Who should become a Psychoanalyst?

The question “Who should become a psychoanalyst?” is disquieting in its complexity. As I attempted to read the literature (Guerrero, 2002a, 2002b, 2004, 2006; Kernberg, 1986, 1993, 2000, 2006, 2007; Kôrner, 2002; Ogden, 2006), two separate but related feelings emerged: the first is one of complexity (as selection is also considered from the perspective of the culture, traditions, and the dynamics of institutions), while the other is one of confusion (the difficulty of defining what we are looking for in a candidate). The experience of confusion has its own particular kind of anxiety, stemming from the fusions that do not differentiate subjects, one from the other, and subjects from their objects. From my perspective I assume that this anxiety protects us from the one that would arise out of separations and differentiations, which, from the agglutinated perspective of confusion, would represent a “catastrophe.” The notion of “catastrophic change” could be illustrated by a fragment of a dream, where the dreamer found himself excluded from a couple and panicked at the thought that they were about to have sex. He could not bear the realization that they would be so changed by that experience that they would never be the same, and he would not be able to recognize either of them, following their transformation by that experience. I am suggesting that our fundamental attitude is in favour of change and opposed to “transformations,” the outcome of “catastrophic change.”

Our usual selection interview model provides a good illustration of confusions. Its main element consists of three 1-hour interviews conducted by three separate members of the institute, who eventually, through consultation, determine the suitability of the applicant. These interviews represent the uncoordinated intersection and unintegrated superimposition (i.e., agglutination) of a number of models. They bring to bear a confusion of functions, roles, and tasks, with the strong likelihood that the main task