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.
Kenneth Eisold's presentation took a critical look at the traditional model of psychoanalytic training. He identified three overlapping systems involved in training: the candidate system, the professional system, and the faculty system. The professional system is responsible for setting and enforcing standards that “maintain and protect the professional authority of the profession.” Supervising analysts are part of this professional system and have the dual role of both teaching as well as evaluating candidates, keeping in mind the needs and interests of candidates, as well as the values and standards of their institute. These supervising analysts have the additional role of being part of the faculty system; Eisold focused the main parts of his presentation on this system.
Members of the faculty system conduct various institute functions without little financial compensation. Their compensation, according to Eisold, is the power, the psychological security, stability and self-esteem these roles give them as they execute their various functions. Thus, this traditional “Eitingon model” consisting of the training analysis, supervision and didactic courses, is “faculty centered” rather than “student centered” and it is continually being reaffirmed as the best way to develop competence. Research into alternative models of training has been discouraged, charged Eisold.
In Eisold's view, the faculty system has provided a defense against five sources of anxiety. One is a reprieve from the scrutiny and evaluation the analysts themselves experienced when they were candidates and were directed to explore their deeper motivations and had to explain their judgments regarding patients or other aspects of their work related to their training. A second source of anxiety is acknowledging ignorance in the skills of selecting analytic candidates, noting that historically certain groups (e.g., non-medical practitioners, homosexuals, women, the disabled, etc.) were proscribed as being uns