Ralph Roughton. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy. Volume 7, Issue 1-2. 2003.
With more than 10,000 members in 30 countries, the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA) considers itself the world’s primary psychoanalytic accrediting and regulatory body, working with component societies to provide standards of training and to develop educational and research programs (IPA, 2001). As such, this organization is in a position to influence attitudes and policies throughout the psychoanalytic world. And yet, prior to 1998, the subject of antihomosexual discrimination had been avoided, its existence denied.
Appointed to the IPA Program Committee, Richard Isay, MD had hoped to introduce changes similar to those he had begun initiating in the American Psychoanalytic Association (Isay, 1996). In an exchange of letters in 1992 with IPA President Joseph Sandler, Isay asked that the Executive Council (EC) sponsor a resolution on homosexuality and discrimination, similar to the one adopted by the American Psychoanalytic Association. Sandler expressed willingness to consider the matter; but, at two different meetings of the EC, he found that “we did not have time to discuss the proposal sufficiently,” and therefore he suggested that Isay submit his proposal as a resolution at the next Business Meeting of the IPA. Isay responded that it was unlikely to get a majority vote in that setting, but hoped that the Council would find time to discuss it in the future (Isay, 1992; Sandler, 1992). It is uncertain if any further official discussion of this issue took place prior to 1999.
At the time of Isay’s initiative, the IPA structure fostered the concentration of power in an elite, conservative group of analysts; this made it unlikely that a challenge to tradition could get a hearing. The arcane inner politics of the IPA may be of little interest to readers of the Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, but progress in overcoming antihomosexual discrimination is directly related to changes that made the IPA a more democratic organization. So a brief explanatory background seems necessary.
The IPA is divided into three regions: North America, Latin America, and Europe. The President, the Treasurer, and nine Vice-Presidents (three from each region) are elected by the worldwide membership and make up the governing Executive Council. In the early 1990s, in response to a growing movement toward more representative government, a 27-member House of Delegates was created. Each region elects its own nine members, assuring closer local involvement than the internationally elected Executive Council. Nevertheless, this body had little power, being conceived as only an advisory body to the EC. It could recommend but not enact changes.
In 1996 I was elected by the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA) to be one of nine North American representatives to the IPA House of Delegates. In electing an openly gay analyst with the stated goal of introducing a resolution to end antihomosexual discrimination in the IPA, the APsaA implicitly supported that effort, as did the other North American delegates when I presented it to them.
Another encouraging factor was that Otto Kernberg, MD had been elected and would take office as President in 1997. Although his early writings conflated homosexual orientation with psychopathology, I had heard that his views were changing and that he would likely oppose discriminatory practices. I informed Kernberg of my intentions by letter and asked his advice on how to proceed. He recommended having it come up through a resolution in the House of Delegates, and he assured me that he would support it when it came to the EC for debate and vote.
I made the tactical decision not to bring this up in the House as “the new kid on the block” but to let the delegates from Europe and Latin American get to know me first as an individual, then as a gay man; then I would introduce what I knew would be a controversial issue. The House met twice a year and I had participated in two meetings by the time I was invited by the Program Committee to be a speaker on a Panel on Homosexuality at the 1997 IPA Congress in Barcelona. During this clinical presentation, I identified myself as an openly gay training analyst–virtually an oxymoron at that time. I think no other members of the House of Delegates attended that particular panel, or they would have seen some psychoanalysts displaying antihomosexual feelings in person, in the here and now.
I was dismayed that the first comment from the floor after my presentation was about homosexuals molesting young boys; I found out only later that the Barcelona newspapers that morning had been full of the latest pedophile scandal. Another speaker from the floor demanded to know, “What are we going to do when ‘they’ [gay analysts] come knocking on our doors wanting to join our analytic societies?” Granted that I spoke in English and he in Spanish, but there was simultaneous translation; so I didn’t know whether he had understood that I was one of “them.” Those were the worst responses, but altogether it did not feel like a friendly atmosphere. In addition, another gay colleague and I had put up a notice on the bulletin board, inviting other gay and lesbian participants to join us for drinks after the panel. Someone had written slurring graffiti on the notice.
On the positive side, this display of analysts’ homophobia mobilized even stronger support from other North American members. Still, recoiling somewhat in anxious timidity, I waited a year before I opened the dialogue with other House members. I notified them by e-mail of my intentions, sent them some written materials about the problem internationally and about the changes that had been made in the APsaA, and asked that it be put on the agenda for our next meeting.
In December 1998, we had a preliminary discussion. Delegates took it seriously enough that we agreed to set aside two hours at our next meeting for further discussion. This meeting would take place during the summer of 1999 at the biennial IPA Congress in Santiago, Chile.
