The International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA) is an association including 12,000 psychoanalysts as members and works with 70 constituent organizations. It was founded in 1910 by Sigmund Freud, on an idea proposed by Sándor Ferenczi.
In 1902 Sigmund Freud started to meet every week with colleagues to discuss his work, and so the Psychological Wednesday Society was born. By 1908 there were 14 regular members and some guests including Max Eitingon, Carl Jung, Karl Abraham, and Ernest Jones, all future Presidents of the IPA.Society became the Vienna Psychoanalytical Society.
In 1907 Jones suggested to Jung that an international meeting should be arranged. Freud welcomed the proposal. The meeting took place in Salzburg on April 27, 1908. Jung named it the "First Congress for Freudian Psychology". It is later reckoned to be the first International Psychoanalytical Congress. Even so, the IPA had not yet been founded.
The IPA was established at the next Congress held at Nuremberg in March 1910. Its first President was Carl Jung, and its first Secretary was Otto Rank. Sigmund Freud considered an international organization to be essential to advance his ideas. In 1914 Freud published a paper entitled The History of the Psychoanalytic Movement.
The IPA is the world's primary accrediting and regulatory body for psychoanalysis. The IPA's aims include creating new psychoanalytic groups, stimulating debate, conducting research, developing training policies and establishing links with other bodies. It organizes a large biennial Congress.
There is a Regional Organisation for each of the IPA's 3 regions:
Each of these three bodies consists of Constituent Organisations and Study Groups that are part of that IPA region. The IPA has a close working relationship with each of these independent organisations and values them highly, but they are not officially or legally part of the IPA.
The IPA's members qualify for membership by being a member of a "constituent organisation" (or the sole regional association).
"Study Groups" are bodies of analysts which have not yet developed sufficiently to be a freestanding society, but that is their aim.
"Allied Centres" are groups of people with an interest in psychoanalysis, in places where there are not already societies or study groups.
The first 23 Congresses of IPA did not have a specific theme.
|2||1910||Nuremberg||C. G. Jung|
|3||1911||Weimar||C. G. Jung|
|4||1913||Munich||C. G. Jung|
|6||1920||The Hague||Sándor Ferenczi|
|9||1925||Bad Homburg||K Abraham / M Eitingon|
|17||1951||Amsterdam||Leo H. Bartemeier|
|21||1959||Copenhagen||William H. Gillespie|
|22||1961||Edinburgh||William H. Gillespie|
|24||1965||Amsterdam||Gillespie/Greenacre||Psychoanalytic Treatment of the Obsessional Neurosis|
|25||1967||Copenhagen||P.J. van der Leeuw||On Acting Out and its Role in the Psychoanalytic Process|
|26||1969||Rome||P.J. van der Leeuw||New Developments in Psychoanalysis|
|27||1971||Vienna||Leo Rangell||The Psychoanalytical Concept of Aggression|
|28||1973||Paris||Leo Rangell||Transference and Hysteria Today|
|29||1975||London||Serge Lebovici||Changes in Psychoanalytic Practice and Experience|
|30||1977||Jerusalem||Serge Lebovici||Affects and the Psychoanalytic Situation|
|31||1979||New York City||Edward D. Joseph||Clinical Issues in Psychoanalysis|
|32||1981||Helsinki||Edward D. Joseph||Early Psychic Development as Reflected in the Psychoanalytic Process|
|33||1983||Madrid||Adam Limentani||The Psychoanalyst at Work|
|34||1985||Hamburg||Adam Limentani||Identification and its Vicissitudes|
|35||1987||Montreal||Robert S. Wallerstein||Analysis Terminable and Interminable - 50 Years Later|
|36||1989||Rome||Robert S. Wallerstein||Common Ground in Psychoanalysis|
|37||1991||Buenos Aires||Joseph J. Sandler||Psychic Change|
|38||1993||Amsterdam||Joseph J. Sandler||The Psychoanalyst's Mind - From Listening to Interpretation|
|39||1995||San Francisco||R. Horacio Etchegoyen||Psychic Reality - Its Impact on the Analyst and Patient Today|
|40||1997||Barcelona||R. Horacio Etchegoyen||Psychoanalysis and Sexuality|
|41||1999||Santiago||Otto F. Kernberg||Affect in Theory and Practice|
|42||2001||Nice||Otto F. Kernberg||Psychoanalysis - Method and Application|
|43||2004||New Orleans||Daniel Widlöcher||Working at the Frontiers|
|44||2005||Rio de Janeiro||Daniel Widlöcher||Trauma: New Developments in Psychoanalysis|
|45||2007||Berlin||Cláudio Laks Eizirik||Remembering, Repeating and Working Through in Psychoanalysis & Culture Today|
|46||2009||Chicago||Cláudio Laks Eizirik||Psychoanalytic Practice - Convergences and Divergences|
|47||2011||Mexico City||Charles Hanly||Exploring Core Concepts: Sexuality, Dreams and the Unconscious|
|48||2013||Prague||Charles Hanly||Facing the Pain: Clinical Experience and the Development of Psychoanalytic Knowledge|
|49||2015||Boston||Stefano Bolognini||Changing World: the shape and use of psychoanalytic tools today|
|50||2017||Buenos Aires||Stefano Bolognini||Intimacy|
|51||2019||London||Virginia Ungar||The Feminine|
|52||2021||Vancouver||Virginia Ungar||The infantile: its multiple dimensions|
In 1999, Elisabeth Roudinesco noted that IPA professionalizing psychoanalysis had become "a machine to manufacture significant". She also said that in France, "Lacanian colleagues looked IPA as bureaucrats who had betrayed psychoanalysis in favour of an adaptive psychology in the service of triumphant capitalism". She wrote of the "IPA['s] Legitimist Freudianism, we mistakenly called "orthodox" ". Among Roudinesco's other criticisms, she wrote about "homophobia" in the IPA, considered as a "disgrace of psychoanalysis.
On the other hand, most criticisms against IPA tend to stick to Lacan's point of view from the 1950s, unaware of most of the developments, variety of schools and training models within this association in the last decades. One of the three training models in the IPA (the French Model), is mostly due to Lacan's ideas and their perspectives regarding the training.