![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
With growing awareness of the impact of race and racism within psychoanalysis, we are in a phase of reflection and discussion. What are the opportunities for and challenges to addressing these issues within our institutes and in our clinical practice? How do we extend or develop our psychoanalytic oriented understanding of the dynamics that underscore racial enactments into concrete action and pragmatic improvement? With the urgent need for redress and reform in mind, participants at the Changing the Conversation Conference (March 2019) were invited to join each other in small group discussions about what we can actually do with the resources we already have to integrate anti-racism as part of the culture, values, organizational structures, and practices of psychoanalytic institutes. Results of the interactive exercise with facilitators were collated and sent to all the attendees. The qualitative data is presented here for us to think about our next steps in realizing a psychoanalytic community that is committed to addressing and—ideally—eliminating racism in both its institutes and the consulting room.
Notes
1 See also Stephens, in this issue (pp. 201–225), for a description of this enactment in her academic settings.
2 The TriCollege Libraries Allyship and Anti-Oppression Resource Guide defines a White ally as someone who “does not remain silent but confronts racism as it comes up daily, but also seeks to deconstruct it institutionally and live in a way that challenges systemic oppression, at the risk of experiencing some of that oppression.” For more information and a list of other resources go to: https://guides.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/c.php?g=285382&p=1900870.
3 The two frameworks differ in their conceptualization of the conditions necessary for such communication to occur, with the “safe space” framework embodying a risk and harm reduction model whereas the “brave space” formulation emphasizes the need for courage rather than the illusion of safety. The safe space approach has been criticized on the basis that “learning involves not merely risk, but the pain of giving up a former condition in favor of a new way of seeing things” (Boostrom, Citation1998, p. 399). Conversations about race, critics argue, are inherently painful and unsafe, especially for people of color, and so the illusion of safety can be used to stymie rather than further a dialogue on social justice (Arao & Clemens, Citation2013). In this vein, several campuses have adopted the term “brave spaces” (Arao & Clemens, Citation2013) in an effort to better articulate what a space of inclusivity and “challenging dialogue” looks like. The aim of brave spaces is not to protect participants from psychological or emotional discomfort, but to create the conditions for courageous conversations about race (Arao & Clemens, Citation2013).
6 Existing opportunities for cross-institute collaboration include the William Alanson White Institute’s Study Group on Race and Psychoanalysis, which typically meets on the third Wednesday of each month from 8:30 to 10:00 pm and is open to all. Interested parties should email Toni Hellmann, LCSW at [email protected].
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Naomi Snider
Naomi Snider, LLM is a research fellow at NYU’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development and a candidate in psychoanalytic training at the William Alanson White Institute. Naomi’s writing and research focuses on the intersections of social injustice and psychological struggle. Her published works include the 2018 book Why Does Patriarchy Persist?, coauthored with Carol Gilligan (Cambridge, MA: Polity Press), and the article, “Why didn’t she walk away? Silence, complicity, and the subtle force of toxic femininity” (Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 54[4), 2018).