AFTA Newsletter

(submission by Anna Dienhart)

First Impressions . . .

For years I had heard colleagues talk about their wonderful experiences in the AFTA organization and, especially, the annual conferences. I must admit, I felt some envy when they talked about the stimulating plenary presentations and interest group discussions. Since I am not, typically, an enthusiastic conference goer — I usually find the crowds of people a bit daunting and the scheduling of serial talk at you presentations an overload of information — I was intrigued to hear about a different kind of experience.

So . . . On a cold winter day last January, when my colleague, Jean Turner, suggested we co-present some work at the upcoming AFTA Conference in June, I surprised myself and jumped at the chance. The intrigue about an "AFTA experience" pushed me over my usual "conference phobia" (I get even more anxious about presenting at a conference than I do about the crowds and information overload!) Jean assured me the crowd was friendly and usually engaged in fascinating dialogue. This sounded inviting.

Then came the hurdles around whether I could attend, given my non-member status. So, I began the process of membership application. Some anxiousness set in as I scanned my (small) network of professional colleagues for those who might already be AFTA members who could recommend me to this organization. Questions arose, "Am I truly qualified for membership, as it seems a rather prestigious group with a daunting impression of 'insider' screening?" "Do I want to belong to a group which seems so 'elite'?" "What does this membership process say about the general texture of the organization?" "How is this group different from AAMFT?" and "What will be different about being a member of AFTA than I experience as a member of several other professional organizations?" At some point, my colleague (Jean) let me know it had been decided I could attend the conference as an "invited guest" since I was co-presenting with her, but it would be better if I was in the process of applying.

Despite some hesitation stemming from these questions, I persevered and approached the required four colleagues for references (as, I only knew two AFTA members) and began the application process. I must say the administrative staff in Washington were a BIG help here and were also most pleasant, responsive and timely in being so (already a difference from some other organizations!).

So, I arrived in San Diego for the conference, stepping off the plane and almost immediately into the "White People's Caucus." Oh... Yes! This was different! Members were open, engaged, and serious about making a difference in the organization and in society. They seemed to be talking candidly about personal and professional struggles to be more aware, sensitive, and responsible for racism, in its blatant and, more importantly, subtle, insidious forms in daily life. Having lived in Canada for the past twenty-two years (though still a US citizen) this was a conversation that held my attention and challenged me to consider the nuances of similarities and differences in international experiences.

It is most important to stress "conversation" here, because I experienced the afternoon as a series of conversations, in groups which varied in size and composition. Indeed, this was engaging, serious and intriguing — and it was not so easy for me to become a passive conference goer!

I did find myself wondering about the history of this "caucus," especially noting the separation from the "people of color caucus." What does this say about where the organization is with respect to issues of diversity and inclusion? Where does the organization see itself going? In the following days, I heard different people talk about some hopes to pursue developments on these fronts respectfully.

An incongruity? The group which opened the first plenary seemed to represent a local organization working to empower youth to know their cultural heritage and to reconnect with it in life affirming ways. Again the presence of diversity, yet seemingly a circumscribed engagement. How could we have, even within the "conference" environment, more fully engaged these people and embraced the sacredness of their quest? Or would to try to do so be disrespectful? In these questions I am keenly aware of my disconnection from my own US roots.

Then there was the "women's caucus." Another new and stimulating experience. I thoroughly enjoyed meeting women from various places in the U.S. and abroad. I found it fascinating to explore questions that took us to both personal and political places, resulting in multi-layered connections which usually do not happen easily at conferences. However, since my research focuses on men in families, I found myself wondering what I would have learned if I had been eavesdropping on the "men's caucus". What does it say that I would have had to eavesdrop to learn from men talking about men's' experiences? I am aware this question is not limited to an AFTA forum. However, what does this kind of separation specifically say about where AFTA is in dialogue about gender?

Knowing what I know about myself and conference fatigue, I selectively attended plenary sessions, post-plenary discussion groups, clinical discussions, and interest groups. I found the variety of offerings fit my preferences and represented a significant difference from other conference offerings. Importantly, I found the variety also very engaging. The kinds of discussions happening in most of the formats were both intellectually and personally stimulating, people seem to be very engaged and revealing of their "stance" on issues. Controversy was generated (this is always stimulating!) and people seemed respectful of the different perspectives offered. My one regret is, I did not attend any of the more "social" evening functions — they seemed to be held in interesting places, and by that time I was beginning to get a feeling of how much warmth and friendliness, as well as professionalism and intellectual pursuit, is in the air at AFTA conferences. I noticed most people smile at you when passing in hallways, people stop and engage familiar colleagues and newcomers alike, there were refreshments provided which invited both casual and serious exchanges after presentations. I had the impression that people really enjoyed the chance to connect, reflect on new and old ideas, as well as different perspectives, and catch up with each other professionally and personally. At the "newcomers breakfast," someone depicted AFTA as a interactive organization that is interested in member's initiatives, is endeavoring to be responsive to possible new directions, and thrives on member's active participation — he said not to expect a passive experience. I could surely detect the signs of such a culture.

While I remain a (somewhat) reluctant conference goer, I believe the AFTA conference offers a refreshing alternative to my "old story" of what can be in store for me when I attend. Nonetheless, I sense AFTA is struggling at a crossroads of some sort. It seems that, on one hand, there are significant outreach efforts — especially to bring in new members — and a commitment in some circles to move the organization toward a culture embracing diversity. At the same time, though, I felt tensions, and heard comments, surrounding the possibility that familiar connections, favored forums, and comfortable ideas might be left behind.

I am now a member of AFTA and plan to attend future conferences, as well as begin to entertain how I can contribute. I look forward to belonging to this organization as it seems committed to generating thought provoking professional conversations, especially in areas that push the field of family therapy beyond what has been.

Anna Dienhart

After changing careers at mid-life (formerly an international economic consultant), I earned my Ph.D. in Family Relations and Human Development in 1995 from the University of Guelph in Canada. I am currently the Director of the University of Guelph's graduate program (Master's level) in Couple & Family Therapy. My research interests focus on men's experiences of family life, especially fatherhood, and developing ways to effectively engage men in family therapy.