Clinical Commentary 51

This section of the journal typically features the views of qualified clinicians who have completed their training and become members of a professional society. However, in keeping with the journal's philosophy of providing a platform for diverse viewpoints, all contributors to this issue are candidates.

The concept of candidate is fraught with contradictions. On the one hand, a candidate is not yet a qualified analyst; rather, they are someone undergoing training to be able to perform analytical work subsequently. On the other hand, their training, which includes undergoing analysis themselves and offering analysis to the patients, suggests that they already have the necessary expertize of ‘doing the work and fulfilling the role’ (Marcus, , p. 15).

The etymology of the word also suggests idealistic expectations of candidates—just as an ancient Roman candidatus wore a toga candida when seeking an office by election, candidates are expected to demonstrate a level of soundness and integrity. Perhaps in response to this duality, terms such as analyst in training or affiliate member have increasingly been used instead of candidate in recent years.

The situation facing current candidates is no less contradictory. Compared with their perhaps more fortunate predecessors, they now have to ‘construct the analytic patient’ in conditions where ‘narcissistic Ego Ideal… makes dependence on an object… an unacceptable, humiliating condition’ (Bolognini, , p. 36). Changes in patients' internal structures have become more a reflection of changes in the outside world—the rapid development of digital technologies and social media, the pharmaceutical industry boom, insurance companies, and public healthcare supporting short-term therapies, coupled with the economic downturn, are causing a larger number of modern patients to expect quicker results with less effort.

However, while these changes may introduce new complexities to analytical work, they could also potentially contrib