| Men's Institute Daniel Kusnir The Meeting of the
Americas was a very special Meeting for me. I had a blast! I felt as though
this Meeting allowed me to fuse together pieces of myself that are usually
excluded from my experiences in AFTA. Maybe it was because my wife, Rosario,
was there to share the experience with me. Or maybe it had something to do
with reuniting with Carlos Sluzki, the sponsor of my psychiatric residency
in the U.S. Perhaps it was Salvador Minuchin’s memories of training and political
experience in the forties — including memories of experiences he shared with
an uncle of mine — perhaps listening to those triggered something. Or perhaps
this feeling came from an encounter I had with Graciela Cohan. I remember,
distinctly, how one of Graciela’s comments triggered a feeling of trepidation
in me. At one point in our conversation, she expressed a fervent interest
in participating in the Men’s Institute, in order to understand our “obscure
and unpredictable nature.” While my description of the usual content and format
of the Institute dissuaded her from pursuing her interest further, this encounter
turned out to be an uncanny prediction of the future. Later in the Meeting,
a conversation with Len Sharber circled insistently around two main topics.
The first had to do with the necessity of replacing Bart Rubin, one of the
three co-coordinators of the Men’s Institute who, due to unforeseen circumstances,
was unable to attend. The second topic centered on the unexpected discovery
of two female names among those listed as participants in the Men’s Institute.
While the first problem was quickly resolved through the benevolent support
of Robert Carroll, who expressed his willingness to fill in for Bart, the
second problem haunted us until the beginning of the Institute. The appearance
of the names caught us unaware; we were puzzled, and ultimately decided to
share the issue with the participants. As it turned out,
the appearance of one of the names was the result of a simple transposition:
the name of the person who made the reservation was entered in place of the
name of the participant. The other name turned out to be a misspelling. Though
this incident was sparked by two minor, chance occurrences, the way in which
the theme pervaded the Institute and became a focus for discussion was not
a result of random forces. There is a lot that participants value in the Institute.
At the same time, tensions within the Institute are building, especially when
discussing issues involving diversity, women, and political and socioeconomic
concerns. While some discussion of these issues has transpired, and small
changes have been made, there is a silent trend that is more noticeable: many
men have stopped coming to the Institute. My experience of AFTA
since I was invited in to the San Francisco Meeting in 1996 has been unexpectedly
deep, moving and satisfying. Three events I experienced at that Meeting left
an indelible impression on me. The first was the Men’s Institute, the second,
a group for those confronted with devastating illness lead by Kaethe Weingarten
and Ellen Pulleyblank, and the third was the initial reception, where I had
a personal conversation with Lyman Wynne. At that Meeting, I found an abundance
of human warmth and a genuine interest in establishing caring human contact
through the sharing of longings and the expression of shortcomings. To me,
AFTA appeared markedly different from most of the professional organizations
I had previously encountered, where competition and rivalry seemed the norm,
and a Frankensteinian style of functioning based on abandonment and neglect
struck me as, unfortunately, typical. Truly, in AFTA I have had the experience
of having been invited and welcomed by an organization, as opposed to the
experience of having merely been used by one. In Minneapolis, I asked Robert-Jay
Green how I might participate more fully, and I discovered that the organization
was open, not only to personal contact, but open, as well, to the inclusion
of newcomers in organizational activities.
My experience with the Men’s Institute since 1996 continues to be rewarding.
I find that many of my own feelings are mirrored by the opinions expressed
by the 20002001 participants regarding the positive qualities of the Institute.
They described the Institute as an experience with no precedent, a place where
people will care, whether you’re talking about your son’s graduation or being
diagnosed as diabetic; it’s a group with no previously established agenda,
where competition is postponed. Though at first you might experience fear
or trepidation, in time you’ll find that this is a place where men take care
of each other. Participants spoke a lot about what we learned about our fathers.
