You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
There are two such histories. The official one, openly admitted and repeated … whenever anybody wanted to say anything about training … describes and explains the glorious successes of the system. The other history, mentioned only by Freud, … explains the curse of strifes which seem to adhere inevitably to our training organizations.
The current worldwide model of psychoanalytic training is based upon the structure of the Berlin Institute, established by Max Eitingon in 1920. An earlier attempt by Sándor Ferenczi to start a psychoanalytic institute took place in Budapest in 1919 but was short-lived due to political upheavals in Hungary. Yet in view of Ferenczi's strong anti-authoritarian views (Berman, 1996), it is fascinating to speculate what would have been the style of training today if his institute had retained its seniority. In reality, however, the “Eitingon model” became the dominant one, and although it has come under public criticism on several occasions since the 1940s, it has not changed much so far.
Today, in a climate more favorable to serious reexaminations of all aspects of psychoanalytic theory and technique, a candid and critical reappraisal of traditional training and the possibility of considering alternative models become urgent tasks. In a rapidly changing world in which democratic values play a crucial role, the quality of psychoanalysis, its intellectual status, and its continued professional appeal may depend on far-reaching innovation in training and may be damaged by an authoritarian and overly hierarchical training method that encourages elitism and isolation.