Changes

[[Psychoanalytic ]] [[training ]] is the [[process ]] that enables a student to be recognized as a [[psychoanalyst ]] by the psychoanalytic [[community ]] and serves as a prelude to psychoanalytic [[practice]]. Many attempts have been made to define the optimum [[conditions ]] for training since the early years of [[psychoanalysis]]. Following the creation of the Berlin Institute for Psychoanalysis in 1920, there came into [[being ]] a [[number ]] of organizations designed to provide training based initially on [[individual ]] psychoanalysis.

At [[present ]] there is no [[official ]] degree or certification for [[psychoanalysts]]. Because of the excesses and pretenses that have inevitably accompanied the success of psychoanalysis, the issue often arises of the [[need ]] to protect not only [[patients ]] but also properly trained psychoanalysts, and ultimately psychoanalysis itself. However, the private institutions that [[represent ]] psychoanalysis do not [[want ]] the certification they provide to be part of any official legislation. There is a fundamental [[reason ]] for this. Psychoanalytic training involves, first and foremost, personal [[experience ]] of the [[analytic ]] [[situation]], and this experience is valid only if it is a [[subjective ]] adventure freely undertaken. How could [[analysts ]] in training reveal the most intimate aspects of their beings if the experience served as a means of obtaining a [[state]]-authorized degree or certificate?

[[Freud ]] himself was aware of the problem early in his career. In a 1926 article (1926e), Freud argued against the [[idea ]] of restricting analytic practice to medical doctors alone and pointed out the near [[impossibility ]] of defining criteria for the "illegal practice" of psychoanalysis. His [[wish ]] was that psychoanalysis be "neither permitted nor [[forbidden]]," and thereby be free of [[government ]] regulation. At the same [[time]], he felt that organizations like the [[association ]] he had created could regulate psychoanalysis and thereby resolve, to the extent possible, the problem of integrating psychoanalysis into [[society]]. Such an institution could establish methods of training and procedures for certification. In spite of various crises and criticisms, this [[model ]] and its variants appears to have remained the most pertinent.

It is easier to describe the [[tripartite ]] model that is generally a part of an [[analyst]]'s training than to summarize the contradictions that have arisen with the question of accreditation. There are [[three ]] components to training, all of which are necessary. In the [[United States ]] the analyst in training undertakes the three parts of training concomitantly. It is considered essential that a candidate undergo analytic [[treatment ]] while conducting a supervised [[analysis ]] so that problems that arise through the counter-[[transference ]] can be [[analyzed]].

The first component of training is the analysis of the candidate. In [[France]], this requires a commitment to analysis prior to training and ensures that the analysis, when it occurs, calls into question the [[unconscious ]] sources of the [[desire ]] to be an analyst. If the candidate is not committed, or is incompletely committed, the candidate should draw the appropriate conclusion and withdraw from the field. Experience shows that this does not always happen, and in such cases the [[position ]] assumed by the analyst is rarely compatible with the analyst's performance. It is appropriate to refer such cases to a [[third ]] party—an organization, for example—for adjudication. The personal experience of analysis is so important that it has been referred to as the second [[fundamental rule]]. This requirement follows from the [[demands ]] made on the analyst in practice: evenly [[suspended attention]], benevolent [[neutrality]], the ability to analyze one's own [[mental ]] responses to the [[patient]], [[identification ]] and de-identification with the patient, and so on.

The conclusion of analysis and the criteria for success have been the [[subject ]] of much spirited debate within the psychoanalytic community. Originally, the [[analysand ]] was involved in only an aspect of the [[full ]] potential of psychoanalysis: acknowledging the [[existence ]] of the unconscious, which provides the subject with greater [[understanding ]] and conviction. But with advances in the [[technique ]] of analysis and the emergence of the [[concept ]] of [[counter-transference]], training analysis moved in the direction of the most [[complete ]] analysis possible, with each of the major [[theoretical ]] trends proposing a definition of a satisfactory conclusion in [[terms ]] of its own criteria. The [[paradox ]] is that defined criteria of a satisfactory conclusion engenders a [[normative ]] reference that contradicts the very spirit of the [[analytic process]]. It is important to stress, therefore, that the analysis of the candidate has a greater [[chance ]] of success if its didactic [[dimension ]] is ignored, if the ever-present real or [[imaginary ]] requirements of the collective [[ideal ]] are abandoned, and if the analysis finds its own modus operandi. The process requires only—but this is already asking quite a bit—that candidates, starting from an adequate [[intellectual ]] base, engage in [[self]]-analysis and be able to [[identify ]] and make use of the effects of counter-transference on themselves. As can be imagined, such a process of analysis exceeds the scope of training. Because of the risks associated with practice of the [[profession]], the analyst should be prepared to undertake additional [[therapy ]] when needed: one's own analysis being, by definition, open-ended.