They spoke about the wide variety of subjects visited: the complexity of sexual
issues, failures, quandaries, disease, aging, and the prospect of dying; parenting,
divorcing, what it means to come to the U.S. as a refugee. They commented
on the value of discussing with other men what it means to be a male therapist. At the same time,
current shortcomings cannot be denied, and I identify, too, with many of the
participants’ less favorable observations, such as the difficulty some of
them expressed at attending in the absence of many good friends. In 1999,
at the Washington Meeting, Robert-Jay Green, Lascelles Black, and other members
indicated that the Men’s Institute was not making good on promises made in
Montreal regarding inclusiveness, and they courageously shared some of their
subjective feelings of distress. They described feeling, to varying degrees,
both intimidated and neglected when attending the Institute. Other members
agreed, saying that there is an avoidance of issues regarding gayness and
alternative sexual orientations and practices. Other members noted the absence
of discussion surrounding issues of color and concerning diversity in general,
and worried that, among others, Latinos, African Americans, and, perhaps,
younger members might not feel welcome to participate. Some of the men felt
that other important issues should have been included, but weren’t, e.g.,
managed care and the lack of funding for mental health. Some expressed their
belief that the Men’s Institute is not taking a role in helping us take responsibility
for ourselves and each other regarding the problems of privilege, including
race domination, gender economics and the flipside of these—being pigeonholed
in the provider role. Also found lacking in this area is discussion of how
we, as men, treat women from our position of privilege. As far as interpretations
of the Institute’s process from its inception to the present are concerned,
it is sometimes difficult for me to distinguish myth from history. In the
context of an organization trying to re-create itself, some members perceive
the creation of the Men’s Institute as having come from the experience that
the men of AFTA may have had in playing a secondary, diminished role. They
see it as a reaction to the increased politicization of the Women’s Institute,
as a metaphorical plea of “no contest” to their dialogue request. In that
sense, they see the creation of the Men’s Institute as a way of becoming self
protected and “conservative,” by focusing in the “personal,” “familial”"
and mainstream. It is essential to
the protection of the many positive aspects of the Men’s Institute that its
participants begin to work on a specific plan for a future Institute, one
that holds the possibility for permanent change and, yet, leaves room for
accommodation. The strengths of the Institute should be retained; the “baby”
should not be thrown out with the “bathwater.” Though we might fear
that the pursuit of an elusive political agenda will bring back undesirable
confrontations and deprive us of the growth that comes only from connection,
we might also perceive a certain maturity in an Institute that has come to
crossroads such as these. The Men’s Institute, like AFTA, is at a turning
point. And if it, like AFTA, is to continue to mature into a new type of organization,
it will depend on an atmosphere where the intimate, familial, and personal
is not perceived as antithetical to the diverse, institutional, and socially
responsible, but where each of these viewpoints is seen as the earth in which
the other can grow. As such, this is, and always will be, a work in progress. The Men’s Institute
will try to cover as many bases as possible at the 2002 meeting in Asilomar.
We will try to find ways to develop a multi-track Men’s Institute that is
more loyal to its participants, and to the organization as a whole, in its
increasing diversity. It will need to remain loyal to those who are satisfied,
loyal to those who have concerns, and attentive to those it wishes to regain
as participants. We need to find an etiquette that reflects our strong wish
to understand one another in our variety of personal experiences, without
hurting each other in the process. We will need to find a way to take responsibility
how we treat women and in examining how women relate with us. And we will
need to pay more attention to the economic divide perpetuated by choosing
opulent hotels that younger participants may have difficulty affording, and
investigate the possibilities for making alternative arrangements, such as
dorms on university campuses. As I said, we have a lot of bases to cover;
it’s as if we were inventing a whole new game—perhaps we are.
Please e-mail reactions, ideas and proposals to 2002 coordinators,
David Trimble (dtrimble@world.std.com) and Daniel Kusnir (Kusnirdan@juno.com). Daniel Kusnir, MD, practiced in Argentina until the military
dictatorship made his position at the board of the Buenos Aires Psychiatric
Association personally dangerous. He has worked and taught at the Postgraduate
Mexican Autonomic University, was married in Mexico, and has two teenagers.
In the U.S. since 1986, he currently works in a community mental health agency
in California, and is also interested in developing resources for treatment
of victims of torture in the U.S. and abroad. |
