More than 400 IARPP members from around the globe attended all or part of our October symposium, “Exclusion and Belonging in Intrapsychic, Interpersonal and Socio-cultural Experience,” our second online symposium of 2021.
Of course, not everyone was able to participate in real time, given the impossibility of scheduling the two-day event in a time range conducive to all chapters’ waking hours. Still, this inconvenient truth did not inhibit a few stalwart souls from arising super-early or staying up uncomfortably late in order to be part of the live experience. For those registrants understandably committed to keeping regular hours, recordings and written texts were made available to in the week following the live event.
Afterwards I corresponded with a number of attendees to compile a mosaic of impressions on the content and experience of the symposium. I am grateful to all these members for taking the time and making the effort to give voice to their reflections.
Especially for those of you who did not have the opportunity to attend the symposium or read its presentations, I begin this section with a generously comprehensive overview of the entire event offered by Efrossini Moureli (Greece), a member of the Greece-Thessaloniki chapter and its Ecopsychoanalysis Study Group, who also intersperses his observations. Following Efrossini’s report, you will find a range of additional reflections from enthusiastic participants.
Overview by Efrossini Moureli (Greece):
The symposium was pervaded by the recognition of the current problematic social situation and the threat of the destruction that our world currently faces, as well as the position of psychoanalysts in the face of what is happening. It was a trumpet call for opening psychoanalysis to the complexity of the social: “an awakening,” a “moral shift,” the involvement of psychoanalysts in “transformational” actions, “action as a moral requirement” (Alejandro Avila), “the connection of our clinical duties with our public duties” (Earl Hopper).
A constant urge to recognize the involvement of “doing nothing” — “silence and impunity” — in today’s social inequality (Garth Stevens); an urge not only to make the unconscious conscious but also the invisible visible (Avila), “to listen to the mute; maybe we can talk about them” (Hopper).
Courageous ideas were put forward, such as “exposing and facing the invisible systems of our privileges,” or defining annihilatory anxiety as “a fear of losing our way of life, our privileges” (Stevens). Interesting ideas were presented, such as “to think of our integrity not as wholeness but as multiplicity” so that we can meet “the radical other” (Victor Donas), or that “reading history will make us more capable of listening to the other” (Avila).
There were many references to mourning: “mourning for a dying world” (Avila) and questions about the limits of therapists in relation to mourning (Joyce Slochower): What is our ability to help our patients to mourn? How can we mourn in a crisis that concerns us too and that we do not know how and when it will end? How to mourn when we are constantly bombarded with losses and attacks?
There was a great presentation by Donna Bassin on “the art of mourning,” with photos of tiny dolls in a variety of scenarios that served as a kind of play therapy to help people verbalize the events of 9/11, with references to the healing power of veterans’ rituals as well as a series of torn and repaired portraits of women with obvious tear damage.
Also of note were the dialogues about accepting and non-accepting social violence (Gil Straker). There was a statement that its non-acceptance constitutes cultural narcissism (Stevens). Hopper spoke at length about this, seeing the violence of the oppressed as a response to the violence of the system, as a desperate message and as a profound denunciation that the message was not transmitted. He coined the term “mature hope” as the desire for reparation and restoration. As for what cannot be restored, “we have to endure it.”
For Sally Swartz from Cape Town, referencing the ideas of Frantz Fanon, the colonial world and the inner-colonizer in natives (per identification with the aggressor) must be broken. She doubts whether there can be inner freedom in conditions of poverty. She considers as an act of inner freedom the accusations that black patients address to the white therapist (herself), and as an act of love on her part to listen to these accusations.
Heim Weinberg courageously expressed a view of the unconscious processes in the Israeli-Palestinian War: the inability of both to mourn what was lost forever leaves no room for negotiation between them. Stavros Charalambides expressed an interesting view in relation to the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots: the two communities have entered a process of mourning: there internally coexists mourning in a state of twinship, as fellow travelers of the same or common trauma, “while at the same time the other side cannot forget.” He considers that “the dialogue between these two positions can be the ultimate goal of a diplomatic solution based on group dynamics.”
On the question of “how we think when we think of the enemy” Carmine Schettini presented a dialogue between a psychiatrist and a psychiatric patient. The patient defines the making of the enemy as follows: “The enemy appears between us when the patient and the psychiatrist give up the opportunity to consider the contradictions of human complexity”; “then the enemy is created and must be excluded in the asylum.”
The presented clinical cases as well as the discussion in small groups were full of feelings and questions. The idea of our being “implicated subjects” involved in the processes of social inequality, neither guilty nor innocent but in some indirect way benefitting from it, aroused the audience’s interest.
Overall, it was a very lively and rich conference, and it would be useful to have written records of it.
Additional reflections on the October Symposium from all over:
Marisa León and Fernando Alonso (both of Argentina):
“We noticed some common points among the various presentations, despite the authors’ diverse socio-cultural characteristics. It seemed to us that important similarities prevailed in terms of how the context in which we live, the epoch, bursts into the office as a reality. The presenters agreed that it is more authentic and productive to integrate into the therapeutic dialogue these contextual variables rather than avoid them due to some kind of misconception or attachment to certain technical habits which have already expired.”
“Remote platforms broaden the horizons of our practice, and the massive use of social networks is significantly changing the ways of life and relationships between human beings. Its impact entails a strong political polarization that monopolizes and blocks public debate, generating strong influence in ways of thinking and in the political and community construction. This is verified in the different clinical reports as a common denominator to the different latitudes, and it could be generating a climate of tension, or social exclusion, on which the presenters propose to continue reflecting, in order to be able to include and address these matters in our clinical practice with greater commitment.”
