M: What was the topic of your final paper? What were the main ideas discussed?
E: My graduation paper was entitled, Who is Free to Free Associate: Psychoanalysis and Social Ethics. The first part of the title came to me first as a fragment-thought while still in seminar. I did not know exactly where the question, “Who is free to free associate?” would lead me; perhaps it has functioned as an ‘enigmatic signifier’ (a lá Laplanche). It could have gone (and maybe still will go!) in many different directions. When I told people my working title, everyone had a different idea about what I would say–that was interesting.
I knew I wanted to write about our field of psychoanalysis–what we do with one another, how we are, and honestly, to find a way to wrestle with my ethical questions upon entering this field (a personal necessity). I am glad that in our field, we know that love and hate are inexorably and meaningfully intertwined. At some point, I realized that I was writing a personal love/hate letter to psychoanalysis as my way to enter and join. I believe in psychoanalysis (and the many projects made possible through and of it) enough to critique it. I believe (hope) this aligns with the spirit of inquiry and care at the heart of psychoanalysis.
In my paper, I considered the impacts of institutionalization on psychoanalysis from multiple angles–including philosophical, clinical, personal, and social. I ended up utilizing the framework of ‘social ethics’ (an applied form of ethical investigation) to consider specifically Institutionalized Psychoanalysis, “our IP.” The social was taken up in two ways that are distinct from one another but imbricated. First, Institutional Psychoanalysis, was considered as an entity, force, and participant in the larger social matrix and related historical, political, and economic discourses. Here, potential risks of neoliberalism surface (if we practice unminded in the current forceful and seductive moment). I then introduced the idea of “trickle-down psychic economics” and questioned whether this is a collective, unexamined fantasy within our field. This leads to questions about internal freedom, psychic growth and impacts on speech, action, implication, and accountability. Second, the paper takes up the social ethics of our group reality, namely, the unminded group that we (those of us who comprise Institutional Psychoanalysis) make and remake repeatedly despite innovations and evolving commitments. I explore the idea of our IP, Institutional Psychoanalysis, having a specific ‘habitus’ (Bourdieu) that impacts all of us despite our best intentions. I go on to present case material from a moment in my training that touched on the complexities of whiteness, racial enactments, racialized reverie, class, unconscious process, the group life of psychoanalysis, systemic and structural violence, and the necessity of marking and minding–together over time.
I aimed to consider (and am still very much considering): What is socially ethical psychoanalytic care? How is implication a part of our ethics? What can we do with our implicated subject positions? How do we work with ourselves and others as individuals inevitably embedded in and constituted by ongoing social, historical, and political forces? Moreover, how can we lean towards a radically relational accountability in service to individual and collective ethical care?
M: How do you think your ideas inform your work at PINC?
E: For those who know me, the throughline between this paper and my participation at PINC is likely clear. I think the frame (and flexibility) of ‘social ethics’ and the use of ‘the implicated subject’ (Rothberg) set me up well for the leadership role I took shortly after graduation. I think writing this paper (and all that writing entails) helped deepen my attention and care to the whole collective that PINC is rather than just focusing on what I personally think is “right” or what I might want individually. Of course, sometimes, there is an overlap in my leadership focus and my personal political beliefs, but not always. I’ve gotten really curious about and interested in questions that, at face value, seem simple or matter-of-fact. I find them evocative and useful. Specifically:
What is it to be a community?
What is PINC? And who gets to define it?
What is leadership?
How do you (can you) create a community that protects and values difference and can engage in generative conflict?
M: Could you tell us about your new role at PINC?
E: I ended up on the PINC board in my first five minutes as a Candidate. It landed in my lap because no one else was willing or had relational conflicts. I guess I was well suited, having been on the NCSPP Board and served as its President a few years before entering training. However, I’ll admit that I recall standing in the PINC kitchen at some point thinking, “I am not sure I am ready to see how the sausage is made just yet…but okay.” (Maybe my paper comes from moments like this, too; such moments are a lifelong story for me.) I was a Candidate Representative to the PINC Board during my entire candidacy. I was also part of the Race Working Group and the Community Psychoanalysis Track. All of this involvement did something to me. Being seriously involved in the inner workings of PINC from the very beginning of my analytic training likely influenced my sense of being part of something–for better or worse–feeling responsible, implicated, and urgent but with a long view about how change happens organizationally. I’m somewhat surprised to find myself bound up in the ethos and mission of continuing Institutional Psychoanalysis. I am now the President of the PINC Board.
