Origins of ICP

In 1991, twelve senior training analysts in Los Angeles congregated to discuss their respective concerns about the state of contemporary psychoanalysis. In contrast to the climate of the time, they wanted to create an institute that would be self-regulated and not compelled to look to external figures for permission or approval to operate as it saw fit. Their objectives were simple, but also profound. They wanted the institute to remain freestanding, to function as a participatory democracy that actively involved both its members and its candidates in the shaping and evolution of the institute, and to be a place where the entire membership would be charged with assiduously defending the preservation of all psychoanalytic perspectives. In so doing, a key goal was to cultivate a system of open dialogue and pluralistic thought.

Out of their meetings the twelve founding mothers and fathers created the Institute of Contemporary Psychoanalysis. Those twelve founders are: Louis Breger, Ph.D.. Doryann Lebe, M.D., Herb Linden, M.D., John Lindon, M.D., David Markel, M.D., Richard Rosenstein, M.D., Morton Shane, M.D., Estelle Shane, Ph.D. Robert Stolorow, Ph.D., Norman Tabachnick, M.D., Judith Vida, M.D., and Arnold Wilson, M.D.

ICP Today

In the intervening years, ICP has evolved significantly beyond the original experiment that the twelve founders envisioned. In less then seven years, the Institute has grown to over one hundred active members, over one hundred candidates in training, and over forty domestic and international corresponding members whose scholarship in psychoanalysis is recognized throughout the world. A psychoanalytic psychotherapy training program has also been implemented with over thirty (some years over fifty) advanced students in training. Moreover, satellite campuses have been established in San Diego (ICP South) and Santa Cruz (ICP North) California.

The hallmark of the institute’s success has been its ability to consistently draw a large number of qualified candidates eager for training in psychoanalysis. Candidates typically are seasoned therapists, licensed as psychologists, psychiatrists and other physicians, licensed clinical social workers, marriage, family and child therapists, (or of related disciplines such as law, literature, and religion, in our Research Psychoanalyst program) who are willing to undertake the rigors of such advanced training. Such recruitment could not have occurred if it were not for the ironclad agreement to preserve the values of pluralism, participatory democracy and academic excellence - exactly the values that draw mature professionals. All of these converge in a manner that respects the entrance of the candidate into training, and regards him or her as an adult learner, one who is fully empowered to speak openly about what he or she feels will be essential to the fulfillment of the Institute’s goals of generating a new breed of contemporary psychoanalysts.

In practice, the institute’s values are fulfilled by its granting full voting participation to candidates on all standing committees within the institute as well as granting them voting membership in two seats of the institute’s Board of Directors. Furthermore, because some candidates bring expertise in areas of mental health, they too may join with any other member of the ICP community in proposing to teach elective courses. These electives stand along side a core curriculum that entails courses such as those on Freud, infant development, object relations theory, self psychology, intersubjectivity theory, boundary dilemmas, case conferences, and basic concepts that extend from psychoanalysis’ origins through the contemporary psychoanalytic scene. The intellectual enthusiasm represented in the curriculum is extremely robust with over 80 elective courses proposed annually and close to half of those actually being taught covering topics such as the writings of Ferenczi, Bion, Lacan, Guntrip, and Fairbairn, special topics such as dream work, conjoint therapy, women in psychoanalysis, neuropsychology, psychopharmacology, and a wide variety of special clinical themes utilized to organize advanced clinical case conferences.

In addition to these activities, the institute sponsors monthly in-house meetings wherein papers of the membership and candidacy are presented and discussed. It also organizes two major Spring and Winter conferences involving recognized psychoanalytic experts which are open to the entire mental health community. Most of these conferences have enjoyed attendance of between 300 and 400 audience members. Additional meetings are held throughout the year, often involving invited experts from our rich community of corresponding members.

As the ICP approaches the millennium, it recurrently engages in self-study, having formed such ad hoc committees as the "limits of growth committee," the "committee on boundary dilemmas," the "committee on training and supervising analyst status" to mention but a few. To respond to the needs of maintaining a participatory democracy, the members hold a minimum of two retreats annually in which the entire membership and candidacy are involved. (Thus far, we have had three in 1998 alone!) These retreats help us grapple with our inherent and expectable growing pains, as well as tackle the knotty issues of how to preserve academic freedom while pushing for academic excellence. This is a considerable challenge in a pluralistically driven institution, wherein a fundamental understanding is that no psychoanalytic theory has been determined to be intrinsically superior to any others. This commitment to a dynamic process preserves an opening to new ideas while valuing old ones.

The ICP is a vital, growing and thriving institution that, while inevitably imperfect, has not settled the conundrums of psychoanalytic education so much as it has deeply immersed itself in them. It does so, bearing in mind the prophetic admonition that "We’re all more simply human than otherwise." But so long as the fundamental atmosphere of openness is preserved, we fervently believe that we are correctly situated to cull out the best our institutional life has to offer. History has taught us that differences are not best settled by an autocracy, but are better handled when all candidates and members have an open forum to speak their minds.