Afarin Kohan (Canada):
“This was the second symposium I took part in. While it is always better to meet in person, the symposium was a chance to get reconnected, and I found the small group discussions quite refreshing for the same reason.” Kohan leads a Toronto support group for families of the victims of the Ukrainian airline shot down by the Iranian revolutionary guards in January 2020. In this context she found that “the topics dealing with the collective trauma of the pandemic and managing social issues in the consulting room were particularly instrumental” and “extremely relevant to the task I am up against in doing this work.”
Karla Escenaro (Mexico):
“It was an enriching experience, especially hearing the diversity of relational voices. In the last part Portugal was presented as a chapter. The welcome they received was very emotional, and some Portuguese members talked about the experience of being part of IARPP. I particularly enjoyed the end part where I was able to see all the participants. The smiles on their cameras were heartwarming, like the welcome given to the Portugal chapter. We are still breathing the uncertainty of the Covid pandemic and the changes that it brought – we could feel this in every lecture.”
Carmine Schettini (Italy) and Christina Emanuel (USA):
Carmine and Christina collaborated on a panel in which presenters explored the conference theme from the local context of four countries: Liat Ariel (Israel) presented by Micha Weiss (Israel), Marie Saba (Perú), Carmine Schettini (Italy) and Sally Swartz (South Africa), with Christina Emanuel (USA) moderating. They wrote: “Each panelist shared an experience that resonated in a way that felt both radically local and globally applicable as they considered enemies such as the Covid-19 virus; extreme politics borne of a colonial history, years of corruption and intransigent dichotomous attitudes; the effects of coloniality that endure, per Swartz, “long after colonizing powers have packed their bags and left”; and the dehumanization of patients with severe psychiatric conditions. As Saba so poetically put it, “Nations are narrations, and we are trapped in a logic from which we need to emancipate ourselves” – a theme addressed in different ways by all four presenters. We shared enthusiastically not only our theories, but above all else, what it means to be and practice as psychoanalysts in the contemporary world.”
Tammy Ben-Shaul (Australia):
“Both internally and externally, something big must be going on for me to wake up at 2am to join a professional symposium! The papers spanned the political unrest in the world that has permeated my body, my children’s development and my family, around Earth and her changes –all reflected inside and out as the experience of an immigrant in Australia. I so needed to feel my global professional community to get out of my mental echo chamber that has sent me into a dialect between escalating panic and deepening spiritual practice. The politics of the pandemic exposing every overt and covert trauma in each country and state worldwide; the ever-present experience of the personal being political; the individual being the micro element of the macro collective; the enemy from within and without — all reflected in the different languages, accents and intimacy of a global community. The disembodied experience, faces that were missing from other conferences and forums – all this melted away for me in the warmth, vibrancy, liveliness and intelligence of the discussion group. It felt intimate and close: Oh what joy (from the Buddhist chant translation of Bodhi Swaha).”
Ilana Ben Haim (Israel):
“The subject of the symposium attracted me from the beginning. The beautiful presentations lightened this subject of ‘the enemy within and without’ from very interesting and creative points of view. The papers described what I feel inside and outside my clinic today. I felt the mourning through the strong artistic manifestation of Donna Bassin and through identification with the words of Joyce Slochower about our inability to help sometimes. The feeling of ‘these are not nos-otros’ (from both sides) touched me through the music of Victor Donas’ Chilean intonation, and Ilana Laor’s case study of the ‘volcanic interpretation’ illuminated for me the resemblance between the world inside and outside us.”
Neetu Sarin (India):
“Rare are the symposia where the social realities stand face to face with clinical truths. The recent IARPP symposium was a sparkling example of the above. One of the things that struck me most was the universality of suffering of all human beings across the globe, in the face of the failing of democratic systems.
“What role does psychoanalysis play then, when the patient who comes to the clinic is not a subject, not an individual, but a mass of unformulated, unthought affects that remain bizarre and alien within oneself? The thoughtfulness of the analysts in how they worked with their patients, keeping these cultural, political and social realities in mind, was the most touching and therapeutic.”
Alice Bar Nes (Israel):
“The symposium caught me, in a sense, by surprise. As I am usually a little suspicious of professional discussions of political matters, fearing that political opinions will overshadow the professional and limit psychoanalytic thinking, I started this conference with similar doubts. But the richness and depth of thought expressed by the presenters, and maybe above all their honest and what seemed to me brave and open-hearted approach to the sensitive issues discussed, touched me deeply. Sadness about a changing world, admission of limits of knowledge and ability, and yet a commitment to keep thinking and trying, fighting splits and facing complexity — the ethical approach that seemed to reign over the conference — was very engaging for me. I found myself staying eagerly on, feeling none of the tiredness I expected at these hours of the night (In Israel it was 12:30 am when the first day closed). The small discussion groups were a particularly powerful experience. Meeting people from all around the globe, all trying to grapple together with how to understand and work with very complex ant traumatic issues, giving each other a real, interested listening and sharing honest, as well as often original and thought-provoking opinions, was a precious opportunity. It gave me a sense of belonging — to a thinking, as well as an inclusive and deeply ethical community, a feeling I am very grateful for.”
In closing, I want to add that many participants found being able to read the presentations and participate in discussion groups in their native languages was very productive. I note the tremendous efforts undertaken by IARPP’s team of volunteer translators and translation coordinators: Stavros Charalambides; Marie Saba and Alexandra Toribio Caballero with the help of the Perù, Buenos Aires, Chile and Spain chapters; Ilana Laor and Micha Weiss with the Israeli chapter’s contributions; and Susi Federici with assistance from her Institute ISIPSÉ colleagues.
M.A.
