No Subject

Control analysis

Control Analysis

Control analysis is a formal component of psychoanalytic training in which a psychoanalyst-in-training (or candidate) conducts analytic treatment under the structured oversight of a senior, qualified analyst. This form of supervision is typically conducted within the institutional framework of a psychoanalytic training institute and is used to assess and support the trainee’s development as an analyst.

The term “control analysis” can refer to two overlapping but distinct functions:

  1. Supervisory support, in which the candidate receives reflective guidance on clinical technique and transference management.
  2. Institutional evaluation, in which the candidate’s analytic work is monitored for conformity to accepted psychoanalytic standards—technical, ethical, and theoretical.

Although essential to most contemporary psychoanalytic training models, control analysis has been the subject of substantial critique, especially within Lacanian psychoanalysis, for what some see as the institutionalization—and thus potential distortion—of the analytic process itself.

Definition and Core Functions

In classical psychoanalytic training, control analysis refers to a structured, supervised treatment process conducted by a candidate during training. The candidate presents case material (typically from one or more ongoing analytic treatments) to a supervisor, who offers feedback on technique, interpretive timing, transference and countertransference dynamics, and maintenance of the analytic frame.

This process serves both pedagogical and evaluative functions. While the primary aim is to help the trainee develop clinical competence and analytic sensitivity, control analysis also plays a role in institutional gatekeeping—ensuring that candidates meet the professional and theoretical standards required for certification and eventual independent practice.[1]

Control analysis is typically distinguished from:

  • Training analysis – the personal analysis undertaken by the candidate as a foundational part of formation
  • Supervision – reflective case consultation not necessarily tied to evaluation
  • The pass – a Lacanian procedure for recognizing the formation of the analyst based on subjective testimony

Historical Context

The emergence of control analysis is closely tied to the institutionalization of psychoanalysis in the early 20th century. As psychoanalytic societies developed formal training programs, mechanisms were needed to oversee and certify candidates. These mechanisms included:

  • Personal analysis to address the analyst’s own unconscious processes
  • Theoretical instruction through seminars and coursework
  • Supervised clinical work, or control analysis, to monitor and support technical development

The Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute, led by Max Eitingon, was among the first to formalize this tripartite model, which was later adopted by the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA).[2] Figures like Karen Horney, Otto Fenichel, and others played key roles in refining this model.[3]

From the beginning, this model introduced tensions between the ethos of analytic freedom and the demands of institutional regulation. The very idea of evaluating analytic competence raised questions about whether analysis could remain analysis when subordinated to administrative criteria.

Control, Authority, and the Analytic Frame

Control analysis exists at the intersection of analysis, pedagogy, and institutional authority. As Laplanche and Pontalis point out, the defining feature of control analysis is not the content of the analysis itself but its institutional positioning.[1]

This raises a central ethical and theoretical concern: when the analytic act is subordinated to evaluation, it may risk becoming something other than analysis. If the analyst’s interventions are guided by external expectations rather than unconscious logic, the analytic situation may be compromised.

Institutional Oversight vs. Analytic Ethics

Today, most institutes require candidates to complete one or more control cases—patients seen at analytic frequency (typically 3–5 sessions per week) over a period of years. Supervisors assess the candidate’s ability to:

Nonetheless, concerns persist that this evaluative framework may introduce **secondary motivations** or distort the analyst’s desire, potentially leading to conformity, inhibition, or defensive practice.

Critiques and Controversies

The concept of control analysis has been subject to sustained critique, especially regarding its impact on analytic freedom and transference. Critics argue that when analysis is conducted under evaluative conditions, the analysand’s speech may be inhibited and the analyst’s attention directed toward normative performance.[1]

From a Lacanian perspective, this structure is fundamentally incompatible with the logic of the unconscious. Jacques Lacan argued that analytic authority cannot be conferred through institutional means but must be grounded in the subjective effects of analysis itself. Control analysis, in this view, transforms psychoanalysis into a bureaucratic procedure and risks reducing the analyst to a technician.[5]

Supporters respond that supervision and institutional standards are essential to prevent harm and ensure ethical practice. The debate centers not on whether regulation is necessary, but on how such regulation can preserve the openness and singularity of the analytic act.

Control Analysis in Different Psychoanalytic Schools

Classical Freudian and IPA Traditions

In IPA-affiliated institutes, control analysis remains a pillar of the tripartite training model. While the term is not always explicitly used, the structure of required supervised cases is broadly consistent with its definition.[3]

These cases are intended to ensure that the candidate demonstrates competence in core Freudian technique. However, concerns persist that this may privilege adherence over spontaneity, and that institutional authority may inhibit the candidate’s own analytic style.

Lacanian Psychoanalysis

Lacanian schools have been notably critical of control analysis. Lacan rejected institutional models of analytic authorization, introducing the concept of the pass as an alternative. In this procedure, the authorization of the analyst derives from the testimony of the analysand about their own analysis—not from evaluative supervision.[5]

For Lacanians, the role of supervision (or control) is reframed: it serves as a space to examine structure, discourse, and the analyst’s desire, rather than as a site of certification.

Other Psychoanalytic Traditions

In contemporary relational psychoanalysis, interpersonal psychoanalysis, and pluralist schools, the terminology of control analysis is less common. Nonetheless, similar issues arise in supervision and mentorship, particularly regarding power dynamics, transparency, and collaborative inquiry. These traditions often seek to reduce hierarchy and promote mutual reflexivity in the supervisory relationship.

Ethical Considerations in Supervision and Control

Control analysis raises significant ethical concerns related to power, responsibility, and informed consent. When analytic work is conducted in the context of evaluation, the analyst assumes a dual role—as clinical participant and institutional subject.

This dual role may compromise:

  • Confidentiality – especially regarding patient material shared in supervision
  • Freedom of association – if the analysand (candidate) fears judgment or failure
  • Desire of the analyst – if interventions are guided by institutional approval rather than analytic ethics[5]

Lacanian theory frames this concern in terms of the analyst’s desire: if that desire is subordinated to institutional aims, the position of the analyst—and the ethics of the act—is put at risk.

Contemporary training programs increasingly emphasize the importance of distinguishing clearly between analysis, supervision, and evaluation, with attention to transparency and informed consent.

Ongoing Relevance

While the term *control analysis* has become less central in some contemporary discourse, the issues it raises remain deeply relevant. The question of how to balance institutional accountability with analytic freedom continues to shape debates in psychoanalytic education.

As psychoanalysis adapts to global, interdisciplinary, and pluralistic contexts, the tension between the singularity of the analytic encounter and the structure of institutional training endures. Control analysis—both as a practice and as a point of critique—remains a key site where that tension is negotiated.

See Also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Jean Laplanche and Jean-Bertrand Pontalis, The Language of Psychoanalysis, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (London: Hogarth Press, 1973), s.v. “Control analysis.”
  2. ↑ Max Eitingon, "Report on the Berlin Training Institute," 1923, in Paul Roazen, Freud and His Followers, Knopf, 1975, pp. 239–240.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Otto Fenichel, Problems of Psychoanalytic Technique (New York: Norton, 1941), pp. 1–24.
  4. ↑ Glen O. Gabbard, Psychodynamic Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 4th ed., American Psychiatric Publishing, 2005, pp. 56–57.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Jacques Lacan, The Seminar, Book XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Norton, 1977), pp. 227–234.
Retrieved from "https://nosubject.com/index.php?title=Control_analysis&oldid=65685"