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.
Sydney Pulver opened the panel by suggesting that while the current training analyst system may appear to be an asset to the training process, further examination reveals that it may not be. Indeed, Pulver asked for the audience to vote on whether the system should be kept as it is or eliminated. Otto Kernberg, a member of the audience, commented that the question as posed omitted the important possibility of changing the system. The question was then recast, and those present were asked to choose between keeping the current system and either changing or getting rid of it. Six or seven in the audience voted to keep the current system intact, while a large majority, perhaps forty people, voted to get rid of or change it. Several in the audience declared themselves undecided.
Pulver asserted that while being analyzed is undeniably essential to becoming an analyst, that does not mean that a training analysis per se is necessary. He suggested that an analysis by an experienced graduate of a recognized institute might be sufficient to meet the requirement of the tripartite training model. After summarizing the history and current status of the training analyst system, he noted that the issue of how best to accomplish the candidate's analysis is only part of the larger question of how to provide optimal conditions for psychoanalytic education, a topic discussed by Kernberg (1986) and others (Arlow 1982; Balint 1948; Bernfeld 1962; Dewald 1983; Emde 1975; A. Freud 1976; Gedo 1977; Gitelson 1948; Goodman 1977; Hiltner 1971; Hoffer 1945; Morris 1992; Szasz 1958; Wallerstein 1978).
At the Fifth Congress of the International Psychoanalytical Association in 1918, Hermann Nunberg first proposed the idea that all analysts should have a personal analysis. He did not, however, outline