Psychoanalytic Training

Russian translation of the "The ‘Impossible’ Training of Analysts".
Elvio Fachinelli. From "In Freud’s Tracks Conversations from the
Journal of European Psychoanalysis" edited by Sergio Benvenuto and Anthony Molino.
Бесeда Эльвио Факинелли и Сержио Бенвенуто «Невозможность» обучающего анализа. Переведено с английского для журнала «Лаканалия», lacan.ru

Actualmente, cuando alguien sueña con llegar a ser psicoanalista se enfrenta con un camino muy incierto. No existe ningún título de analista que otorgue institución alguna y, sin embargo, muchas ofrecen "formación", "estudios", incluso "posgrados en psicoanálisis". ¿Por qué? Para quien tiene esa inquietud, las preguntas se multiplican rápidamente: ¿qué es necesario hacer para realmente fungir como analista?, ¿qué importancia tiene analizarse?, ¿es necesario seguir un programa de estudios de tipo universitario?, ¿qué es un "psicoanálisis didáctico"?, ¿puede alguien llegar a tener "maestría" en psicoanálisis?, ¿el psicoanálisis es una profesión?, ¿es necesario ser médico?, ¿qué lugar ocupa la supervisión?, ¿es oportuno supervisar con alguien diferente de aquel con quien me analizo o no?, ¿por qué hay diferentes caminos según los grupos psicoanalíticos?, ¿qué consecuencias tiene elegir uno de ellos para lo que será la práctica analítica?, ¿qué propuso Freud?, ¿qué propuso Lacan?, ¿qué sucede hoy?

The psychoanalytic movement is experiencing a serious crisis: its scientific consensus, social standing, and impact on practice in mental health have all been steadily declining over the last decades. This unfortunate process has been variously explained in terms of prevailing hedonistic social values, the political influence of drug companies, and cuts in health-related expenditures. Following a suggestion by Garza Guerrero, we rather believe that the sources of the contemporary crisis in psychoanalysis are to be searched for within its own development and current social and cultural life. Specifically, we think psychoanalysis has failed to bring the revolutionary contribution of interpersonal and intersubjective paradigms to its fuller consequences. Here, we review five core dimensions in which such failure is particularly apparent: (1) an unwitting reliance on the medical model of mental illness; (2) an ontological, concrete understanding of unconscious processes; (3) a manifest failure to fully appreciate the role of extratransference relationships in the patient’s life; (4) a naive and idealized view of the psychoanalyst’s person and role; and (5) a marginal awareness of the impact of group-level unconscious phenomena on the social life of psychoanalytic institutions.

Psychoanalysis is said to be old. Its social success and standing have been steadily declining over the last 30 years. The object of virulent albeit often poorly motivated criticism from testimonials of biologically oriented psychiatry, psychoanalysis has reportedly been pushed at the margins (Stepansky 2009). The number of both trainees and patients is insufficient in front of an increasing number of practicing psychoanalysts (Summers, 2008, p. 413). Psychoanalytic allegiance has come to be unconventional among leaders of academic psychiatric institutions (Paris, 2005) and has substantially declined among clinical psychologists (Masling 2000). Sales of psychoanalytic books have been steadily decreasing over the last 30 years (Stepansky 2009, pp. 57 ff.). The institution we have loved so much is now despised. Any fabulous pseudo-physiological theory of the mind is warranted to get an immediate and massive media coverage which the slow development of psychoanalytic thought could never aspire at. The psychoanalytic community has long been aware a substantial crisis was on the way. While a crisis in the development of psychoanalysis has been mentioned since the 40s, at the time the word alluded to a developmental crisis, the maybe painful discontuinity implied by growth. In this vein, a core intrinsic aporia was located by Maxwell Gitelson (1964) in the conflict between the therapeutic goals of psychoanalysis and its call to widen pure knowledge of human reality, by Erich Fromm (1970) in the constraints imposed by the hegemony of the Ego psychology, by Marshall Edelson (1988) in the epistemological challenge posed by experimental psychology and by rapidly developing neurosciences. Contemporary crisis has a different, more ominous flavour. The social role of psychoanalysis, its very relevance to the field of mental health as well as its position as a basic component of western world Weltanschauung are all currently at stake. Anyone of us has experienced sometimes the urge to project on hostile others the responsibility for such decline in social standing – to blame the wicked drug corporations, the needs of a greedy money oriented social system, the immoderate ambition of leaders of biological psychiatry. Most typically, Richard Chessick (2001) explains the crisis of psychoanalysis in terms of the " abusive behavior of insurance companies regarding the payment of psychoanalysis " as well as a socially widespread intolerance for the time and expenses required by an adequate and long-lasting cure of mental disorders. A more articulated and insightful, but analogously defensive perspective may be found in Burston (2012).

