North American Representatives (2017-2019):

 Martin Gauthier

My first term as North American Representative to the IPA Board has enabled me to appreciate the full breadth and complexity of the task. While it is vital for our institution to evolve to anchor itself in the present, it must also preserve and convey the core sense of the Freudian discovery without distorting it. But what is this core to uphold and carry forward? What are the best means of transmission? How to tackle the issue of the ageing Western membership and the youth of the new places of practice? How to rally the multiplicity of voices and currents at the service of our common object, psychoanalysis? How do we involve these in dialogue in order to better discern what it is that unites us? There is not but one answer, nor one right answer. The complexity of the task is no justification for a conservative immobilism which would lead to our increasing social marginalization and our slow extinction. But it would be rather rash to suddenly drape ourselves in the fashions of the day, forgetting what fundamentally defines us. The IPA Board offers a great forum for discussion to consider and guide this development while taking account of the diverse local and regional realities. In this regard, the pursuit of the democratization of the functioning of our organization, so as to make it more open and responsive to members, as well as the articulation of the areas of authority of each administrative level remain important works in progress. Development in Asia and the cultural transformations in the West constitute major challenges at a time of technological revolution. Our practice is diversified and only dialogue will enable the translation of conflicts and integration, strengthening our relation to reality and our capacity for action.

Of francophone origin in the great North American continent, for several years I have participated in intercultural dialogue; at psychiatric and university level at first, then at psychoanalytic group level, in Quebec, Canada, North America and now against the backdrop of the IPA, I have accumulated broad administrative experience in the psychoanalytic organizations. For some fifteen years, I have also actively participated in exchanges with European colleagues, particularly in France (notably via the great crossroads that is the annual congress of French-speaking psychoanalysts, CPLF), organised by the Paris Psychoanalytic Society. A second term on the IPA Board will enable me to deepen my knowledge of the issues and to contribute further to the collective work. I am convinced that the decentering effect of extensive dialogue is essential to the vitality of psychoanalysis. Its capacity to evolve depends upon it. I wish to continue to contribute to the renewal of the conditions that will facilitate and enrich our intercultural and international exchanges. These exchanges will shape and consolidate the psychoanalysis that will address the challenges of the 21st century.

In terms of North America, the political, social and cultural reality is characterized by tensions and divisions. Psychoanalytic circles are not immune. The time is ripe for new solutions. While respecting the authority of each Society, we have much to gain by reinforcing our exchanges and solidifying our common ground. Our differences broaden the solutions at our disposal.


List of positions:


Martin Gauthier: International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA): North American Board Representative 2015-2017. North American Psychoanalytic Confederation (NAPsaC): Canadian representative (2007-09 and 2011-13). Canadian Psychoanalytic Society (CPS): President-elect (2006-07), President (2007-09), Past-president (2009-11). Société psychanalytique de Montréal (Montreal francophone branch of the CPS): Vice President (1999-2001), President (2001-05). Institut psychanalytique de Montréal (Montreal francophone branch of the Canadian Institute): Secretary (2005-07), Director (2009-13).



 William C. Glover


I am running for re-election and ask for your vote. The IPA usually governs by consensus and some potentially divisive issues have arisen that will test the next Board. I know the issues and am committed to helping find the solutions satisfactory to the most members.


Two of the important issues at hand are global; distance analysis and permitting 3x a week analysis in the Eitingon Training model. In both cases the question is how to facilitate innovation while preserving the principles of psychoanalysis and the Board is considering the issues carefully.   In North America, there is another difficult issue involving APsaA’s autonomous status as the only Regional Association of the IPA. Some members of the independent societies feel this status gives APsaA an unfair advantage to approve new groups on its own initiative and advocate removing the Regional Association designation. Members in APsaA feel this will compromise APsaA’s autonomy, and propose other means to achieve fairness. Tensions are escalating and there is danger of a partisan fight that could divide and distract us from our common cause of advancing psychoanalysis.


