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.
This paper originated in a series of dialogues between the authors over a period of approximately one year, focused on present problems (and possible solutions) in psychoanalytic education, internationally but particularly in the U.S. Both authors have been involved in psychoanalytic education and governance over many years and share a concern with where psychoanalysis presently stands and where it is going. They share the experience of being part of what today is a significant minority of psychoanalysts involved in academic pursuits, thus being situated at the boundary between psychoanalysis and university-based psychiatry as professions. Having been involved in the leadership of both psychoanalytic and psychiatric organizations, they share an interest in organizational theory, an additional joint interest influencing their approach to institutional aspects of psychoanalysis. Despite these commonalities, however, they have been identified as having differently shaded positions and views within psychoanalytic politics: Robert Michels, as relatively conservative regarding controversial issues in psychoanalytic institutional functioning and governance, and Otto Kernberg as inclined toward rapid change regarding these issues (Auchincloss and Michels 2003; Kernberg 2014). This difference determined a dynamic of particular interest in their dialogue: the extent to which mutual respect yet differing viewpoints might issue in an analysis and joint recommendations that might be of interest to the field. In what follows, their achievement in that direction is spelled out in some detail.
Psychoanalysis has played a significant role in the development of twentieth-century Western culture, an influence that extends to the present. It is also a major scientific enterprise dealing with fundamental