Our psychoanalytic training system, close to a century old, has been subjected to increasing criticism, starting shortly after its creation, for failing to properly fulfill its avowed purposes. The most intense critiques have centered around the authoritarian power lodged in a self-selected training analyst elite, the inadequate development of a psychoanalytic research tradition, and the isolation of our educational structure from cognate disciplines concerned with human mental life, owing to its private and part-time nature, apart from the university with its spectrum of biological and human sciences. Efforts to reform this system, including the establishment of psychoanalytic institutes within medical school departments of psychiatry, and the further call for their autonomous placement within the university at large, with full-time students and faculty, have been only partially successful and have not become widespread. The values of the newly emerging multifaceted psychoanalytic center as the best currently achievable fundamental reform are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arlow, J.A. (1969). Myth and ritual in psychoanalytic training: Report of the first three-institute conference: Chicago, Pittsburgh , Topeka, pp. 104—120.
2.
——— (1972). Some dilemmas in psychoanalytic education. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association20:556—566.
3.
Auchincloss, E.L., & Michels, R. (2003). A reassessment of psychoanalytic education: Controversies and changes. International Journal of Psychoanalysis84:387—403.
4.
Balint, M. (1948). On the psychoanalytic training system. International Journal of Psychoanalysis29:163—173.
5.
——— (1954). Analytic training and training analysis. International Journal of Psychoanalysis35:157—162.
6.
Bernfeld, S. (1962). On psychoanalytic training. Psychoanalytic Quarterly31:453—482.
7.
Bruzzone, M., Casaula, E., Jimenez, J.P., & Jordan, J.F. (1985). Regression and persecution in analytic training: Reflections on experience. International Review of Psychoanalysis12:411—415.
8.
Casement, P. (2005). The emperor's clothes: Some serious problems in psychoanalytic training. International Journal of Psychoanalysis86:1143—1160.
9.
Cooper, A.M. (1984). Psychoanalysis at one hundred: Beginnings of maturity . Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association32:245—267.
10.
Engel, G.L. (1968). Some obstacles to the development of research in psychoanalysis. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association16:195—204.
11.
Fonagy, P., Jones, E., Kächele, H., Krause, R., Clarkin, J.F., Perron, R., Gerber, A., & Allison, E. (2002). An Open Door Review of Outcome Studies in Psychoanalysis . Rev. ed. London: International Psychoanalytical Association.
12.
——— Kächele, H., Krause, R., Jones, E., & Perron, R. (1999). An Open Door Review of Outcome Studies in Psychoanalysis . International Psychoanalytical Association.
13.
Freud, A. (1971). The ideal psychoanalytic institute: A utopia. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic35:225—239.
14.
Freud, S. (1919). On the teaching of psycho-analysis in universities . Standard Edition17:171—173.
15.
——— (1926). The question of lay analysis: Conversations with an impartial person. Standard Edition20:183—250.
16.
——— (1937). Analysis terminable and interminable. Standard Edition23:216—253.
17.
Garza-Guerrero, C. (2004). Reorganisational and educational demands of psychoanalytic training today: Our long and marasmic night of one century. International Journal of Psychoanalysis85:3—13.
18.
Goodman, S., ED. (1977). Psychoanalytic Education and Research: The Current Situation and Future Possibilities. New York: International Universities Press.
19.
Holzman, P.S. (1976). The future of psychoanalysis and its institutes . Psychoanalytic Quarterly45:250—273.
20.
——— (1985). Psychoanalysis: Is the therapy destroying the science?Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association33:725—770.
21.
Kächele, H., & Thomä, H. (2000). On the devaluation of the Eitingon-Freud model of psychoanalytic education. International Journal of Psychoanalysis81:806—808.
22.
Kairys, D. (1964). The training analysis: A critical review of the literature and a controversial proposal. Psychoanalytic Quarterly33:485—512.
23.
Kernberg, O.F. (1986). Institutional problems of psychoanalytic education . Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association34:799—834.
24.
——— (1992). Authoritarianism, culture, and personality in psychoanalytic education. Journal of the International Association for the History of Psychoanalysis5:341—354.
25.
——— (1996). Thirty methods to destroy the creativity of psychoanalytic candidates. International Journal of Psychoanalysis77:1031—1040.
26.
——— (1997). Resistances to research in psychoanalysis. In Contemporary Controversies in Psychoanalytic Theory, Techniques, and Their Applications. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004, pp. 86—93.
27.
——— (2000). A concerned critique of psychoanalytic education . International Journal of Psychoanalysis81:97—120.
28.
——— (2002). Presidential address. International Journal of Psychoanalysis83:197—203.
29.
——— (2004a). Discussion: Problems of power in psychoanalytic institutions. Psychoanalytic Inquiry24:106—121.
30.
——— (2004b). Some proposed complementary solutions to the problems of psychoanalytic education. In Contemporary Controversies in Psychoanalytic Theory, Techniques, and their Applications. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 132—141.
31.
——— (2006). The coming changes in psychoanalytic education: Part 1. International Journal of Psychoanalysis87:1649—1673.
32.
——— (2007). The coming changes in psychoanalytic education: Part 2. International Journal of Psychoanalysis88:183—202.
33.
Kerr, J. (2004). “The goody-goods are no good”: Notes on power and authority in the early history of psychoanalysis, with special reference to training. Psychoanalytic Inquiry24:7—30.
34.
Lifschutz, J.E. (1976). A critique of reporting and assessment in the training analysis. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association24:43—59.
35.
Lippmann, W. (1966). The university. New Republic, May 28.
36.
Meyer, L. (2003). Subservient analysis. International Journal of Psychoanalysis84:1241—1262.
37.
Shakow, D. (1962). Psychoanalytic education of behavioral and social scientists for research. In Science and Psychoanalysis, ed. J.H. Masserman. Vol. 5. New York: Basic Books, pp. 146—161.
38.
Thomä, H. (1993). Training analysis and psychoanalytic education: Proposals for reform. Annual ofPsychoanalysis21:3—75.
39.
Wallerstein, R.S. (1968). Discussion of George L. Engel: “Some obstacles to the development of research in psychoanalysis.” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association16:215—222.
40.
——— (1972). The futures of psychoanalytic education. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association20:591—606.
41.
——— (1974). Herbert S. Gaskill and the history of American psychoanalysis in American psychiatry. Denver Psychoanalytic Society Newsletter1(3):1—9.
42.
——— (1978). The mental health professions: Conceptualization and reconceptualization of a new discipline. International Review of Psychoanalysis5:377—392.
43.
——— (1980). Psychoanalysis and academic psychiatry—bridges . Psychoanalytic Study of the Child35:419—448.
44.
——— (1983). The Topeka Institute and the future of psychoanalysis . Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic47:497—518.
45.
——— (1991). Psychoanalytic education and research: A transformative proposal. Psychoanalytic Inquiry11:196—226.
46.
——— (1993). Between chaos and petrification: A summary of the fifth IPA Conference of Training Analysts. International Journal of Psychoanalysis74:165—178.
47.
——— & Weinshel, E.M. (1989). The future of psychoanalysis . Psychoanalytic Quarterly58:341—373.
