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.
WITH THE expansion of psychoanalytic education in recent years, increasing attention has been called to the number of candidates who do not complete their training. Such training is a highly complex process and is especially unique in view of the fact that the student has to become an instrument for the treatment process as well as to learn to perform a number of specific functions. As Lewin and Ross (20) have pointed out, "the institutes are unavoidably trying to exert two effects upon the student: to 'educate' him and to 'cure' or 'change' him. Hence the student as a phenomenon fits into two conceptual frameworks: he is the pedagogic unit or object of teaching and the therapeutic object or object of psychoanalytic procedure." They refer to this dual framework as "syncretism."
In view of the relative youthfulness of psychoanalytic education, institutes throughout the country have differed from each other in many respects, such as philosophy and type of training, even though there have been many common denominators (20). This divergence can be contrasted to the more or less standardized curriculum which has developed in medical schools, due largely to the work of Abraham Flexner (7). In referring to the present state of psychoanalytic education, Lewin (19) states: "National standards and national thinking have been varied, though now