I agree with Lothane's objections to Freidman's characterization of free association. I always learn from what Shmuel Erlich's writes, and his erudite essay is no exception, while Cecilio Paniagua's balanced view complete with so many apt references, is a delight.
As the proverbial squeaky wheel gets the most grease, I will respond a bit more fully to Jane Hall's cranky screed. She immediately expresses what I labeled as a problem in psychoanalytic institutes… i.e., her suspicion of expertise. She then does what I also label as problematic in institutes…i.e., ignoring the data I present for my position, and instead offers her opinion. In her mind it becomes her opinion versus my opinion.
She then seems to see my claiming expertise as the cause of what she presents as my problems teaching, distorting what I say to make her point. One candidate who wanted to just have everyone say what they thought, rather than being taught, turns in Jane's depiction into “my way of teaching was not greeted eagerly by a class”. What I wrote was “The seminars are usually lively and helpful to all of us. I am frequently challenged (in the best sense), which I find helpful to modify or clarify my thinking”. I find Jane's distortion to make a point disingenuous at best. With no basis she then claims I have problems with teaching advanced seminars. Where she gets this idea, is anybody's guess.
I believe candidacy is the beginning of a long journey where we are constantly learning. There is so much to learn and I see candidacy as the place where this learning begins, and as more important than everybody feeling good about their participation. When I was a candidate, I hungered for smart instructors who could teach me something. I never felt bad about not knowing something, as long as I believed the teacher or supervisor had clear ideas about what they were teaching, and not just some folklore passed down through generations. I was there to learn, not to be liked.
I was bewildered as to why, in the middle of Jane's screed, she critiques a vignette from my much-admired book, Creating a Psychoanalytic Mind. It seems to be her attempt to show she is a more sensitive analyst, while I am intellectualizing. I can only suggest the reader look at the book to decide for oneself. The book has received world-wide admiration and I've been invited to speak all over the world about my ideas. I could go on, but it is tiring dealing with such a peevish review. I'll just end with a variation of what P.T. Barnum said, I don't care what you say about me as long as you spell the name of my book correctly. In this sense Jane performed a valuable service.