The second component of training involves supervised analysis. The novice analyst speaks to a more experienced colleague on a regular basis [[about ]] a current patient in analysis. This report can assume various forms and involve different kinds of comments and exchanges. What is essential is that the junior analyst talk about what takes [[place ]] between his patient and himself in terms of transference and counter-transference. When he does so, he will necessarily reveal the unconscious counter-transference, which then can be pointed out and elaborated. One of the goals of supervision is to enable the beginning analyst to transcend identification with his own analyst and develop his own style.

The supervisory situation, typically involving two [[people]], can also be conducted in small groups, in which [[case ]] it resembles a [[seminar ]] for [[clinical ]] [[discussion]]. The controlled [[environment ]] that supervision affords is so vital that all analysts should make use of it whenever problems occur in their practices. Supervision must therefore be considered a [[separate ]] [[form ]] of analysis, a process that occurs alongside therapy and serves as the basis for analyzing oneself while analyzing the patient.

The third component involves training in analytic [[knowledge ]] and [[metapsychology]]. [[Naturally]], it is desirable that the analyst be familiar with the key [[texts ]] in psychoanalysis and be as well educated as possible. Study groups and [[seminars ]] requiring the [[trainee]]'s [[active ]] [[participation ]] and interaction with older colleagues will contribute to the trainee's education. Below are some additional points about education:

To ensure that a psychoanalytic [[body ]] is [[responsible ]] in certifying its members, it must explicitly define the principles on which training is based and the regulatory procedures to which trainers and [[trainees ]] are subject. The most difficult aspect of this process is ensuring quality analysis of the psychoanalytic candidate while respecting the candidate's extrainstitutional [[space ]] and time. For this reason and for purposes of maintaining confidentiality, every institutional discussion or decision concerning a candidate must explicitly exclude any interference by his analyst.

Interactions between applicants and institutions (such as offers of employment) reflect the options available and the views held by the various parties regarding the [[ethics ]] of training and certification. Models range from selection prior to any commitment to analysis (as in the United States), a model that requires a highly organized course of study at an institution, all the way to certification after the fact, which makes candidate analysts fully responsible for the various aspects of their training. In intermediate models, supervised analysis serves as an introduction to the institution and thus as a preliminary form of certification. Logically, candidates' requests to move from couch to [[chair ]] should coincide with [[affirmation ]] of their desire to make the move. However, this connection cannot be made a requirement even though the institution requires it, because the affirmation ultimately lies with the subject.

In France, evaluation of a [[request ]] for admission to a society generally takes place over the course of three meetings with three analysts assigned by the institution. In these meetings the candidate speaks about himself and his analysis. This is an awkward situation, for the candidate [[needs ]] to transpose, in a conversation with an analyst who is also an examiner, what has until then been his intimate and private experience of the [[analytic situation]]. What the examining analysts seek in the candidate is not greater benefits from the analytic [[work ]] but a display of the necessary distance that reflects the self-analytic ability required of an analyst. In successful interviews, the candidate clarifies the [[truth ]] of the dialogue of the meetings, and the examining analysts can consider whether the candidate is qualified for the work of analysis. From the personal [[nature ]] of these meetings, it is easy to see that they require absolute confidentiality. The outcome of the meetings should be a collective response made on behalf of the institution. Ultimately, the most difficult problem is that of rejecting the candidate.

Further training and certification can assume very different forms. New analysts can be further evaluated in supervised analysis and seminars. Since an institution is defined as much by those it accepts as those it rejects, the problem of rejecting candidates remains. Flexible and controlled modulation of where to draw the line between admission and [[rejection ]] makes for [[internal ]] dynamism in [[scientific ]] [[exchange]], fertile tension between the individual and the group, as well as [[conflict ]] between generations. Institutional certification acquires [[meaning ]] only in relation to the duration of training, when supported by older colleagues, and in seeking the transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next.

# [[Freud, Sigmund]]. (1926e). The question of [[lay analysis]]. SE, 20: 177-250.