I support fairness in the IPA - the question is how to provide fairness while respecting the traditions and preferences of each Constituent Organization. I believe amicable, collaborative solutions can be found. If re-elected I pledge to continue my efforts to develop consensus and find compromise.  This is important both at the Board level, and from the bottom up for the entire North American membership.  I’d like to see us develop more opportunities for analysts from different societies to work together and get to know each other. Delivering more benefit to IPA members has been a specific interest of mine.  For the past 5 years, colleagues and I in San Francisco have organized very successful IPA Clinical Observation groups that have brought members of our local independent society, PINC and, the APsaA society, SFCP, together, improving communication and collegiality between the institutes. Also relevant are my efforts on behalf of the Clinical Working Parties sponsored by the IPA in collaboration with regional bodies and local societies. These projects bring analysts from different schools together, building relationships and morale. While APsaA is my home I am also a direct member of CIPS and have found participating in its study groups and annual conference a valuable experience. APsaA has begun scheduling a slot for NAPsaC in its meeting program and I’d like to expand on that and revive the idea of joint APsaA/NAPsaC meetings. These activities can bring IPA members in North America together and help resolve our differences. 


I have participated in psychoanalytic institutional life throughout my career; locally, nationally and internationally.  I’ve consistently worked to involve members and build consensus and will continue to do so if re-elected. Having previously served on the Board, I have the skills, energy, and experience to be an effective Board member in meeting the challenges facing the IPA and North America.


For further discussion of my views please visit


List of positions:


William C. Glover: IPA: Board of Representatives 2009-2011, 2015-date; Budget & Finance Committee 2015-date; Clinical Observation Committee 2013-date; Committee on IPA/IPSO Relations & Candidate Loan Panel 2009-2015; Chair, Working Party Pre-Congress, Prague, 2012.  IPSO: Treasurer, 1999-2001. APsaA: Executive Councilor 2005-2012, 2016-date; Councilor-at-Large 2013-2014; BOPS Fellow, 2014-date; Membership Requirements & Review Committee 2008-2012; Audit Committee 2006-2009; JAPA Editorial Associate 2004-2006. San Francisco Center for Psychoanalysis:  Training and Supervising Analyst; Chair, Psychoanalytic Education Division 2012-2016; President 2005-2008; Chair, Strategic Planning Committee 2004-2006.


 Jane S. Hall, LCSW, FIPA  


There are many qualified people with organizational experience running to represent North America at the IPA. What I have to offer is from the heart: enthusiasm, commitment, and a strong desire to promote connection within this profession.


Psychoanalysis has a history of factionalism and my greatest interest is in bringing people and their ideas together. All points of view regarding theory and praxis in psychoanalysis have expanded our knowledge and must continue to do so. I have learned over my decades of experience that respect for and openness to contemporary and traditional ideas have contributed greatly to whatever success I enjoy.  The time is ripe to discuss our differences in a peaceful, harmonious, and searching manner. It would be an honor to represent all North American groups at the IPA. I fully support NaPSAC and am encouraged to see it growing.  As a member of both the Confederation of Independent Psychoanalytic Societies (CIPS) and the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA) I see unity of purpose as most important. That purpose must be centered on providing the best psychoanalytic education to each person interested in learning this work and the best treatment to each individual patient.


I believe that open communication with psychoanalysts in North America and all over the world is exactly what continues to enhance our profession. We have so much to learn from and contribute to each other. My interest is in inclusion and in enlarging the psychoanalytic world with standards that are appropriate to our time and specifically to our patients. One size does not fit all and so I am in favor of degrees of flexibility.


My focus would be supporting the kind of education that helps candidates ('colleagues-in-learning') grow their analytic practices. The vast majority of my analytic cases began in psychotherapy and in my mind this is a very appropriate way to begin. Trained classically, my work has benefitted greatly from the intersubjective/relational model, developmental theories, Melanie Klein, Bion, the attachment theorists, and Haydee Faimberg and others's work on the intergenerational transmission of trauma.


Over the past twelve years I have led the discussion group at ApsaA called Deepening the Treatment, based on my book, and happily it seems to have helped many. I have been invited to over fifteen institutes, both in ApsaA,  Division 39, and the International Psychotherapy Institute (IPI),  and I continue to consult in person and via telephone with both individual psychoanalysts and small groups across the country who are interested in the topic.


I sincerely believe that talking with each other, particularly when we disagree, creates bridges that bring us together. Theoretical differences can enrich us through discussion but political divisions can impede progress. Listening to each other is the key.


Lastly, one important lesson I learned from my late musician husband is that success depends on cooperation which must prevail over competition. 


