IPA and Health Committee has Established Collaborative Facebook Group

In response to my post about new IPA outreach initiatives, Harvey Schwartz wrote to inform members about the new IPA in Health Committee. Harvey wrote, “We have started a Facebook page of that title. We are gathering input from IPA analysts worldwide who work at the interface of the soma and the dynamic mind.  Feel free to read about and contribute to the many fascinating activities’ off the couch’ that our colleagues are involved with. https://www.facebook.com/groups/192953491474038/”
It’s exciting to me that this new committee is reaching out immediately to IPA members and sharing information about their ongoing work.  Harvey concluded, speaking for the IPA in Health Committee, “We welcome your involvement and participation in this project and your joining our Facebook page.”
 
Harvey added that the IPA in Health Committee is also in the process of establishing an IPA in Health Award which will be given to the project that best reflects work at the interface of the IPA and health. 
In fact, IPA President Virginia Ungar has just announced the IPA in the Community Awards that include awards for projects in four areas in addition to health:  IPA in Education, IPA and Humanitarian Organisations, IPA in Health, Violence, Psychoanalysis and Law, and IPA in Culture.
A first prize of US$1,000 and a second prize of US$500 will be awarded to the two best projects within each macro-area, with a special “President’s Award” of US$5,000 presented to the overall best project. 

Virginia Ungar said, “We know that many IPA members and candidates are already working outside of the consulting room, helping to expand the reach of psychoanalysis and improving access to people that otherwise may not have access to psychoanalytic treatment. These awards will raise awareness of this important work, and will help our members to connect their projects with others to enhance and promote the interchange of knowledge and experience.”

Further information about these new awards, including eligibility criteria and entry guidelines can be found here https://bit.ly/2OridDO.  Applications are due by the  31st January 2019.

A Modest Proposal for Resolving our Conflicts about Psychoanalytic Training

 

Last year’s vote by the IPA Board allowing greater flexibility in the frequency of sessions in training analyses has unleashed heated debates. These have highlighted how different psychoanalytic views have become divisive political topics, to the point that some societies have threatened to leave the IPA as a result of the Board vote. I feel confident that such threats will not come to pass but rather reflect underlying emotions – I suspect some combination of anger and fear – that need to be understood and dealt with as the IPA faces the necessity of change.

What makes people so fanatic and frantic about defending their particular brand of psychoanalysis?

Analysts have a passionate attachment to their theoretical models and their traditional training methods. However, globally and within the IPA there are numerous theoretical orientations and a variety of training models. Even though these may be very different from one another, in the end they are all called psychoanalysis.

This pluralism of theories and standards makes it difficult to agree on one standard mode to teach psychoanalytic practice and theory. The link between theoretical affiliation and models of training standards is not clear-cut.

However, we know our global psychoanalytic community includes drive theory analysts, relational analysts, object relation analysts and several post-modern approaches to psychoanalysis. Out of this profusion of theoretical viewpoints can one find a common denominator?

Whether the question is differences in theory or differences in training model preferences, debating opposing views on their respective merits seems to be an impossible challenge. The warring parties defend their point of view with sectarian fervor and discussions often end up with one side denigrating the other and claiming that they are not practicing real psychoanalysis.

Ann Marie Sandler, who recently passed away and is much missed, commented at the 1986 Clark Conference on Psychoanalytic Training for Psychologists on her surprise at the rigidity of her own views:

“I found myself wanting to deride those methods which were different from those I was accustomed to, and it took some time to overcome my culture shock and to accept, at an emotional level, the reality that there were outstanding analysts who have followed a different training route.”

Regardless of the training model we are attached to, our responsibility as analysts is to help candidates become competent analysts.

In North America, all societies but one (Quebec French Society) have always followed the Eitingon model. In 2007, the IPA officially accepted the French and Uruguayan models. These two models differ but both have always had analysis at 3x a week. Both of these models have produced some of our most gifted clinicians and theoreticians– André Green, Jean LaPlanche and Didier Anzieu are three well-known examples.

This raises an interesting question. Namely, besides frequency of sessions, what are the other aspects of psychoanalytic training that produce competent or even exemplary psychoanalysts?

I want to start with a question: What is the core nature of the psychoanalytic training experience that promotes a psychoanalytic mindset and identity?

Does it depend primarily on frequency or are there other factors involved? How does an analyst acquire this mode of thinking that is so unique? Psychoanalytic work is never a fixed skill; it is constantly evolving in the analyst’s mind.

