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.
We were pleased and somewhat surprised by the broad agreement expressed by our discussants, and by the fact that most of their disagreements relate to the feasibility and implementation of our suggestions, not to our principles or basic positions. We will first discuss several general issues and then address specific comments by each of the discussants.
Everyone believes that the training analysis system has outlived its usefulness. Some, like Otto Kernberg, see it as a cause of major problems, and want to abolish it. Others, like Robert Michels, see it as a result of major problems and expect it to wither away as those problems are addressed. Practically, this makes little difference—we all envision a process of change leading to a situation in which all qualified analysts are training analysts. The current multiclass system of analysts, with all its attendant problems, will disappear.
For every analyst to be a training analyst, we must have criteria to ascertain that every analyst is a good enough analyst. In the past, the most serious evaluation of analysts has been embedded in the process of assessing potential training analysts. In the new system serious evaluation will occur at an earlier stage in an analyst's progression—at graduation and certification. Several commentators note that developing such a system would be difficult and expensive, and that the result would never be perfect. We thoroughly agree, but the alternative is to give up our claim of being a profession deserving of public support. Yes, it will be difficult, expensive, and forever incomplete, but it must be done and we can do it better than anyone else.