A mixed-model for psychoanalytic education*

Abstract

If psychoanalysis is to avoid total marginalization, something has to be changed in the way future generations are prepared for working with patients and doing research. Reformation of psychoanalytic education may easily be the crucial issue when it comes to the survival of psychoanalysis. Its current organizational scheme has been criticized for various reasons, and various models of its structure have been proposed. I advocate a model that would combine the best features of the university education (training in clinical skills together with philosophy of science and research methodology) with personal analysis as part of psychoanalytic institutes. Although universities can remedy some of the problems of psychoanalytic institutions, they cannot contain the subjective experience of being analyzed.     

The coming changes in psychoanalytic education: Part I

The author presents a critical overview of the literature on psychoanalytic education, focusing on criticism regarding structural aspects of our educational institutions. He then presents arguments for the need of radical changes in the organizational structure of institutes, and focuses on the problems of the training analysis system. He proposes concrete solutions for these problems, in the form of changes both in the assignment of responsibilities for the personal analysis of candidates and in the selection and function of supervisors.     

The coming changes in psychoanalytic education: Part II

This paper is the second part of a general analysis of problems in contemporary psychoanalytic education. Having proposed changes in the training analysis and supervisory systems in Part I, here the author focuses on concrete proposals regarding changes in the curriculum, seminars and classroom teaching; the governance of psychoanalytic institutes, relationship of institutes with their respective psychoanalytic society and the role of the university in the development of science and research; the admission, progression, and graduating processes; certifi cation and accreditation.     

IUSAM-APdeBA: A higher education institute for psychoanalytic training

The history of the last century shows the almost constant presence of psychoanalysis in the academic setting and, simultaneously, the incredible absence of analytic training at the universities. This paper outlines the project of the Buenos Aires Psychoanalytic Association (APdeBA) to create a higher education institution of its own (IUSAM) specifically aimed at lodging psychoanalytic training within a university setting. The project was approved by the Argentine educational authorities in 2005 and received the economic support of the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA). The academic structure of the university is described, whose goal is broadened to the interdisciplinary field of mental health with psychoanalysis as an integrating axis. Some of the characteristics of the traditional 'university model' as well as its relationship with psychoanalysis are pointed out. With the IUSAM, psychoanalytic training is not included as a part of an already established university, it rather creates a new one, with the support of a well-known psychoanalytical association (APdeBA) which endorses its activities and guarantees its identity. IPA's requirements for analytic training (didactic analysis, supervisions and seminars) have been fully preserved in this new context. Finally, some of the advantages and disadvantages of including analytic training into an academic environment are listed .     

Impoverishment of psychoanalysis. On the decline of psychoanalytic education

Anyone wishing to practice the "impossible profession" must once again overcome the resistances that originally produced the insights of psychoanalysis. Training analysts and institute faculty members pass on their successful as well as their failed attempts to surmount these resistances to the next generation. Herein lies the danger that the quality of training may decline as well as the opportunity to enrich psychoanalytic knowledge.     

A reassessment of psychoanalytic education: Controversies and changes2

To understand the many controversies surrounding psychoanalytic education, it is necessary first to understand the unique role played by education in our field where control of educational structures remains the most important measure of professional success for the majority of psychoanalysts. To keep debate about educational policy focused on the task of strengthening the intellectual basis of psychoanalysis, it is also necessary to understand that forces affecting education arise from at least three different domains which can too easily become confused with one another: 1) the domain of knowledge‐ intellectual, scientific and clinical; 2) the domain of the organized professional community; and 3) the domain of local institutional politics. The authors explore controversy arising within and among each of these domains. They also explore the major alternatives proposed to the Eitingon model of psychoanalytic education, arguing that excessive authoritarianism in education arises not from the existence of hierarchical structures per se (as suggested by the ‘French model’), but from two other factors: the condensation of all important professional functions into the single ‘monolithic’ position of the training analyst, and the lack of agreed upon methodology for determining the validity of theoretical propositions. The solution lies not in obliterating all gaps in expertise and status by doing away with hierarchical structures altogether, but rather in strengthening the intellectual, scholarly and research context within which psychoanalytic education takes place. We must attempt to relocate our experience of a gap where it belongs: not between those who are training analysts and those who are not, but between what we feel we already know about mental life and what we do not yet know.     

The Emperor's clothes: Some serious problems in psychoanalytic training

The author discusses some of the key problems in psychoanalytic training, in particular those problems that stem from the power differential between training analysts and students in training. One effect of this differential can be that some students feel a pressure to comply with their teachers and supervisors, even their training analyst, in ways that can be seriously detrimental to their development. Further, when something goes wrong in a student's training, how is this to be viewed by those in charge of the training? Also, how are complaints dealt with? Is suffi cient weight given to external reality? Too often training analysts, and training committees, get into pathologising a student in a process that should be recognised as ‘wild analysis in committee’, rather than considering more carefully the external realities that may be affecting a student's progress in the training. This ‘analysis’ in committee should never be allowed. There is an urgency for immediate changes to be made in psychoanalytic training so that the problems discussed, with more care being taken, should be prevented from happening. Too often, however, an institutional resistance to change dominates discussions in committee, and in society meetings, with the result that little or no change takes place even after years of debate.