List of positions:


Jane S. Hall: IPA: Web Site Committee; Editor, Psychoanalysis.Today. ApsaA: Scientific Program Committee; Practice Building Today Committee, Founder; Deepening the Treatment DG, Founder and Chair; TAP Editorial Board. CFS: Past President; Psychotherapy Program, Creator and First Director; TA Committee, Chair; Scientific Program Committee, Chair. Permanent faculty:CFS, NYSPP, MITPP. Op-Ed editor Author: Deepening the Treatment (Jason Aronson); Roadblocks on the Journey of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy (Jason Aronson); and scientific papers published in various psychoanalytic scientific journals and on



 Beth I Kalish


I am running for re-election as a North American Regional Representative to the IPA Board. During my tenure as a member of the Board, I have participated in efforts to stand up for our profession and hope to have the opportunity to continue my work. At this time of transition in IPA governance, it is important that continuity be maintained with some of the current Board members elected to the next new Board.


While IPA remains a vibrant international community, we face growing challenges to our viability as a profession. Averse government policies, cost cutting by insurance companies and competition from groups with low standards of training undermine our reputation and standing. We must answer our critics with clarity and conviction.  We must resist, with vigor and political savvy, any policies that threaten our survival. These struggles in North America are not unique. Analysts around the world are struggling with similar challenges.


Each of the three regions of IPA is unique and diverse and should remain so. As current co-chair of NAPsaC, I have been directly involved with the growing effort to communicate and to share more openly across regions. Encouragement of such cross regional endeavors enriches and strengthens IPA and, at the same time, adds to public awareness of psychoanalysis around the world. If re-elected, I will continue to make this a priority.


I believe IPA is uniquely positioned to provide the leadership and resources needed to prevail in our efforts. IPA governance can serve to maintain high standards of training as well as developing programs of public information, advocacy and outreach. Psychoanalytic governance should make every effort to re-capture the inspirational quality of our discipline and our science. My effort this year has focused on moving closer to attaining those goals and helping to identify new ones.


During this last year, the Board has been grappling with many issues. One of the most critical issues is that of Equivalency Standards in each of the three regions for both individual and for group admission into IPA Membership. I am among 4 board members who were chosen to serve on an interregional task force that studied this issue and brought our findings back to the Board for review.   


As your representative, I will continue to encourage feedback and pledge to keep you informed of Board issues and activities such as the important work on the task force.   I am honored to contribute to the vitality and enduring value of IPA.  I ask for your vote.


List of positions:


Beth I Kalish:  IPA:  Board of Representatives; Task Force on Equivalency; ING North American Representative; House of Delegates. NAPsaC: Co-Chair,  Board Representative from LAISPS; CIPS: Board Member and Special Assistant to the President; CIPS Committee on Public Policy; Editorial Committee for CIPS Book Series; Committee on Certification in Psychoanalysis;  LAISPS: President (2003-07),  Board Member-at-Large; Committee for Trauma Center; Committee of Faculty; Committee of Supervising & Training Analysts (COTA); Chair, PhD Committee; Chair, Membership Committee; Founder & Co-Director: Infancy, Early Childhood and Parenting Psychotherapy Program. American Dance Therapy Association:  A founder and Charter member (1962); Chair of Public Relations; Trustee for Marian Chace Memorial Fund; President (1971-73). Founding Director and Associate Professor of Graduate degree programs at Immaculate Heart College and at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles.


 Peter Loewenberg


I would like to serve a second term as IPA Board Representative for North America because I believe I can continue to make a realistic contribution to the IPA.  I know the IPA's problems from having served on the Board two years and the member’s perspective  from years of work locally, nationally, and internationally.  We urgently need outreach to the younger generation of mental health professionals and university students in our local and international communities.  We need to be open to 21st Century ideas, training models, and innovative technologies for distance teaching.  I have fostered the growth of new IPA groups, particularly in Asia, where the demographic profile is decisively younger than in North America or Europe where we have a declining membership.  I chaired the IPA China Committee, 2007-13, as we built a vital psychoanalytic training program including our first Direct Members of IPA.  I taught at the Psychoanalytic Institute of Eastern Europe (PIEE) Summer School in Odessa, Ukraine.  The current candidature of Osamu Kitayama of Japan for IPA Board as a North American Representative is evidence of the 19th Century colonial irrationality of our IPA regional system.  I will continue to encourage transparency in the IPA administration, including procedures and appointments of committee chairs and members.


