On “The Optimal Structure for Psychoanalytic Education”: Commentary on Wallerstein

Ivery much applaud Robert Wallerstein's attempt to formulate the concept of a “psychoanalytic center” as a model for the institutionalization of psychoanalysis in the contemporary American environment. His vision of how institutes ought to become more closely linked with other entities, including the public at large, the community of psychotherapists who are not analysts, and the university community, is very much one that I agree with and endorse. I think this sort of center would encourage the optimal flourishing of psychoanalysis in its administrative and training aspects, and also provide the healthiest environment for the intellectual growth and development of the field. Moreover, as Wallerstein can cite a number of institutions that already meet most or all of the criteria he lays out for his model (with Philadelphia as the exemplar), it is clearly feasible at some level. The question remains, however, whether this model could or should become the norm, and whether its feasibility is sustainable.

The question of feasibility can be broken down into a number of component issues. The first would be whether the proposed structure is organizationally sound and coherent in principle. On that score, I think the answer is yes. More trouble comes with other dimensions of feasibility: for example, is the model realizable given the attitudes and convictions of the institutes and their would-be partners? It is clear that it is in one sense perfectly feasible for analysis to prosper in close connection with medical school departments of psychiatry, as