The PANY Bulletin

Psychoanalytic Association of New York
Volume 43, #1 Spring 2005

Lawrence Chalfin, M.D.

by Michael Singer, D.O.
presented before the PANY Scientific Meeting
on February 28, 2005

I'd like to pay tribute to Larry Chalfin by talking about an aspect of his professional life that also combined his fine personal qualities—qualities that endeared him to many of us. It is especially fitting that we pay homage to Larry tonight, since this is a night devoted to candidates.

Larry's unfailing dedication to psychoanalytic education was probably the defining measure of his career. His appointments and elected positions certainly attest to this: at the NYU Institute he was Chair of the Admissions Committee, Secretary and Chair of the Education Committee, and Director; and at the American Psychoanalytic Association: Chair of the Committee on Institutes, Chair of the Board on Professional Standards, Chair of the BOPS Finance Committee and, over the last six years, Chair of Project 2000, a project he and Don Rosenblitt initiated. It has been said that Larry, as Chair of Project 2000, single handedly created a liaison between the Board on Professional Standards and candidates. The Project began essentially as a think tank to deliberate on how the pragmatic realities of today's psychoanalytic world can influence and even quietly erode the quality of analytic training. Of course, this intimately concerns the needs of candidates. Not satisfied to just think about these issues, the Project began to involve candidates in an active way.

Two of the recent past chairs of the candidates' Affiliate's Council at the American, Jane Walvoord and Nancy Blieden told me that the Project group under Larry's leadership created a place for candidates to feel comfortable enough to speak their mind and come up with creative ideas and programs that addressed some of the weaknesses of training. Two examples of this were a workshop on the supervisory dyad and one on critical thinking in analytic education. Larry also put candidates who had a particular interest in touch with senior analysts or committees who would facilitate the development of that candidate. Jane and Nancy spoke fondly, conveying that candidates felt they had a friend and supporter in Larry.

Years ago, when I was languishing in senior candidate land, I had my first close encounter with Larry. One night I got a phone call from a man who I had only known as one of my instructors explaining that he was calling on behalf of the Education Committee. He kindly asked me how I was doing. Tentatively, and somewhat nervously, I said I thought I was doing OK. During the course of our conversation, I realized that Larry knew about my candidacy—he seemed to know me—and he gently encouraged me, with some affirming and reassuring comments, to move toward graduation. It helped. I felt reached out to and that he and others were actually thinking about me and were concerned for me. This kind of conveyance was to be a part of our relationship in the years to come.
When Larry was Director and Howard Welsh was the Chair of the Education Committee and I the Secretary of the EC, Howard and I never ceased to be amazed by the extent of Larry's involvement—with the institute as well as with us. He went to practically every meeting of every committee and still managed to call us on what seemed like every night—for three years! We were included in every decision that needed to be made, Larry valuing our opinions and sharing selflessly—cultivating and educating us as future leaders of the institute. His considerateness and generosity were enormous and I am eternally grateful to him for that.

Always considering his junior colleagues, Larry welcomed and encouraged them. As Director at NYU he made sure that recent graduates were included in the Executive Committee so they could participate in and learn about the workings of the institute. One could count on Larry's always careful and sensitive opinions regarding candidates at student progression meetings. There were also times when he was too careful and hands-off in the case, say, of a student who was not progressing well. It wasn't until I understood what Larry was about that I could appreciate this was his respect for the individuality of another and the care he took to not step on it. His quiet thoughtfulness and respect for the autonomy and pace of an individual was a form of love—his family knows this well—and it characterized his work as an analyst. He wanted to help patients discover at their own tolerance. He believed firmly and respectfully in the power and delicacy of the analytic process and the analytic experience, and he understood that the personal training analysis was the keystone in analytic training and its outcome would determine the caliber of the analytic identity of a psychoanalyst; that person in turn influencing future generations, and so on.

It was this kind of respect for the analytic experience that helped form his steadfast defense of education and practice standards and which ultimately made his tenure as Board Chair not an easy one. Before many others, Larry recognized that membership needs at the American were challenging standards; expediency was becoming appealing. Larry believed firmly that psychoanalytic education was training analysts to treat patients and should not be a political issue. He did not believe we should negotiate about things like the frequency of sessions. That kind of bargaining was absolutely abhorrent to him. While others were more willing to subject education and standards to the political process, he felt they were irresponsibly playing with the education of future analysts. He was a purist in this regard. His opponents often fumed and thought him too dogged and unyielding. I suppose this was true at times, but those that were with him could be inspired by his vision and his willingness to stand by it, and knew he could be realistic, that he had humility and a sense of fairness and would know when it was time to let go, though not without pain and sighing resignation.

I think Larry actually thrived as Board Chair. His patience and wisdom were evident and he seemed calmly at home even in the midst of uproars. These brought out his mettle.
Politically savvy but not a politician, Larry seemed to relish challenges. He was often prescient; could predict where a certain way of thinking would go even before it became a proposal or a ground swell. And if it looked like it wasn't going to go in a good direction, he invariably tried, unsuccessfully at times, to broker better choices with brilliant strategies. I know this sounds like a politician but that's not what Larry was about. His way of leading was not for the sake of a party line or personal power and aggrandizement but solely for the sake of firmly and abidingly held principles and beliefs. He could not be bought. Not coercive in his dealings with people, he protected standards by, in effect, putting the brakes on and getting people to think more carefully about the complexities and potential consequences of what they were proposing, just as he did. While some complained that Larry was too circumspect, no one would deny he was a deep and thorough thinker. He could be exceptionally clear … and sometimes he could be not so clear. But if you listened to him attentively, you would appreciate that he was thinking beyond the obvious, very carefully choosing his words, and taking things to another plane—one you might not get to yourself.

Contemplating was a way of life for Larry; he loved to ponder and was probably plagued by not being able to refrain from it. And when he asked: “What do you think?” he sincerely wanted to encourage you to think. When I would offer what I thought or ask him for his thoughts, a dialogue would ensue and I could be sure it would not end with the first go round. Larry would call me two or three times more, sometimes days later, continuing the line of thinking, often laughing at and apologizing for his inability to stop turning it over in his mind and developing so many sides of the same dilemma—all profoundly relevant. I learned a lot. He had a formidable mind—filled with ideas; filled with music and things cultured … and he had a prodigious memory—uncanny at times. It's a sad irony that such a mind could not withstand the ravages of the illness of his brain.

Larry was a friend and colleague, a teacher and mentor. I, along with many others, miss him. I miss his deep intelligence, quiet wisdom and counsel, and his warm support.