Si le contrôle est une pièce incontournable de la formation du psychanalyste,
sa fonction reste problématique, et les travaux qui tentent de la fonder particulièrement
peu nombreux au regard de ceux qui traitent de l’analyse de l’analyste ou de l’enseignement.Ce texte tente de repérer ce qui peut être spécifique dans cette pratique, à partir
des critiques qui la mettent pertinemment en question sans pour autant la contester,
puisqu’elle reste effective dans l’ensemble de la communauté analytique.
Supervision plays a central role in the training of analysts but its function
remains a problematic question and research into this question is scarce in comparison
with that done on the analysis of the analyst or teaching. This text aims at highlighting the
specificities of supervision based on criteria that will enable us to question it without
forasmuch refuting it, since supervision is practised across the whole analytical community

Written for the Lacan Symposium, 2013, held by the Australian Centre for Psychoanalysis, this paper explores the notions of the desire of the analyst in context with the praxis of being an analyst-in-training, and the formation of the analyst.

As psychoanalysis is still a powerful instrument of critics of ideology and a matrix for the freedom of thought, it must not lack a sincere critical reflection on itself, on its mission, and on its own history in order to over come the remnants of dogmatism and ideology that still threaten its survival. In this article, the author means to study the history of psychoanalysis teaching. He reveals its authoritarian characteristics and shows how such a teaching contributed towards a perpetuation of organized models in the international psychoanalytical movement and made it become comparable to a Church.

Poiché la psicoanalisi rimane tutt’ora un potente strumento di critica dell’ideologia e una matrice di libertà di pensiero, alla sua missione non può mancare il compito di riflettere criticamente su se stessa e sulla propria storia, per poter superare i residui di dogmatismo e di ideologismo che ancora ne minacciano la sopravvivenza.
In quest’articolo l’autore si propone di studiare la storia dell’insegnamento della psicoanalisi per metterne in mostra le sue caratteristiche autoritarie e dogmatiche, per mostrare come tale insegnamento contribuisca al perpetuarsi di modelli organizzativi del movimento psicoanalitico internazionale che lo hanno reso paragonabile a una Chiesa.

The Future of Psychoanalysis: The Debate About the Training Analyst,  System by Peter Zagermann, a collection of essays about the category of  training analysis, pro and con, tackles one of the oldest problems in the  education of candidates. It is a debate that has been going on since its be ginnings and one that should be resolved once and for all. Unfortunately,  the title of ‘training analyst’ holds great appeal because it worn by those  who seem to need a special title.
In actuality the designation involves both politics and a willingness to  jump through hoops that harken back to an orthodox approach. It is  also a title bestowed on some who have produced erudite books thereby  making a name for themselves.

In this essay, the author's aim is to outline the specifics of psychoanalytic intervention and its current relevance. She explores the boundaries of the clinician's identity, (whether psychotherapist or psychoanalyst), examines the training itself, as well as how and where one can develop the skills necessary to engage in this profession. She specifically assesses the Italian situation. For the construction of the identity of the therapist/psychoanalyst it is fundamental to learn how to tolerate uncertainty, seen here as a value, not a limitation, in contrast with the certainties which characterize other forms of psychotherapy. The complexity of psychoanalytic training is thus demonstrated as a function of two particularities, that of methodological rigor, incorporating all the necessary theoretical knowledge, and the delicate skill of being able to maneuver within the world of passion, regulated by the personal identity of the clinician.

The psychoanalytic movement is experiencing a serious crisis: its scientific consensus, social standing, and impact on practice in mental health have all been steadily declining over the last decades. This unfortunate process has been variously explained in terms of prevailing hedonistic social values, the political influence of drug companies, and cuts in health-related expenditures. Following a suggestion by Garza Guerrero, we rather believe that the sources of the contemporary crisis in psychoanalysis are to be searched for within its own development and current social and cultural life. Specifically, we think psychoanalysis has failed to bring the revolutionary contribution of interpersonal and intersubjective paradigms to its fuller consequences. Here, we review five core dimensions in which such failure is particularly apparent: (1) an unwitting reliance on the medical model of mental illness; (2) an ontological, concrete understanding of unconscious processes; (3) a manifest failure to fully appreciate the role of extratransference relationships in the patient's life; (4) a naive and idealized view of the psychoanalyst's person and role; and (5) a marginal awareness of the impact of group-level unconscious phenomena on the social life of psychoanalytic institutions.