Discussion in the House of Delegates at that meeting lasted several hours and was cordial and respectful, even when there was significant disagreement. My original proposal was a statement only about discrimination based on sexual orientation. It became apparent that this would not pass, so it was modified as suggested by delegates from Canada to a broader nondiscrimination policy. The final wording was:
The IPA opposes any discrimination against anyone on the basis of gender, ethnic origin, religious belief, or homosexual orientation. Selection of candidates for psychoanalytic training is to be made only on the basis of qualities directly concerned with the ability to learn and to function as a psychoanalyst. Further, it is expected that the same standard will be used in the appointment and promotion of members of educational faculties, including training and supervising analysts.
Opposition to this proposal came from two directions. In general, the Latin American delegates opposed the proposal based on the assumption that homosexuality is pathological and therefore disqualifies one for psychoanalytic training. Several of the delegates said they themselves did not hold this view but their members back home did. An interesting side issue is that, after several hours of discussion, we finally learned that, in Latin American countries, the term “sexual orientation” includes all the paraphilias or perversions. Therefore, it would be interpreted by them that we were wanting to protect analytic training for pedophiles and necrophiliacs as well homosexuals. That is the reason for using “homosexual orientation” rather than simply “sexual orientation.”
The other opposing view, coming mostly from European delegates, was not based on assumptions about pathology but on a cultural difference in how they regard “identity politics.” They considered it not a proper organizational issue but rather a matter of concern only for an individual’s private life. In fact, some expressed the view that “naming a category” creates a problem and in fact limits individual freedom. They also felt that this was an American problem and did not concern them; they had no such problem.
The resolution was passed by a vote of 18 in favor, 1 opposed, and 5 abstaining. The strongest backing came from the North American delegates, but obviously there were some affirmative votes from the other regions as well. I do believe that my presence as a member of the group–known first as an individual who then identified himself as gay–made a difference in the eventual passage of this resolution. This experience reinforces the axiom that the most effective way to dispel prejudice is to get to know individuals as people rather than as stereotypes.
In addition, it was important that we presented this strictly as a matter of discrimination and justice and that we tried to avoid getting into controversies about origin, development, and psychopathology. We only need to know that it is possible to be both homosexual and a competent psychoanalyst, and this is demonstrably true. If that is true, then any rejection based solely on homosexual orientation is clearly discrimination. I believe it was also important in the passage of this resolution by the House of Delegates that we were able to present the positive experience with openly gay and lesbian candidates in North American psychoanalytic institutes since the adoption of a similar nondiscrimination policy in the APsaA.
I must hasten to emphasize, however, that passage by the House of Delegates was only a recommendation to the EC to adopt it as policy and incorporate it into the rules governing the IPA. What happened in the Executive Council was a different story. Not being a member of that group, I was not allowed to attend the meeting to present or discuss the resolution. It was carried to the EC by the three officially designated representatives from the House, only one of whom personally supported the resolution.
After hours of bitter debate in the EC, with opposition similar to that described in the House, only the North American delegates and one from England were in favor. Others strongly opposed any mention of sexual orientation at all. It was reported to me by more than one delegate present in the meeting that the immediate past president of the IPA, a man from Latin America, had made an impassioned statement that “homosexuality is an illness.”
Finally the Executive Council passed a substitute resolution by a vote of 8 in favor, 5 opposed, and 1 abstaining. In a procedural twist, the 5 opposed were the North American and English delegates, who voted against this resolution because they wanted the stronger statement that named homosexual orientation. The final wording was:
On the basis of its commitment to ethical and humanistic values, the IPA opposes any discrimination of any kind. Selection of candidates for psychoanalytic training is to be made on the basis of qualities concerned with the ability to learn and to function as a psychoanalyst. Further, it is expected that this same standard will be used in the appointment and promotion of members of educational faculties, including training and supervising analysts. (Minutes, Executive Council, July 1999)
The voting pattern suggested that the defeat was the result of the combination of two opposing viewpoints, but for different reasons: those who consider homosexuality pathological and those who opposed naming any categories.
This outcome was discouraging and dismaying, but it had the positive effect of arousing a spirited informal debate throughout the IPA meeting. And it gained us a strong supportive group far beyond the small original group who promoted the resolution. Many members were outraged that, in refusing to adopt a policy of nondiscrimination that specifically named homosexual orientation, the IPA seemed to be affirming a prejudicial stance of accommodation to those who regard it as pathological. It was even suggested that some European delegates’ supposed idealistic reasons for opposing the stronger policy may have in fact been a cover for underlying antihomosexual prejudice.