Addressing the issue of psychoanalytic identity, Daniel Widlocher (President of the IPA from 2001-2005) stated in 1983: “Our identity as analysts depends on the discovery– which each person must discover on his own–of the psychoanalytic experience and the unique mode of mental functioning that it implies.”

Widlocher went on to say that psychoanalytic training, regardless of the model embraced, hopes to promote a “specific mode of mental functioning that does not come naturally to us”.

The main aim of a personal analysis during training is not only to prevent excessive countertransference reactions and to facilitate insight but also to help the candidate navigate without fear a totally different mode of thinking in which primary and secondary processes are combined with increasing self-awareness and the freedom to respond affectively.

In discussions about training outcomes, fostering the ability to set a psychoanalytic process in motion is often emphasized, as it should be. Of course, nobody has come up with an agreed upon definition of what constitutes a psychoanalytic process. Yet, most analysts, when they listen to case presentations, can intuitively feel or understand whether a psychoanalytic process is taking place. This situation brings to mind a quote from the Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who famously said he could not define what exactly is meant by the phrase ‘hard-core pornography, “But I know it when I see it”

I feel this is at the root of an eternal dilemma in psychoanalytic education. We expect candidates to be able to do something that we ourselves have trouble defining.

The current passionate debates about training standards make me think that as we search for solutions and agreement, we need to navigate between the Scylla and Charybdis of psychoanalytic training. One danger to avoid is that “anything goes.” The other danger, equally capable of wrecking our ship, is perfectionism combined with over- idealization and a rigid, critical, even sometimes persecutory atmosphere that promotes/demands submission on the part of the candidate.

I want to plea for open minds as we continue to try to experiment and innovate to find the best way to help candidates achieve analytic competence. Anxiety about change and eagerness to innovate can both lead to defensive posturing.

Here’s my “modest proposal,” with apologies to Jonathan Swift. No need to eat our young. I suggest that in future discussions, significant time be given for each opposing position to be argued, but with an important difference. Each case should be argued in depth by someone who holds an opposing point of view on the issue. Let’s have someone deeply committed to 4-5 per week frequency (or TA vetting) argue the case for flexibility to reduce frequency and a personal analyst. And let’s have someone who sees no problem with a frequency of three times a week and distrusts the traditional TA system present a strong argument for those positions.

Gunther

What is Going on in the IPA Right Now? Engaging the Community and Adapting to Change

Many North American analysts feel totally in the dark about what the IPA is doing and how they can possibly benefit from the IPA initiatives.

First, I want you to know about the new focus of this administration under the leadership of President Virginia Ungar and Vice President Sergio Nick. There is a new emphasis on reaching out in the community and changing our past ivory tower attitude where we kept ourselves apart from other professionals and did not make efforts to get involved in the community at large. To remedy this situation the IPA has created several committees that function under the heading of IPA in the Community. To give you an overview of the broad scope of this endeavor, the committees in this division include the IPA in EducationIPA and Humanitarian Organizations, and the IPA in Health, Violence, Law and Culture. As an example of the IPA’s social commitment, the president wrote a forceful letter condemning the separation of children from their immigrant parents.

The other important focus of the IPA nowadays is to assure high quality of training. This issue has been brought to the forefront as a result of the IPA’s Board vote last year changing the accepted frequency for analytic training to 3-5 sessions a week. This led to a concern among some that this flexibility would lead to a situation “where anything goes” and that standards of training were irrevocably altered. This attitude overlooks the fact that there has been a considerable gap between what is actually practiced and the Eitingon model as it was originally conceived.  Current discussions about good training practice tend to devolve into a focus on concrete numbers, overlooking the qualitative aspects of training. It is generally agreed that quantitative standards are not an adequate way to discuss the complexities of the models, particularly the Eitingon model.

To address these controversies and concerns, the IPA has created three new task forces.  The first one is the Task Force on Collegial Quality Assessment. This group is charged with developing a proposal for a collegial quality assessment tool or process. The purpose is to a provide means for sharing best practices among societies engaging all three training models and to reassure the Board and candidates that quality training standards are being achieved.  

The next task force is the Task Force on New Groups and Equivalence which addresses the issue of equivalence for groups who want to join the IPA and aims to assure that high training standards were achieved by new applicant group.  

The last new initiative is the Representation Task Force whose remit is to make recommendations to the Board as to what would be a fair system of democratic representation taking into account demographic changes in the IPA and to consider creating a Fourth IPA region for Asia-Pacific.

