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.
In a short historical retrospective this paper is showing that the conflict between a centralized stance aimed at standardizing psychoanalytic training and a decentralized approach giving greater freedom to individual societies has accompanied institutionalized training in the IPA to this day. When the IPA abandoned the idea that there was only one standardized training model within its ranks and recognized three training models, this was an adaptation to an existing reality. All three recognized training models are based on the three pillars: personal analysis, supervision and theoretical seminars. It is presented and discussed how these three pillars are weighted and designed differently in the models. Finally, questions are raised about the future of psychoanalytic training. It is seen as crucial that the preservation of tradition does not lead to dogmatic idealization and that the temporal finiteness of the understanding of psychoanalysis and changes in its transmission in training can be accepted.
KEYWORDS: History of psychoanalysis, psychoanalytic training, training standards, 3 training model.