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.
Psychoanalytic institutes (and the education they provide) have been in ferment since their inception. Criticized, admired, and attacked, institutes have attempted to adapt to internal and external changes and needs. The major survey of education and institutes (Lewin and Ross, 1960) demonstrates this clearly. Since the advent of so-called biological psychiatry, the demedicalization of training; changes in curricula, theory, and research; applied psychoanalysis; lesser attention to Freud, greater attention to other theorists and theories; theories of symptom-formation, character, analytic technique; criteria for graduation; changes in methods of evaluations of students; issues of accreditation, membership, and certification (now split off from membership), all demonstrate that the ferment continues.
Roy R. Grinker, Sr., was a scientist, direct, sometimes abrasive, intellectually honest, and had a firm sense of what was right and what was wrong. He had very strong feelings about the defects, as he saw them, in psychoanalytic training. At one time, he was asked to be pro-tem director of the Chicago Institute (between the directorships of Franz Alexander and Gerhart Piers) but refused on the grounds that the directorships of training and and research at Michael Reese Hospital precluded dividing his time. But he had strong opinions about the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis and its training activities. His input into the public system—and he was never one to be silent—was through residency training (most Michael Reese graduates went on to become psychoanalytic candidates), using a cadre of analysts as supervisors of residents, faculty participation, Society involvement, and playing his favorite role as intellectual gadfly, biting the flanks of Organized Psychoanalysis.
During his later yea