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.
IT IS CLEAR TO ALL OF US WHO are interested and active in analytic training that what is called "Control Analysis" forms the basis on which the main clinical instruction in Analysis is built. We are giving
our candidates by a method invented and developed by us something corresponding with the "clinical propaedeutics" in the medical branches, i.e. practical experience with patients under the direction and instruction of the teacher, though in difference with the "clinical propaedeutics" we must eliminate the presence of the patient. This task of the control analysis—difficult enough in itself—is complicated further by another difficulty. The control analyst, as the responsible agent of his institute, must inform it about the fitness of the candidate, a duty whose fulfillment is particularly important when the analyst, to whom the training analysis is entrusted, has himself doubts in the abilities of the candidate. We must also not forget how frequently the training analyst needs this help from the control analyst, in order to find a solution to a frequently arising conflict regarding the qualifications of the candidate. This conflict lies in the double task which the training analyst usually has to perform. The first is the therapeutic aim which must be fulfilled in almost all didactic cases; the other relates to his responsibility as a teacher. These two aims, that of the therapeutist and that of the teacher, often contradict each other.
The successful therapeutical result of a so-called training analysis is frequently dependent on the fact that the analysand, because of his choice of profession, can carry out a great number of wishes and fantasies aroused by the transference, in a manner so adapted to reality. I mean, for example, the identification with the analyst which finds such a succes