The Teaching of Psychoanalytic Technique1

Edith Jacobson, while favoring full discussion of all problems concerning the teaching of psychoanalytic technique, felt that time limitations may not permit us to go much beyond certain primary issues which are concerned with the fundamentals of what should and what can be taught. The questions as to the how of teaching, as important as they are, may therefore not get as full a hearing as is ultimately desirable.

Rudolf Ekstein, in his opening paper on "A Historical Survey on the Teaching of Psychoanalytic Technique, " traced the main trends in the development of our teaching techniques as they are reflected in psychoanalytic literature. He divided the sixty or more years of psychoanalytic history into approximately two equal parts. The last thirty years are the phase of organized training, while the first phase, which he considered as an ahistorical one as far as the study of training methods is concerned, is characterized as a preinstitutionalized phase in which the personal informal arrangements between master and apprentice constituted the then-existing training patterns. Control analysis and training analysis were not separated and one may assume that psychoanalytic technique was learned through Lehranalyse, a mixture of both, and usually a short experience in the very early days of training after the turn of the century.

One anecdote, told by Bernfeld in an unpublished paper, was quoted as a useful sample of what was the prevailing spirit up to the early 20's when the first institute was organized in Berlin. Bernfeld states:

In 1922 I discussed with Freud my plan to establish myself as a practicing psychoanalyst in Vienna. I had heard that our group in Berlin encouraged psychoanalysts, especially beginners, to have a didactic analysis before they started psychoanalyzing. I asked Freud whether he did not think I ought to have an analysis first. His answer was: "Nonsense. You go right ahead. You'll get into trouble. Then we will figure out what to do a