As you can see that there is a lot going on in the IPA. If you are interested in participating in one of the committees, please let one of the North American representatives know about your interest so you can be considered for an appointment.

Gunther

 

 

Freud’s Bar: IPA Outreach at Its Best

Second in a series:  What does the IPA Do For Me?

 

Many institutes and societies might be considering their outreach efforts for next year right now.  There is one program in particular that I highly recommend you look into.
This is an outreach project now known around the global psychoanalytic community as “Freud’s Bars.” These are events where young people meet analysts in an informal setting and discuss psychoanalysis over drinks or other refreshments. This turns out to be an effective-and even cool– way of raising interest in psychoanalysis, especially among university students.

Otto Fenichel became a member of the Vienna Society when he was 23 years old. Ernst Kris was a late bloomer-he didn’t start his analytic training until age 23. Alas, gone are the days when people began psychoanalytic training in their twenties.

The decrease of psychoanalytic candidates along with an aging membership in many Societies/Institutes in North America is an ongoing and mounting concern regarding the future of our discipline.

Now, we need innovative ways of reaching the young adult population which has the greatest interest in the complex workings of the human mind and serves as the pool of our future candidates, patients and psychoanalytic scholars. Freud’s Bar is a stellar example of a program that brings analysts back in contact with this population.

Fortunately, many IPA societies have developed effective outreach programs. The IPA has helped support their development and worked diligently to make information about model outreach programs available to all its members and societies.

College students are the primary target audience for the Freud’s Bar events. Regrettably, psychoanalysis is minimally present in universities and almost totally absent in psychology or psychiatry departments in this country. Yet college students are intensely interested in understanding the human mind. In fact, many analysts report that their own interest in psychoanalysis began with exposure to Freud’s writings in college.

David Clinton from the Swedish Society introduced the Freud’s Bar concept at the 2013 Prague IPA Congress, telling the audience about the success of that activity in Sweden.
Other societies picked up on this idea and organized local Freud Bar activities. One of the most successful programs is in Rome, sponsored by the Italian Psychoanalytic Society (SPI) which produced an excellent video in both Italian and English that showcases the project. Click here to view the English version.

I strongly recommend viewing the video if you do decide to create this kind of program as it contains how-to tips as well as a report on the Rome experience.  And if you are planning on taking a pass on this idea, my recommendation of giving it a viewing would be even stronger.

While the format varies a bit from city to city, the basic premise is to have a relaxed setting where young people feel comfortable, hear lively talks on topics of particular interest to them and can ask whatever questions they want.

In Rome, the discussions and informal lectures have been so successful that even high school students attend. The experiences of the societies that have started this informal activity have been very positive. People get to see analysts in an environment that is not stuffy and chat with them about questions they have about psychoanalysis.

The curiosity of the young people has been astonishing. They wanted to know about Freud’s ideas and if they are still pertinent in this day and age. They asked what it is like to be a psychoanalyst and what is entailed in getting psychoanalytic training.
The Freud’s Bar outreach program model has been successfully launched in cities from Toronto to Montevideo to Odessa.

The lesson of these activities is that we can and should reach out and establish personal contacts. We have to leave our offices and connect with people who are curious about psychoanalysis but have no opportunity to interact informally with analysts. Our historical attitudes of secrecy and avoiding community involvement have gone a long way toward the marginalization of psychoanalysis. We used to be part of the Zeitgeist; now we are an afterthought.

The IPA has collected information on many Freud’s Bar programs that you can access on the IPA website here. You can see entries for the programs in Berlin, Guadalajara, Brussels, London, Munich, Odessa, Rome, Toronto and Montevideo. Click on the country’s flag to view a description of the local program and related documents. You can also find more information in the IPA’s Outreach Resource Library in the Members Section “Freud’s Bar”.

For more information or advice on setting up your own Freud’s Bar in your city, contact the experienced organizers of the Rome program: Claudia Spadazzi claudiaspadazzi@libero.it  and Fabrizio Rocchetto fabrizio.rocchetto@spiweb.it

If we don’t leave our offices to interact with people who are curious about the human mind they will have misguided ideas about Freud and psychoanalysis and we will have only ourselves to blame.

The current IPA leadership is especially focused on this issue: exploring how can we develop strategies to go out in the community and inform people about psychoanalysis rather than waiting for them to find their way to us.

In an upcoming post, I’d like to tell you about another remarkably effective outreach program called the Summer University on Psychoanalysis that was developed by the German psychoanalytic society (DPV).