Innovative institutions, scholarship and research are part of my identity as a psychoanalyst. I served on the Editorial Boards of: JAPA, American Imago, Clio’s Psyche, Psychoanalysis and History, Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy in China and PSYCHE (Frankfurt/ Main)I chaired the committee that in 1977 won for psychoanalysis the right to fully train academics at California psychoanalytic institutes, giving us the first official recognition of psychoanalysis in the law of any country and insuring the participation of university scholars in our training programs and bringing psychoanalysis to our universities.  I co-edited (with Nellie Thompson) the volume 100 Years of the IPA (2011) which required close working relationships with 62 international authors from 42 IPA societies.  As Professor of History and Political Psychology, Emeritus, at UCLA, I teach and lecture in international universities and have presented in psychoanalytic institutes on five continents.  I was co-Dean and Chairman of the Education Committee of the New Center for Psychoanalysis, Los Angeles, during the process of re-unifying two autonomous APsaA psychoanalytic institutes that split in 1950.  We formed the NCP which now celebrates this merger’s 12th anniversary.  Due to our consolidated financial strength we are able to award any of our candidates in need a waiver of fees and a training grant.


List of positions: 


Peter Loewenberg: IPA: North American Board Representative; Chair, China Exploratory & China Committees; ING; Chair, IPA History Centenary; Honorary Member, DPV.  APsaA:  Chair, CORST, Coordinating Committee, Executive Council, BOPS Fellow, JAPA Editorial Board (2x), Chair, Nominating Committee (2x), JAPA Editor Search Committee (2x), Glossary Editor Search Committee.  New Center for Psychoanalysis: Dean, Board, Education, Progression, Curriculum, TA Appointment.  Co-Founder, University California Interdisciplinary Psychoanalytic Consortium.  Honors: “Outstanding Teacher”; Sir Peter Ustinov Professor, University of Vienna; Guggenheim, Fulbright, Rockefeller, Max Planck Institute für Geschichte (Göttingen).


 H. Gunther Perdigao

Growing up in Rio de Janeiro to a Brazilian-Austrian family and educated in the United States underscores why so much of my professional life has been devoted to international psychoanalysis. Fluency in Portuguese, Spanish, French, German and English has allowed me to participate fully in inter-cultural dialogue and in the cross-fertilization of ideas and traditions that characterize the IPA. I will bring this perspective to the Board in the service of all North American members. I seek your support so that I can work on your behalf to ensure a strong future for psychoanalysis and an invigorated North American region. For those members who wonder, “What does the IPA do for me?” I will work to make sure it delivers value and tangible benefits benefits for its members. Part of the problem here is communication and I will ensure that you are kept very well informed.


The winds of inclusiveness are enlivening North American psychoanalysis. APsaA’s bridge building with broadly equivalent psychoanalytic organizations represents an important step forward. CIPS component societies are more than four hundred strong and continue to reflect a vibrant addition to psychoanalysis in the United States that in many ways has changed the whole. The Canadian Psychoanalytic Society nurtures strong psychoanalytic traditions in both French and English speaking regions, now stretching from Quebec City in the East to Vancouver in the West.


Our region has unique and challenging characteristics. There is a need to clarify what problems or challenges NAPSAC should be addressing.  We need to discover what we can give to each other and how this can optimally occur. Issues of equitability are important, but may well resolve when NAPSAC’s mission is vital to all.


IPA approval allowing component societies to apply equivalency procedures is a positive step forward.  I favor maintaining clear and meaningful standards.


I support assisting groups such as CIPS and the Canadian to have their voice heard on the international stage.  Although predominant in size, APsaA, has had its internal struggles, which it is facing and solving. We are all contending with challenges when it comes to analytic workloads and attracting qualified, younger candidates. Nevertheless, there is continuing work to be done to optimize inter-group relations and reciprocity, which cannot be left untended.


Psychoanalysis remains the most comprehensive theory of the human mind available, and we know collectively that our treatment changes lives. Nevertheless, we need to continue to demonstrate our relevance, especially to those patient groups for whom research shows do best with the long-term in-depth treatment we offer.