M: How do you envision PINC’s future, and how do you see your role impacting that?
E: I think I’ve answered some of this above, and I’m also not sure I want to state a platform here, now. However, here is a relevant excerpt from my President’s Remarks, May 2024 (that went out to all PINC members by email):
In this community, as in most, there is rarely a singular, uniform perspective. There is broad difference in our community at PINC (theoretically, personally, professionally, politically, etc.). I know I am not alone when I say this is a good thing–a potential strength. In fact, there needs to be more difference (and differences of opinion!)–of all kinds–and productive and meaningful engagement around those differences. There needs to be more generative conflict in spaces and places supported and dedicated to such work so that people can learn from one another and chart the way together. That is not an easy task.
Especially given the strains on PINC (and psychoanalysis more broadly) within the last….six years (but maybe the last decade? It depends on when one starts the clock.)
- Our Distance Learning Program was formally developed and launched in 2018. This welcomed new people and minds but increased the complexity of PINC functioning.
- Then, two major board votes surfaced in 2019: the Eitington Model (addressing training frequency requirements) and the creation of the CPT. Both were significant as they innovated while also sparking existential questions in our field.
- Then Covid-19 broke out, sending us into fear, virtual relations, and distance.
- This was quickly followed by BLM erupting more forcefully and leading many organizations, including analytic institutes and PINC, to grapple more overtly with white supremacy culture and its implications.
- All of this has also been overlaid by ongoing, painful, disruptive (albeit normal) generational transitions.
- And most recently, the violence, terror, pain, and loss unleashed in the Middle East–ostensibly and initially between Hamas and Israel (but heavily impacting Palestinians, the region, and, in fact, all of us in one way or another)–has ignited deep grief and conflict.
All of these compounding factors have strained PINC’s community…
In preparation for this role, I’ve engaged in a listening tour. So far, I have learned that some of you feel excited and hopeful. Some of you have been trying to hold it all together in difficult times. Some are tired and may feel unrecognized. Others have felt confused about their place here, asking: Is it your place? Do you want it to be your place? Many others have been hurt in one way or another. While there is still goodwill and commitment, I believe PINC [along with many other organizations at this moment, is struggling with] affiliation, care, and connection.
In my tenure as President, I hope to help address many of the strains upon the organization by increasing communication, transparency, engagement, and responsiveness. I would also like to support the foundational and iterative values by centering on generative conflict in complex times. To this end, I hope we can support community conversations, increase overall contact, slow down when necessary, speed up necessary (and the wisdom to tell the difference), work with the inevitable mistakes and missteps, and learn from and with each other over time.
Additionally (and in service to these same goals), I plan to continue the analytically informed diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility work started in previous years by PINC leadership and membership. This will include more explicitly involving the Holmes Commission in our work. I hope that as we take this up as an organization, we can demystify the intractable tensions between “internal” and “external” aspects of psychic life and cultivate our capacity to listen deeply to the social unconscious rendered through group life.
I invite you all, as members of PINC, to do the same.
To meet this moment, we need each other, our analytic capacities, and our sometimes humiliating but always profound humanity.
M: Could you tell us about transitioning from being a candidate to assuming a PINC leadership position? What are the challenges and potential for a candidate to become involved with an Institute right after graduation?
E: That is a big question, and a lot could be said. However, I’ll just acknowledge that the speed at which the transition happened was difficult. Going from the positionality of a Candidate within the Institute to the positionality of the President of the Institute within a few months was psychically taxing and required internal work. I committed to the role (the role had been sitting open for a year) before presenting my paper but requested that the transition be delayed until after graduation. I did this to try and “protect” my experience as a graduating person. But in hindsight, once I had agreed to the role, my psychic life was impacted. I probably lost some of the delicacy and rest of being a newly graduated analyst. I am aware that my proximity to candidacy is likely an asset and liability. I try to mind that as best I can.
Regardless of how it happened, I am happy to be of service at this moment.