Some members took the position that an inclusive nondiscrimination policy was adopted; others saw it as a subterfuge that seemed to be nondiscriminatory but which in fact would allow those who consider homosexuality pathological, to continue to reject gay candidates and faculty and to claim that they are not discriminating, but that those individuals are simply not qualified.
Some members of the House of Delegates were also angry that its strongly supported resolution was overturned by the Executive Council. It also raised procedural questions about two of its representatives to the EC voting against a resolution that had been passed by such a wide margin in the House.
For these many reasons, the controversy did not go quietly into the night. The House formally asked the EC to reconsider, and this forced it to be placed on the agenda for the next meeting in Nice in 2001. Again, the issues were debated and again the decision was to leave the policy as it was adopted in 1999.
The outrage among members of the APsaA was intensified, and it erupted in a spontaneous dialogue on this organization’s Internet Openline discussion. The discussion went on for weeks and was led not by gay members, but by supportive gay-friendly colleagues. Some even questioned the ethical position of our remaining members of the IPA when it adopted a policy that violated the APsaA’s own nondiscrimination position.
Meanwhile, the editor of the IPA newsletter, Alex Holder, had asked me to write an article for its Dialogue series. The issue was delayed and did not appear until after the Nice meeting (Roughton, 2001a). Five analysts from different regions had been invited to write a discussion of my paper, and then my response to them appeared in December (Roughton, 2001b).
In addition, the officers of the APsaA made a formal protest to the new President of the IPA, Daniel Widlocher from Paris. In a letter they asked him to forthrightly address discrimination issues in the IPA; and both they and I requested that the president clarify whether the IPA policy, which supposedly opposes any form of discrimination, does in fact include homosexual individuals.
On September 21, 2001, Dr. Widlocher responded in a letter to me, which was subsequently printed in the newsletter: “I can state unequivocally on behalf of the Council of the IPA that homosexual orientation is included within this resolution” (2001, p. 4).
The Executive Committee of the APsaA then drafted a resolution to include this specific clarification in the formal policy statement. It was to be brought up at the next meeting of the IPA Executive Council in January 2002. Dr. Widlocher asked, however, that the IPA Executive Committee be allowed to introduce it as their resolution, which would give it greater clout.
At the January meeting, the issues were once again discussed. The new resolution now had the strong backing, not only of the House of Delegates but also the officers of the APsaA and the IPA. In addition, the composition of the EC had been changed by a new election. Only one of the voting members in the July 2001 decision in Nice was still a voting member of this Council. Whether this was a more accepting group is unknown, but at least they were not in the position of wanting to defend their previous vote.
The discussion was rigorous and lasted about two hours. The most vocal opposition came from one delegate who wanted to have some scientific evidence that homosexuals are capable of functioning as psychoanalysts. This was effectively countered by North American Vice President Robert Pyles, who pointed out that this evidence does exist in the experience of the American Psychoanalytic Association. However, he also said that, even taking her argument at face value, it would make more sense to ask for evidence that homosexuals are not capable of functioning as psychoanalysts before we take away rights and privileges for an entire group. This apparently had a big impact on the thinking of the delegates (Robert Pyles, personal communication). By an “almost unanimous vote,” the policy was amended to read:
On the basis of its commitment to ethical and humanistic values, the IPA opposes any discrimination of any kind. This includes, but is not limited to, any discrimination on the basis of age, race, gender, ethnic origin, religious belief or homosexual orientation. Selection of candidates for psychoanalytic training is to be made only on the basis of qualities directly concerned with the ability to learn and to function as a psychoanalyst. Further, it is expected that this same standard will be used in the appointment and promotion of members of educational faculties, including training and supervising analysts. (Minutes, IPA Executive Council, January 2002)
This is a very significant event in the life of international psychoanalysis. I have been told privately by some European colleagues that their analytic societies were waiting to see what the IPA did and that they would follow in their own policy. This is not the end of the story, obviously. There will continue to be overt opposition from those who strongly disagree, and their will be more widespread covert resistance to change, stemming both from conscious and unconscious beliefs and prejudices.
But it is a major progressive step. I also believe that it is a lesson in group process in an organization where multiple diversities of language, culture, and theory tend to divide us. Begun by a small group of gay analysts who were determined to bring about change, the cause was then taken up by our heterosexual colleagues, who were outraged for us by the prejudice and injustice and were also outraged by the need for organization and political reform. Once justice has been established, then it will be time to explore all the interesting scientific questions about sexuality, both homosexual and heterosexual.