Increasing collaboration, cohesiveness and sharing of ideas across borders and divisions will reduce insecurity and conflict within the profession.  By nature, I am a connector and translator.  This includes the ability to translate conflicts, aspirations and frustrations into language that allows us to work and solve problems together.  I have done this over many years of IPA service and want to continue to do this on the Board. Please visit my website for more on my views and experience.


List of positions:


H. Gunther Perdigao: IPA: Secretary General 2009-2013; Chair, North American New Groups; Chair, Sponsoring Committee for Recife & Campo Grade, Brazil 1990-2007; Organized IPA Conference, New Orleans 20014; Member, IPA Exec Council, Associate Secretary 1993-1997; Chair, North American Nominating Committee 2005; Member House of Delegates 2002-2004. NAPSaC: Organized 5 inter-regional meetings with FEPAL 1992-2000.  APsaA:  Liaison between APsaA and FEPAL 1988-1993; Chair, Eitingen Model Work Group 2016; President, New Orleans Psychoanalytic Society; President New Orleans Psychoanalytic Institute


 Alan Sugarman


Psychoanalysis as a science, technique, and theory of the mind is undergoing a developmental process akin to that of human development. New theories of mental functioning, clinical practice, as well as clinical and academic research findings are transforming our understanding of pathogenesis, mutative action, and the ways that our patients are best helped to change. In addition, the current social and political exigencies around the globe are challenging us to adapt to a changing environment similarly to the way the growing child must adapt to the social environment. As with the child, this need to balance internal changes with the demands of the environment can leave psychoanalysis, as an institution and a profession, struggling.


It is my belief that the ultimate solution to psychoanalysis’s successful developmental outcome lies with our training programs and their ability to graduate analysts who can maintain this balance. From my perspective, the IPA is the institution best suited to facilitate this task. We need leadership that can help psychoanalysis with these adaptational challenges. Just as a good parent encourages a child to embrace growth and not cling to the past, the IPA can lead psychoanalysis into the future without sacrificing excellence. Developmental disharmonies between past ways of thinking and treating versus contemporary ones are best resolved by reasoned and disciplined examination and debate. The IPA offers psychoanalysts and our institutions an opportunity to see that many different ways of practicing and teaching psychoanalysis exist around the world. This can help psychoanalysts to realize that there are many definitions of psychoanalytic theory and practice. And they all help our patients. In this way, psychoanalysts can learn the flexibility essential for facing our adaptational challenges.


I believe that being a child analyst allows me to be particularly helpful in this endeavor. After all, child analysts learn to be flexible with their patients and to adapt technique to their patients’ various levels of mental organization. Furthermore, we must stay current on research about the complexities of development and pathogenesis as we deal with these phenomena in vivo, not in retrospect. For these reasons, I am an advocate for integrated child and adult psychoanalytic training. It offers the opportunity for all analytic candidates to gain direct exposure to such clinical flexibility and the complexity of the mind’s development.


I also believe I can help the IPA with these adaptational challenges because of my local and national experience. I chaired the BOPS subcommittee that developed a model integrated child and adult curriculum for institutes to use. In addition, as Co-Director of Education, I helped my local institute to adapt to environmental challenges by negotiating flexibility in training and TA standards with BOPS that maintained excellence while making training and promotion more accessible. These changes led to more candidates, more TA applicants and improved morale in a floundering institute. I would like to bring this experience and flexibility to the IPA. As a longtime advocate for psychoanalysis, I am committed to the future while integrating the important principles of the past.


List of positions:


Alan Sugarman: IPA: Integrated Training Committee 2013-15; ApsaA: Head, Department of Psychoanalytic Education 2016-2018, Chair, Subcommittee on Integrated Child/Adolescent/Adult Psychoanalytic Curriculum 2011-2015, BOPS Fellow 1998-2004, 2013-16, Committee on Institutes 2004-10, New Training Facilities Committee, Co-Chair, Ad Hoc New Psychoanalytic Center Committee 1997-2004, Co-Chair, Ad Hoc Outreach for Scientific and Educational Affairs Committee 1997-1999, Program Committee 1995-98, ACP: Councilor 2010-2013, San Diego Psychoanalytic Center: Director of Education 1998-2004, Co-Director of Education 2013-2016, Chairman Curriculum Committee 1995-1998, 2005-06, 2008-12, 2013-2016.