration of cutting-edge developments in the fi eld. The difference between us, however, was in both the clarity of his plan as well as in the idea of making ICP a member organization. Members would pay dues and take advantage of the many study group offerings and conferences without taking part in a training program since many of them had already completed their training elsewhere.
At this point I was stopped dead in my tracks. How would just the two of us make such a plan come true? Again, I was struck by the creativity of Joe’s thought process. To bring this Institute into being would require both money and people. Joe suggested that we each invite ten mental health professionals to dialogue about this venture. He was active in the psycho- analytic community and I in the psychology and social work communities.
Drawing on these distinct communities would provide a strong and varied group of professionals. We suggested that each interested mental health pro- fessional invest $1000 in this project in order to launch it. Our fi rst meeting was scheduled for February 1994.
This meeting was momentous and well attended, making it clear that the time was ripe for this venture. Ultimately, we had 31 founding members, affording us a good group comprised of social workers, psychiatrists, and psychologists as well as members from nursing and other related fi elds. Very quickly the group sprang into action and we were able to hold our fi rst con- ference, called the Annual Conference, in April 1994. Study groups were formed and people began meeting on a regular basis.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:57 12 August 2016
Because Joe was so much a part of the Self Psychology community, we were able to invite those people to speak who were part of Kohut’s inner circle. It was a pleasure to welcome Ernie Wolf, Marian Tolpin, Anna and Paul Ornstein, Art and Naomi Malin, Estelle and Morton Shane. Of course, because of Joe’s writing collaboration with Jim Fosshage and Frank Lachmann, we were pleased to have them present their work. Beatrice Beebe was a favorite because of her unique work with infants. Many of the ideas for the topics of these early conferences came from Joe. At the same time that the Institute was offering these stimulating conferences, the study groups were also moving along very well. We were all in study groups that provided both intellectual stimulation and the opportunity to meet other professionals who shared similar interests. I always look with great interest on the new study groups being formed and fi nd that indeed these groups are studying ideas that are at the cutting edge of contemporary theory.
This discourse would not be complete without an exploration of the training arm of the Institute. We now have three training programs (psycho- therapy, psychoanalytic, and couples). Joe, in his effort to avoid a hierarch- ical organization, suggested that we do not use the term “student” for those in our program, in an effort to bypass the idea of those in training and not being full Institute members. He suggested, and I agreed, that students be called “members-in-training,” indicating their full membership in the organ- ization. They also had a representative on the board to ensure their sense of full participation in the organization. We continue to use this term and hope to convey to all that the Institute welcomes input from these members.
Efforts are continuously made to improve our offerings and upgrade the courses based on the input from those in training. By now, after 16 years, many of our faculty are graduates of our training programs.
No Institute story would be complete without mention of some of the bumps encountered along the road. We were faced with requests from some ICP members to create a psychoanalytic training program. Both Joe and I agreed that this was an issue worth exploring. There were, however, mem- bers who raised strong reservations since their primary concern was the distribution of faculty. That is, they felt, that if we instituted such a psy- choanalytic training program, we would lose the psychoanalysts who were teaching in the psychotherapy program, thereby compromising the qual- ity of the training. After considerable debate, we decided to hold a town hall meeting during which members could express their concerns as well as their negative feelings toward psychoanalysis based, I believe, largely on the fact that many members had indeed been stung by their own experiences of exclusion from the psychoanalytic community because of their training background. There was considerable concern that this disruption would cause a major break in the organization. Although I shared some of this concern, I believed we could fi nd a meeting of the minds that would be somewhat satisfactory for all involved. It was here that my training as a
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:57 12 August 2016
group therapist was helpful in moving the organization toward some kind of resolution. The outcome of the meeting was that we would establish a psychoanalytic training program in addition to the psychotherapy training program.
Today, both programs exist side by side. The disruption as a result of the change in the Institute is probably mostly healed, but I believe some hard feelings remain. We did lose some members over this decision and indeed, members’ assessment that some of the psychoanalytic faculty would no longer teach in the psychotherapy program was correct. It took some years to adequately replenish faculty of the psychotherapy program. The losses are there, but so are the gains. With the addition of the psychoana- lytic training program, we were able to offer our members psychoanalytic training and now many of these graduates are faculty members of the psy- chotherapy training program. This disruption was diffi cult for Joe who had lobbied so hard for an organization with a shared and equitable vision.
I was less disturbed because I had an understanding of the negative feelings of those members who had felt slighted by the psychoanalytic community.
Because of his embeddedness in the psychoanalytic world, Joe did not quite appreciate the depth of the non-psychiatric members’ experiences of exclu- sion from this hierarchical world. What I believe we did learn was that the organization could continue to thrive despite some disruption because of the basic design of the organization, attempting to afford equal voices for all in the community. I remain hopeful that any disruption we face as an organ- ization will be met with an open-mindedness that is part of the culture of this Institute. As the Institute grew, a third training program – couples ther- apy – was added. This was the vision of one member, Barbara Shapard. This program has been thriving and fi lls very specifi c needs within the organiza- tion. The faculty of the couples therapy program is dedicated to providing a unique training devoted to applying self-psychological principles to couples treatment.
With the addition of a psychoanalytic training program, we faced the need to change the name of the organization. We came up with a great variety of awkward choices and after much discussion decided on ICP&P, though some people still refer to it as ICP. The Institute of Contemporary Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis captures both our original focus on psychotherapy and also acknowledges the presence of psychoanalysis as part of the organization. There have been many highlights too numer- ous to mention during all of these years. We offer short courses which refl ect the particular interests of a member or are topics requested by the members such as psychopharmacology and mind-body issues. Joe is part of that effort and is teaching from his latest book, Psychoanalysis and Motivational Systems: A New Look ( 2011 ), written with Jim Fosshage and Frank Lachmann.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:57 12 August 2016
Joe does all of this while presenting around the world and playing a very active role in the International Association of Psychoanalytic Self Psychology. A group of us recently honored him with a celebration of his 85th birthday. He serves as a role model for all of us, offering the oppor- tunity to confront and expand our abilities as therapists and psychoana- lysts and to continue to grow in our understanding of human behavior.
Joe has been an inspiration to many people who have been rewarded by his deep knowledge and understanding. His capacity for great pleasure is basic to who he is; this includes the gratifi cation he receives from pho- tography, art, music, and literature. His interests are like the fountain of youth, keeping him vibrant and youthful, spilling endlessly from within him. I am sure the fountain has many more years to fl ow, and I look for- ward to being part of this.
References
Kohut , H. ( 1971 ). The Analysis of the Self . New York : International Universities Press .
Lichtenberg , J. , Lachmann , F. , and Fosshage , J. ( 1992 ). Self and Motivational Systems . Hillsdale, NJ : The Analytic Press .
Lichtenberg , J. , Lachmann , F. , and Fosshage , J. ( 2011 ). Psychoanalysis and Motivational Systems: A New Look . New York : Routledge .