 

 

 

Removing the IPA’s Veil of Mystery–A Powerpoint That Tells you Who, What and Why

In February, IPA Vice President Sergio Nick gave a PowerPoint presentation at the APsaA meeting in New York.  The presentation contained a lot of useful information including the benefits the IPA provides its members.  It also elucidated at least some of the mysteries of IPA governance and explained the committee structure within the organization which is a good way of seeing more about how the IPA views its mission. I suspect some of you didn’t have a chance to hear Dr. Nick’s talk at the Meeting of Members early Friday morning, so I wanted to make it available to you.  
At the end of the presentation, you will see information about what steps to take if you are interested in serving on an IPA committee. I know we are all weighed down with time spent serving on local and national committees, but I urge you to consider getting involved with the IPA this way.  There is something really remarkable and invigorating about getting to know psychoanalysts from around the world while working together on a project. I’ve converted the PowerPoint to a PDF document. After seeing the presentation, if you have any questions or want the original slide deck, please feel free to contact me.
Click here to view the presentation.
The image that accompanies this post is the view from the new IPA headquarters in London.

Thoughts on Education and the Conundrm of the Essence of Psychoanalysis

We are now witnessing a lively debate on what a new direction in psychoanalytic training and formation should be. I believe many of our current controversies (which also happen to be very longstanding ones) are symptomatic, not foundational.

The recent vote of the IPA Board regarding the frequency of psychoanalysis and the discussions in APsaA over this past year have raised anew the question: what is the essence of psychoanalysis and how should it be taught? We are now caught in a limbo between our founding values and the recognition that psychoanalysis needs to evolve.

We are ambivalent about the icons of organized psychoanalysis – the couch, the TA system and the regulated frequency of weekly sessions during training. Many prefer to define psychoanalysis without reference to concrete techniques such as the use of the couch or 4-5 a week frequency. Yet these same people express the feeling that those techniques have played an important role in their own development as a psychoanalyst. Given this ambiguity, the question arises as to what constitutes the best possible psychoanalytic education or how to arrive at this.

The topic of training models has been discussed for decades and more than 300 papers have been written about this issue. Up until 2006, the only official model in the IPA procedural code was the Eitingon model with the 4-5 times a week frequency, although the French model had existed side-by-side since 1980. In 2003, Daniel Wildocher, the IPA president, proposed that analysis could be practiced 3,4 or 5 times a week. Indeed, three times a week analysis was already well ensconced in Latin America due to economic and cultural factors even though their model of education was fundamentally Eitingon. A task force composed of Bob Pyles, Shmuel Ehrlich and Fernando Weissman was created to study the problem eventually led to the IPA’s approval of three training models by 2006. To some degree, this development shifted the focus in psychoanalytic training from frequency to content although, in reality, this shift in emphasis did not generalize to the broad membership in North America and Europe.

In North America (with the exception of the Montreal French group, the SPM, which uses the French system) many feel that the weight of the past embodied in the Eitingon model has become a burdensome legacy. Given today’s pluralistic corpus of psychoanalysis, how do we define its essential characteristics and how do we teach it so as to educate competent and engaged analysts?

Longstanding debates about the difference between psychoanalysis and psychotherapy point to our confusion about the essence of psychoanalysis and the implications of that confusion for training.  Judy Logue recently raised the question: “is there a qualitative difference between psychoanalysis and psychotherapy or do we have a continuum in the spectrum?”

As far back as 1954, Rangell, in his paper, “Similarities and differences between Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychotherapy,” commented that APsaA’s committee formed to study this had not been able to “arrive at a modicum of agreement as to what constitutes psychoanalysis, psychotherapy and possible transitional forms”. The committee was forced to conclude that a strong resistance to any investigation of this problem existed.

I recall that a past president of FEPAL, the Latin American regional organization, related that he practices analysis in his view whether he sees the patient 5 sessions a week, once a week or once a month. His definition rests on the internal psychoanalytic setting of the analyst in terms of what defines the process as psychoanalytic.

So, here we are some 60 years later still without a general consensus regarding the differences between these two therapeutic approaches let alone a shared idea about the essence of what psychoanalysis is. We need to understand the meaning of this intellectual stalemate rather than continuing to argue past each other.

Current views of psychoanalysis have enlarged its definition. Presently, it is viewed both as a one-person psychology that studies intrapsychic processes and an intra-subjective process which asserts that the psychic realities of both participants are involved in the encounter and transformed by it.

It’s important to be aware that we use the word psychoanalysis to refer to two different things: a comprehensive theory of the mind and behavior and a clinical approach to relieve human suffering and facilitate human growth. Further, in terms of psychoanalytic clinical work, there are two uses for the word. First, we refer to classic psychoanalytic treatment which is also the official psychoanalytic training for the candidate within the institute and, secondly, the “psychoanalytic approach” which is widely recognized within mental health practice as a distinct and valuable perspective.

Tuckett  (2005) chose to approach the subject from the point of view of what defined psychoanalytic competence. Importantly, in his formulation, he left out the issue of frequency or the use of the couch.  Instead, he proposed three linked frames (specific to psychoanalysis) that he terms the participant-observational, the conceptual and the interventional.

When we consider what kind of psychoanalytic education we should strive for in order to qualify competent practitioners, this must be linked to what we mean by psychoanalysis and, in particular, what constitutes its essence. I wonder whether our confusion about its essence makes us prone to fall back on authoritarian means of enforcing one aspect or another. In the IPA at the moment, frequency is the battleground.

Unfortunately, we as a group show tremendous resistance to change. I don’t think this can be explained entirely by reference to power dynamics. For example, the Europeans who pioneered the exploration of defining psychoanalysis operationally (e.g. the working parties on comparative clinical methods and the specificity of psychoanalysis) are currently the most alarmed about the IPA’s recognition of 3x a week treatment frequency as a minimum within the Eitingon model.

A Modest Proposal

 

So, given the complexities of the present situation what are possible steps to clarify the problems we are now facing? I would suggest the following:

·      A respectful dialogue between opposing or different views devoid of rants or slurs. To achieve this, we have to face the anxiety we are experiencing as the field confronts the necessity for change juxtaposed with our attachment to traditional practices.

·      That we try to embrace the necessity of change intelligently and tolerate, explore and compare different approaches looking for what is essentially psychoanalytic across paradigms. Within ApsaA, for example, why not pair one institute that is pursuing a personal analyst approach with one that feels strongly about a TA system and let them have an ongoing dialogue about their training experience and results? This process of a 3-5-year collaboration during this time of openness and change could culminate in a valuable conference or publication that would help put educational standards on a basis of shared observation and experience rather than partisan passion.

·      Dare to engage in an international process to arrive at a consensually accepted definition of the essence of psychoanalysis as a theory of mind and what differentiates it as a clinical approach. I believe we can and must agree on a few principles that unite us as psychoanalysts in spite of our pluralistic views. Can we not answer the question of what a patient can expect when he comes to a psychoanalyst for help whether that analyst is a Kleinian, self-psychologist, relational or field theorist etc? When we offer a “psychoanalytic” perspective outside the consulting room, we need an agreed upon definition of the essence of that perspective.

·      We must reach beyond our self-imposed borders and engage in a dialogue with related disciplines and become part of our present cultural ferment.

That is my hope and I would like for our discipline to achieve these not so utopian goals!

[R]Evolutionary Reflections on the Eitingon Model

 

Psychoanalytic training and the Eitingon model are at the center of current controversies. The Eitingon model is now almost 100 years old. Over the years it has become increasingly controversial primarily because of two components: frequency and the TA system.

Current debates about these issues needs to be understood in a historical context.

One hundred years ago, psychoanalysis was struggling to be recognized as a legitimate discipline. This goal required a relatively rigid set of rules and clear boundaries. Defining clearly who was and wasn’t a well-trained, legitimate psychoanalyst was essential to the developing profession’s survival.

Today we are facing very different challenges. There are lively disagreements about what constitutes psychoanalytic treatment and how and for whom it works. As an established profession, we now have the luxury of being able to look at our basic assumptions. And perhaps an obligation to do so.

Max Eitingon (center in the photo above) was a man who worked behind the scenes. He kept a tight watch on the functioning of the Berlin Institute as its co-founder and first President. Although he did not publish any scientific or research papers, he is a central figure in the history of psychoanalysis.

Eitingon focused on organizational matters, convinced that psychoanalysis required an organized structure and standards to achieve legitimacy. He developed standardized training procedures to replace the informal training methods that had been prevalent up until his time.

Eitingon’s influence extended from 1919 to 1932. In this period, thanks largely to Eitingon, psychoanalysis assumed its identity as a profession. The IPA and its branch societies made the training of therapeutic specialists their main task.

This maturing process took place in two phases. The first involved the founding of training institutes. Eitingon’s “Poliklinik” and Berlin Institute, established in 1920, served as the model for other institutes.  

In late 1924, Eitingon outlined an educational plan entitled “Guidelines for the conduct of teaching and training,” initiating the second phase of the profession’s consolidation. The International Training Commission of the IPA was created in 1925 to establish an international standard of training. This came to be known as the Eitingon (or tripartite) model and was made up of three elements: training analysis, theoretical instruction and treatment under supervision.  Training candidates using this model within the structure of an institute became the standard of analytic training.

Opinions and Applications of the Eitingon Model in Today’s IPA

Having co-chaired APsaA’s Eitingon task force (part of the 6-point plan effort) and now being a member of the IPA’s Eitingon Task Force, I have gained an overview of the different views of the Eitingon model and how it is currently applied in psychoanalytic societies in all three regions of the IPA. There is a wide variation in the interpretation of the model.

The Issue of Frequency

The issue of frequency has recently led to heated discussions within the IPA culminating in the Board vote in July 2017 approving a frequency standard of 3-5 times a week. Many societies in the U.S. and Europe still see 4-5 a week frequency as an essential part of the Eitingon training model. In other parts of the world, particularly Argentina, the “internal setting” of the analyst is felt to determine what is or isn’t “psychoanalysis” whether the patient is seen 4-5 times a week, once a week or once a month. A sizable psychoanalytic contingent in Latin America that shares this view.

In parts of Europe, there is a fear that the officially sanctioned 3x a week frequency will fatally blur the distinction between psychoanalysis and psychotherapy.  The quandary of the Europeans was best expressed by one of their society presidents: “If we keep the standards as they are, psychoanalysis will marginalize even further, but if we change the standards, psychoanalysis will dilute; the borders with psychotherapy will disappear.”

The Training Analyst System

Critiques of the TA system are not new.  Early on, Michael Balint criticized the system. And Greenacre stated in 1966: “In many ways training impedes and interferes with the full development of the therapeutic aspects of a personal analysis…personal analysis during training [may be] so complicated or even deformed as to make it therapeutically almost valueless.”

Over the last 25 years, each region and the IPA itself (Training Analyst pre-congresses 1991-2001) has held panels to discuss this difficult issue and an extensive literature on the subject has developed, most of it pointing to deleterious aspects of the system.

The 1991 panel, entitled “Between Chaos and Petrification’ was summarized by Robert Wallerstein. All the analysts quoted by Wallerstein emphasized the abuses of power and how candidates were damaged by the dogmatism of institutional psychoanalysis. A negative view regarding the importance of the TA system dominated discussions at each TA pre-congress of the IPA over the course of a decade.

Certainly, over the years, there has been a decrease in authoritarian attitudes concomitant with a progressive democratization within most institutes. Despite winds of change, there is considerable inertia and a clinging to the old way of doing things.

In APsaA, roughly 30% of analysts feel that the TA system is a must and certainly more are moderately supportive. A sizeable contingent of IPA analysts continues to endorse it.

How can we understand this reluctance to change the TA system despite decades of criticism and discussion of its shortcomings?

The analysts who favor disruption of the TA system are quite outspoken about their views.  Those who favor the status quo have not produced evidence to back their view that there is a merit to the system, but clearly there is great attachment to our 100-year-old training model.  We commonly see any attempts at discussion devolve into polarized and stubbornly passionate claims and counter-claims without any possibility for meaningful dialogue in sight. Among the reasons for this impasse may be attachment to the past, fear of change and issues of status, hierarchy and privilege.

I believe that it is time to reevaluate the entire psychoanalytic training model. What was necessary 100 years ago, when psychoanalysis was carving out a place in the mental health field, is not necessarily what is needed under present circumstances. What kind of training is most appropriate to promote psychoanalytic competence and how do we evaluate this skill? Finally, how does one maintain the difficult equilibrium between the responsibilities inherent in providing analytic training while respecting the unique mode in which each candidate undertakes his/her training?

Obviously, in order to train candidates a certain structure is necessary. The question arises: where to draw the line between an anything goes attitude and excessive, controlling rigidity.

I suggest that we not confine ourselves to debates about particular features of existing training models, including the Eitingon model. Instead, let’s take a fresh look at crafting optimal standards for psychoanalytic training in today’s world, incorporating the best of the three current models as well as new ideas.

As an IPA Board member, I propose a thorough reevaluation of every aspect of training and consideration of a model re-envisioned from basic principles. I think Max Eitingon would approve. These are pressing problems and require a basic rethinking of psychoanalytic education.

 

Gunther